Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Crowdfunding


jester1470

Recommended Posts

So as it's being discussed on another thread, what's people's thoughts on the crowdfunding phenomenon.

 

This is a tactic i have been aware of for over 10 years now and it really seems to be finding its place in the modern music scene.

 

Marillion were one of the pioneers of this kind of music crowdfunding in the late 90's, and I was part of the crowdfunding effort for their album Anoraknbophobia,so it's a development i have been following since 1999.

 

It does give artists a lot more freedom but in order to fully appreciate it and use it you need to have a certain sized fanbase to pull it off effectively and you have to have something to offer.

 

There is little doubt Amanda Palmer has been one of the real proponents of this kind of thing in the modern music world and has benefitted massively from it, though it also brings about a down side too in that it, if anything, removes some of the independence because if they've funded something everyone thinks they have a view on how the money should be spent.

 

An interesting way to fund music though.

 

Thoughts ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does crowd funding work?

 

Lots of people promise to buy an album/product (and indeed pay for it) before it's made.  I've been involved in a couple of these things - Thomas Truax's "Monthly Journal" and the not musically related Elite: Dangerous (modern follow up to the classic computer game Elite).

Edited by neepheid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of people promise to buy an album (and indeed pay for it) before it's made.

 

Generally speaking, but depending on price points etc, there are various levels of 'buy in' that entitle donators to perhaps more than simply the album - such as their name in the thank you notes, download vs hard copy (be that CD or vinyl), etc...

 

I'm only really in favour of this in its simplest form - i.e. the punter pays upfront to pre-order a release (such as a limited run on vinyl) so that the artist can afford to make the pressing. Even then the costing has to be consistent with, for example, buying the same had the artist had the necessary funds to press of his or her own accord.

 

I definitely don't agree with having to pay any kind of 'premium' for the 'privilege' of funding a release - if anything, you should be rewarded for helping an artist release something they do not have the capacity to on their own, therefore there needs to be some kind of buy-in for a customer/fan. I also definitely do not agree with the idea that someone can donate at the lowest level (i.e. a couple of pounds), again for the 'privilege' of knowing that they've helped fund a release that they then have to buy when it is pressed.

 

As with Kickstarter, the cash shouldn't be taken until the goal is reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lau did it recently with their latest album.  They sold pre-orders the year before, recorded them album with the proceeds then those that pre-ordered got a special edition copy of the album, a live album download and live album CD all in a really nice limited edition package.

 

Agree that kind of thing only works for larger artists though (they ran it themselves and only had one pre-order item).  But something like Kickstarter offers a lot more flexibility to offer a range of benefits depending on donation which makes it possible for even small projects to get the support they need.

 

People have funded business startups, movies and games all through Kickstarter so it obviously works.  But you need to consider carefully the range of options you're presenting to potential supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely don't agree with having to pay any kind of 'premium' for the 'privilege' of funding a release - if anything, you should be rewarded for helping an artist release something they do not have the capacity to on their own, therefore there needs to be some kind of buy-in for a customer/fan. I also definitely do not agree with the idea that someone can donate at the lowest level (i.e. a couple of pounds), again for the 'privilege' of knowing that they've helped fund a release that they then have to buy when it is pressed.

 

I'd agree with that (had a similar conversation with Dave that you did).  Even at the most basic level is someone is willing to financially support your project they should get something more than a heightened sense of wellbeing.  If someone's trying to fund the physical release of a 4 track EP then for a couple of quid maybe an electronic download would be a suitable reward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dylan Carlson of Earth did something similar recently.

I think it's OK for relatively established artists who do not have a large enough fan base and record company funding to be able to afford their own releases but conversely have sufficient fan interest to raise funds for a project - but I agree with others that the reward really needs to be receiving a variant of the final release that reflects the support, limited edition packaging, additional tracks only via download or whatever.

I don't have a problem supporting someone I know trying to release something if the donation reflects receipt of something that is of relative value to the donation but also it needs to be quite clear what funds are heading towards, especially if a 'surplus' is received, I think the target should reflect the anticipated cost based on fully researched costs and once the target is reached that is it.

Edited by Monster Zero
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, but depending on price points etc, there are various levels of 'buy in' that entitle donators to perhaps more than simply the album - such as their name in the thank you notes, download vs hard copy (be that CD or vinyl), etc...

 

I'm only really in favour of this in its simplest form - i.e. the punter pays upfront to pre-order a release (such as a limited run on vinyl) so that the artist can afford to make the pressing. Even then the costing has to be consistent with, for example, buying the same had the artist had the necessary funds to press of his or her own accord.

 

I definitely don't agree with having to pay any kind of 'premium' for the 'privilege' of funding a release - if anything, you should be rewarded for helping an artist release something they do not have the capacity to on their own, therefore there needs to be some kind of buy-in for a customer/fan. I also definitely do not agree with the idea that someone can donate at the lowest level (i.e. a couple of pounds), again for the 'privilege' of knowing that they've helped fund a release that they then have to buy when it is pressed.

 

As with Kickstarter, the cash shouldn't be taken until the goal is reached.

 

Admittedly, it was a quick, glib answer to a quick question ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is merit in the couple of quid for a low level contributions for Friends/Family/Scene Supporters.

 

You might not necessarily like a band enough to buy their music but like them enough as people to throw them a couple of quid in the interests of helping out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wish people would stop citing Amanda Palmer as the gospel when it comes to Kickstarter/begging for money.

 

 

She asked for $100,000 - raised over $1million (despite being married to a millionaire and being not too poor herself) - then asked local musicians to play with her (for free) in each city she stopped off in on the tour because she "couldn't afford" to pay a touring band.

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/amandapalmer/amanda-palmer-the-new-record-art-book-and-tour

 

Load of pish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that these crowd funding things are fine if you are doing music as your full time occupation, or are working in bars/shops/other low paid work to fund your main career as a musician. Seas, Starry briefly discussed this as an idea, but we all felt a bit uncomfortable asking for money to release music when we are all in reasonably well paying jobs and could just save our pennies to release something. We can use the money we earn playing gigs to fund releases, Das McManus did for our first EP for example.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that these crowd funding things are fine if you are doing music as your full time occupation, or are working in bars/shops/other low paid work to fund your main career as a musician. Seas, Starry briefly discussed this as an idea, but we all felt a bit uncomfortable asking for money to release music when we are all in reasonably well paying jobs and could just save our pennies to release something. We can use the money we earn playing gigs to fund releases, Das McManus did for our first EP for example.

 

I think people should definitely use crowdfunding more though, same as grant funding from Creative Scotland and local councils.  There's not many bands and such who seem to apply for these funds round here and they totally should.  It's admirable when people do it off their own backs and are able to save but it's not always that easy.

From my point of view, I don't get much gigs (and i'm certainly not paid very much in my real job) so it would be tricky to save up to do a vinyl release and doing it this way will allow me to do it properly and may even kickstart it becoming a label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dylan Carlson of Earth did something similar recently.

I think it's OK for relatively established artists who do not have a large enough fan base and record company funding to be able to afford their own releases but conversely have sufficient fan interest to raise funds for a project - but I agree with others that the reward really needs to be receiving a variant of the final release that reflects the support, limited edition packaging, additional tracks only via download or whatever.

I don't have a problem supporting someone I know trying to release something if the donation reflects receipt of something that is of relative value to the donation but also it needs to be quite clear what funds are heading towards, especially if a 'surplus' is received, I think the target should reflect the anticipated cost based on fully researched costs and once the target is reached that is it.

 

I agree with most of what's said here.

 

If you're serious about your music and genuinely believe that it's of value enough to ask for help in funding a project then all power to you. However, it's also vitally important to work hard, gig hard and practice hard to establish a reputation, finely honing your art/musical ability to ensure that you're definitely going to be giving the best possible end product to those who will be supporting your project.  If you're asking someone to invest in your work, then I think it's only fair that it's likewise something that you've invested a substantial amount of time, effort and thought in, and this should be reflected in the rewards you offer.

 

Although I hate to be cynical, as it can be difficult, and occasionally frustrating to try to drum up interest in your band/project, I feel that it can be all too easy for anyone to start up crowdfunding project and often feel that unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a rush to get something, anything released all too quickly at an early stage, which to me can sometimes come across as a little disingenuous. 

 

As Martin has stated, I think it's important to be transparent in terms of overhead costs, have a clear-cut and well-researched goal with rewards that match donation values.  It might also be helpful to drum up some interest by providing links to a stream of a track or two.

 

As far as my bands are concerned, I don't think I'd be comfortable or have the self confidence in my own ability to ask others to help fund a release.  I also don't feel that either of the projects I'm involved with quite have the reputation, even at a local level just yet, to justify it. At the end of the day, although I invest a lot of time and effort in both bands, as well as money for practice room rent, recording and maintenance of equipment, it is ultimately a hobby for me and if I really wanted to physically release something, I'd be more likely to try to save for it (being in the position that my job would allow me to do so, albeit slowly. I'm fully aware that this isn't the case for everyone though and would be more inclined to support artists who are serious about going for it full-time). There are several platforms that are free to use to get your music out there initially and speaking for myself as an amateur, I'd feel much more comfortable at these early stages to offer music on a pay-what-you-like basis.

 

Good luck to those who do make a go of it and produce something of worth that they can be proud of though, I'll admit to having seen plenty of projects come out of crowdfunding that I have been genuinely impressed with, be it music, documentaries, tours, artwork or zines and I really like to see local projects doing well.  However, I will admit to having huge admiration for those who follow the DIY approach. This is something that I've only really experienced in terms of recording and promoting but have found extremely satisfying.  Local council funding for the arts is important too.

 

As for Amanda Palmer?  Asking for the assistance of musical peers in exchange for "beers and hugs" is incredibly patronising and insincere and her campaign is quite possibly one of the worst examples of the use of these fundraising facilities. (time for a username change perhaps!)

Edited by girl anachronism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what's said here.

 

If you're serious about your music and genuinely believe that it's of value enough to ask for help in funding a project then all power to you. However, it's also vitally important to work hard, gig hard and practice hard to establish a reputation, finely honing your art/musical ability to ensure that you're definitely going to be giving the best possible end product to those who will be supporting your project.  If you're asking someone to invest in your work, then I think it's only fair that it's likewise something that you've invested a substantial amount of time, effort and thought in, and this should be reflected in the rewards you offer.

 

Although I hate to be cynical, as it can be difficult, and occasionally frustrating to try to drum up interest in your band/project, I feel that it can be all too easy for anyone to start up crowdfunding project and often feel that unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a rush to get something, anything released all too quickly at an early stage, which to me can sometimes come across as a little disingenuous. 

 

As Martin has stated, I think it's important to be transparent in terms of overhead costs, have a clear-cut and well-researched goal with rewards that match donation values.  It might also be helpful to drum up some interest by providing links to a stream of a track or two.

 

As far as my bands are concerned, I don't think I'd be comfortable or have the self confidence in my own ability to ask others to help fund a release.  I also don't feel that either of the projects I'm involved with quite have the reputation, even at a local level just yet, to justify it. At the end of the day, although I invest a lot of time and effort in both bands, as well as money for practice room rent, recording and maintenance of equipment, it is ultimately a hobby for me and if I really wanted to physically release something, I'd be more likely to try to save for it (being in the position that my job would allow me to do so, albeit slowly. I'm fully aware that this isn't the case for everyone though and would be more inclined to support artists who are serious about going for it full-time). There are several platforms that are free to use to get your music out there initially and speaking for myself as an amateur, I'd feel much more comfortable at these early stages to offer music on a pay-what-you-like basis.

 

Good luck to those who do make a go of it and produce something of worth that they can be proud of though, I'll admit to having seen plenty of projects come out of crowdfunding that I have been genuinely impressed with, be it music, documentaries, tours, artwork or zines and I really like to see local projects doing well.  However, I will admit to having huge admiration for those who follow the DIY approach. This is something that I've only really experienced in terms of recording and promoting but have found extremely satisfying.  Local council funding for the arts is important too.

 

As for Amanda Palmer?  Asking for the assistance of musical peers in exchange for "beers and hugs" is incredibly patronising and insincere and her campaign is quite possibly one of the worst examples of the use of these fundraising facilities. (time for a username change perhaps!)

 

I'm quite surprised that you consider yourself an amateur and that both you and Jan make a distinction about doing music full-time.  the way you've phrased that sounds like earning your living from music provides validation for seeking funds to create a professional release, but I'm sure you've both supported bands and artists who don't create music full-time and have likely received funding in some way to facilitate professional releases.  I don't see why seeking to make music, or any creative practice, your full-time career should set you apart from passionate people who invest a lot of time, energy and creativity (even money) into a project in only their spare time.  

 

This is particularly relevant in some forms of music where it's nigh on impossible to live off the proceeds due to the obscure nature of the artform.

 

Other than that, some fair points. I'd say you shouldn't base it on reputation either though.  Surely a successful crowdfunding campaign can be used to build on a reputation and enhance it, while having a professional standard product at the end will also increase that reputation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite surprised that you consider yourself an amateur and that both you and Jan make a distinction about doing music full-time.  the way you've phrased that sounds like earning your living from music provides validation for seeking funds to create a professional release, but I'm sure you've both supported bands and artists who don't create music full-time and have likely received funding in some way to facilitate professional releases.  I don't see why seeking to make music, or any creative practice, your full-time career should set you apart from passionate people who invest a lot of time, energy and creativity (even money) into a project in only their spare time.  

 

This is particularly relevant in some forms of music where it's nigh on impossible to live off the proceeds due to the obscure nature of the artform.

 

Other than that, some fair points. I'd say you shouldn't base it on reputation either though.  Surely a successful crowdfunding campaign can be used to build on a reputation and enhance it, while having a professional standard product at the end will also increase that reputation. 

It's an interesting debate for sure. With regards to my point about people who do music full time: to clarify, yes, I've definitely supported artists for whom music is not their profession, both by buying music and merch, sharing output and information on social networking and where possible, booking and paying artists to play shows. Where I tend to make the distinction is where it's suggested to donate in exchange for "good vibes/karma etc.". As someone, who like you, invests time, effort and money in my own projects, I tend to find that this sort of thing doesn't sit particularly well with me. In these cases, I'm more likely to give a donation, with nothing in return, to artists with significant overheads and outgoings, due to extensive touring etc. and who rely on their music for their livelihoods. I stand by this as I've met several bands and artists in this position and strongly empathise with them, much more so than someone like myself who produces music purely for fun. In fact in my case I'd probably suggest to myself to either offer a download or something in exchange for a few quid, or else help fund it myself by sucking it up and selling a few pedals or being a little more strict with my income from my full time job to fund my hobby. That's my personal opinion though.

With regards to reputation, whilst I totally agree with you that releasing something as a professional package only served to increase reputation, without any sort of preview as to what the funded body of work is going to sound like, I'm afraid that unless you know the artist personally, previous reputation is all you have to go by. In your case for example, we booked you for one of our gigs based on this. Whilst the music isn't usually my sort of thing, and I initially found your first EP a hard listen, I was totally blown away by your initial performance at Drummonds, suddenly everything clicked and this inevitably played a huge hand in us wanting to book you for a show. There's a lot to be said for word of mouth and building a strong live reputation underpinned by strong recorded material. Word will get around, I for one would definitely recommend you to other promoters and the hope would be that you'd perform more and drum up more interest. Once an artist has a bit of a following and reputation, when the time is right, a professional release could well serve to greatly enhance reputation and enable further creativity. I definitely agree with you there.

Regardless, I do wish you well with your particular endeavour and look forward to hearing the material.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting debate for sure. With regards to my point about people who do music full time: to clarify, yes, I've definitely supported artists for whom music is not their profession, both by buying music and merch, sharing output and information on social networking and where possible, booking and paying artists to play shows. Where I tend to make the distinction is where it's suggested to donate in exchange for "good vibes/karma etc.". As someone, who like you, invests time, effort and money in my own projects, I tend to find that this sort of thing doesn't sit particularly well with me. In these cases, I'm more likely to give a donation, with nothing in return, to artists with significant overheads and outgoings, due to extensive touring etc. and who rely on their music for their livelihoods. I stand by this as I've met several bands and artists in this position and strongly empathise with them, much more so than someone like myself who produces music purely for fun. In fact in my case I'd probably suggest to myself to either offer a download or something in exchange for a few quid, or else help fund it myself by sucking it up and selling a few pedals or being a little more strict with my income from my full time job to fund my hobby. That's my personal opinion though.

With regards to reputation, whilst I totally agree with you that releasing something as a professional package only served to increase reputation, without any sort of preview as to what the funded body of work is going to sound like, I'm afraid that unless you know the artist personally, previous reputation is all you have to go by. In your case for example, we booked you for one of our gigs based on this. Whilst the music isn't usually my sort of thing, and I initially found your first EP a hard listen, I was totally blown away by your initial performance at Drummonds, suddenly everything clicked and this inevitably played a huge hand in us wanting to book you for a show. There's a lot to be said for word of mouth and building a strong live reputation underpinned by strong recorded material. Word will get around, I for one would definitely recommend you to other promoters and the hope would be that you'd perform more and drum up more interest. Once an artist has a bit of a following and reputation, when the time is right, a professional release could well serve to greatly enhance reputation and enable further creativity. I definitely agree with you there.

Regardless, I do wish you well with your particular endeavour and look forward to hearing the material.

beautifully explained as always claire.  I doff my cap to you *doffs cap*

I'd love to do more gigs.  if anyone would like to offer me some I am 'up for it'. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kickstarter has been gummed up with awful pitches from artists of all types looking for money to get their album/film/book/comic/whatever off the ground. Im not 100% sure how I feel about that. On the one hand it's a great new way to raise funds, as well as a way for punters to bypass traditional means and get things made they want made. However, I do think it will no doubt lead to essentially a culture of digital 'begging' where, like in the 'real' music world, the focus isn't on the music, rather how you market your project. I mean, there's already a strong suggestion that 'your video should be really top notch' to attract backers.

 

Personally I will probably never back a music project. To me, it's not what the site should really be used for. I like it for the product/service side, rather than the art side. i.e. budding startups with a great product but either no interest from, or a lack of desire in entering, the world of venture capital - where if they manage to secure a round of seed funding, their product will be compromised in pushy board meetings from day one. WIth kickstarter you get the money and you can do what you want with it.  AND I get to feel like an angel investor for the day, it's perfect.

 

It's interesting that a LOT of succesfull kickstarter projects are physical products (olloclip, smart things, that smart watch thing that got millions) - I was talking to a guy who runs a bike-sharing company (he fabricates special bikes with onboard computers) who was telling me that it's nigh-on impossible to get VC firms interested in hardware startups, they see them as too much hassle with the overheads involved in manufacturing/maintaining, versus a website that, to them, just runs on air.

 

My point? Whining musicians with no money = bad, great products that REQUIRE investment = good.

 

That said, I wish every hard working and honest person who creates a project every success in reaching their goal, regardless of what they're offering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so... people who are using it as a way of setting up a business which they'll profit from but not share those profits (as traditional investments would) good but musicians or artists using it to fund specific releases or start creative projects which may also generate profit bad? 

 

I don't really see the distinction.  it's valid for culture, product design and business projects, they all have a similar goal.  why wouldn't you get that angel investor feeling from funding a cultural product?  they probably need it more than a company who've designed a smart watch.

 

I think a lot of this is how the crowdfunding is perceived and whether people believe art or creative practitioners should be funded.  it's great if people can fund their own art but there'd be a real lack of art around if that was all that was relied upon.  artists need funding either from public sources or from private backers, crowdfunding is just a new way of acheiving that. 

 

or should all art be restricted to that which is commercially viable? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. just keep them seperate and handle it differently. The concept of crowdfunding is great no matter what the project is. I'm only talking about Kickstarter. It was awesome before it was opened up to anything and everything. I feel it's being diluted now.

 

The way I'd want to be involved in funding for the arts is completely different. I dont want to be 'pitched' at when it comes to art - although I would love nothing more than give money to deserving causes. I don't know how it should work (if I did I'd be a millionaire) but I know, at least for me personally, kickstarter isn't the perfect setup for art/culture croudsourced funding.

 

Also, as for the 'sharing of the wealth' question. It's all relative. If i'm giving 10 dollars here and there Im not looking for any ROI (unless the project goal is 30 dollars in which case I'd want some percentage of equity).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
Guest Tam o' Shantie

Got an interesting proposition from another crowdfunding website on the cards. I must say this one is tempting! More details as it unfolds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...