View Full Version : Indie GoGo and Kickstarter
mouseman004
06-12-2013, 08:35 AM
What do you guys think of "crowd sourced" albums. They seem to becoming a more and more common occurrence. I am kind of on the fence about them. On one hand, I think it is cool that bands can put out an album without a record label. It lets smaller/lesser known bands put out albums if that is what their fans want. On the other hand, I am noticing more and more bands that aren't exactly small or struggling using indiegogo or kickstarter campaigns. Are record labels really that bad that everybody is apparently trying to cut ties?
xsecx
06-12-2013, 01:20 PM
I get why people do it, for films, music and comics. What I don't like is when the "reward" doesn't make sense. If you're putting money towards something, you should be getting a copy of that something and then whatever else they put on top of it. If I'm giving you $10, you better be giving me back something equivalent, otherwise it's charity and I'd rather give charities that money not giving money away so you can live out a dream.
mouseman004
06-12-2013, 06:05 PM
I get why people do it, for films, music and comics. What I don't like is when the "reward" doesn't make sense. If you're putting money towards something, you should be getting a copy of that something and then whatever else they put on top of it. If I'm giving you $10, you better be giving me back something equivalent, otherwise it's charity and I'd rather give charities that money not giving money away so you can live out a dream.
Yeah I have seen a few where the "reward" is a copy of the cd. If I am donating money for its production, that shouldn't be a reward, I should already be getting the CD.
rodrigo
06-13-2013, 05:25 PM
i like kickstarter, i think it'll be kinda fun to see what kind of proyects get developed next.
the whole thing about people having to fund stuff makes me a bit worried about what will labels and publishers will do with it, i'd hate to see every album and every book in a constant competition to be funded by people themselves
xsecx
06-20-2013, 11:16 PM
this makes me sad.
http://caseymalone.com/post/53339539674/this-is-not-fucking-harmless
mouseman004
06-21-2013, 09:47 AM
this makes me sad.
http://caseymalone.com/post/53339539674/this-is-not-fucking-harmless
I can't believe that has actually gathered $15,000.
xsecx
06-21-2013, 10:31 AM
I can't believe that has actually gathered $15,000.
yup. or that kickstarter kept it. I never understood the whole pickup artist mentality and I definitely don't understand how anyone things just whipping your dick out and forcing a woman to touch it is a good idea.
mouseman004
06-21-2013, 02:35 PM
yup. or that kickstarter kept it. I never understood the whole pickup artist mentality and I definitely don't understand how anyone things just whipping your dick out and forcing a woman to touch it is a good idea.
This guy is a creeper. I liked the line in the article where she said:
This guy is no longer just being weird and creepy on the internet. Now he’s writing a book about how to sexually assault women, and he is using something I believe in (Kickstarter) to ask YOU for money to do it.
That sums it up quite well.
CarlaRant
06-24-2013, 10:17 AM
Actually, the final total raised was $16,369. There was quite an online backlash, but Kickstarter didn't take the project down because the deadline didn't give much time to act. I'm sure it also put them in an ethical dilemma regarding free speech and creator's rights, which would not have given them enough time to react before the project closed. They did give a public apology (http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/we-were-wrong), and donated $25,000 to RAINN (http://www.rainn.org/).
Going back to the original question, I love Kickstarter and sites like it, because it gives the "little guy" an opportunity to chase after those big dreams.
However, it does make me raise an eyebrow when famous people with moderate to great success use the site to allow fans to fund their next project. I read an article on The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-unfair-fair-famous-people-kickstarter) that addressed this trend. Why does Zach Braff need to raise $2.6m for his next film?
Because he wants creative control. People with money, aka, "executive producers" tend to think that because they're funding a film they should have a say in casting, design, promotion, and even story line. The creative people don't want to put up with investors who don't trust their vision. Braff isn't Tom Hanks, one of the most admired actors/directors in the field who has clout with the money people.
Ahhh...I can understand that. I can even back that. Dang.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.