Do you have the link? thanks
Indiegogo Campaigns
- Thread starter ussinners
- Start date
I don't want to specifically point anything out. But, obviously this is a well oiled marketing team. What gets me is, quite a few of the contributors get nothing for their contribution. I'm willing to bet, many of these don't realize it.
I did just a little homework and found their other work, and it's bad. It's turn on the camera and act like fools bad.
I'm just old. But, I'll stand up for things with some amount of talent and merit.
I think a larger portion of $$ result of many campaigns has more to do with social networking than the inherent worthiness of any project.
More eyes on your project renders a higher probability of receiving funds.
People or groups with hundreds or thousands of facebook friends and tens of thousands of twitter followers can simply direct more eyes to their side crowdfunding projects, irregardless of the project itself, than people or groups with a "less substantial" social network.
200,000 views of a project of (subjectively)"dubious merit" may result in considerably more donations than...
2,000 views of a project of (subjectively) "obvious merit", resulting in considerably less donations.
Furthermore, I suspect an aspect some distributors consider in picking up a project is how well the producer/director/writer has already cultivated an active following.
Distributors want us to bring more to the table than just a DVD.
They want your research and development into marketing your own product.
"Yeah", that does sound a lot like they expect us to do their work, but it's kind of a background vibe I sense.
Positive confirmation or denial, would be gold regarding this suspicion.
How about the distributor interest in our homework and audience development skills? None? Some? Unfortunately a great deal? Variable upon the distributor?(<-- most likely answer, I suspect).
More eyes on your project renders a higher probability of receiving funds.
People or groups with hundreds or thousands of facebook friends and tens of thousands of twitter followers can simply direct more eyes to their side crowdfunding projects, irregardless of the project itself, than people or groups with a "less substantial" social network.
200,000 views of a project of (subjectively)"dubious merit" may result in considerably more donations than...
2,000 views of a project of (subjectively) "obvious merit", resulting in considerably less donations.
Furthermore, I suspect an aspect some distributors consider in picking up a project is how well the producer/director/writer has already cultivated an active following.
Distributors want us to bring more to the table than just a DVD.
They want your research and development into marketing your own product.
"Yeah", that does sound a lot like they expect us to do their work, but it's kind of a background vibe I sense.
Positive confirmation or denial, would be gold regarding this suspicion.
Rockin'.
How about the distributor interest in our homework and audience development skills? None? Some? Unfortunately a great deal? Variable upon the distributor?(<-- most likely answer, I suspect).
Last edited:
Papertwin and I have been saying this in every thread.
Judging by what Sinners said and the mention of age, I think I know who he's talking about and it has nothing to do with marketing, everything to do with their youtube following. Which is millions deep.
neither site prevents farud. Kickstarter does not guarantee that the money you give doesn't all go to moon pies and lollipops. There is no "enforcement" or "binding" contract in either site.
There is a perception that because of the All or Nothing aspect of kickstarter that somehow your donation is more likely to be used for what you believe it will. That really is illogical and not based on any evidence, its just FEELS that way. Thats' the way GOOD scams work. They replace logic with feeling.
I believe that the "give me some money and Ill keep it" aspect is much more honest.
Neither site is an investment vehicle, its all about philanthropy. People give to other people, not projects. I shall test this theory soon.
So prepare to open your hearts and your wallets! lol
There is a perception that because of the All or Nothing aspect of kickstarter that somehow your donation is more likely to be used for what you believe it will. That really is illogical and not based on any evidence, its just FEELS that way. Thats' the way GOOD scams work. They replace logic with feeling.
I believe that the "give me some money and Ill keep it" aspect is much more honest.
Neither site is an investment vehicle, its all about philanthropy. People give to other people, not projects. I shall test this theory soon.
So prepare to open your hearts and your wallets! lol
The all or nothing of kickstarter doesn't have anything to do with how the money ultimately gets used. It just improves the chances that if a project really needs the full amount to be completed they won't take the partial funding and then not complete the project because there wasn't enough money. It also generally requires a lot more work to hit a large goal, which tends to mean the people who do hit their goals are better at hustling - which I take as a sign that they'll also be better at getting the project done. Of course that's just my perception, and ultimately that's what it comes down to - you have to investigate a project and the people behind it and make a judgement based on your own feelings about their ability to complete it successfully.
Also remember we're generally not talking about huge investment amounts here. On our kickstarter the average donation was around $45. I've personally chipped in to a few projects with anywhere from $20 to $100. If one of the projects I've contributed to never gets completed it's just not a big deal to me because the amount is so small, and because the majority actually do get completed. But I also only contribute to people who I know enough about to feel confident that they are at least sincere in their efforts.
Also remember we're generally not talking about huge investment amounts here. On our kickstarter the average donation was around $45. I've personally chipped in to a few projects with anywhere from $20 to $100. If one of the projects I've contributed to never gets completed it's just not a big deal to me because the amount is so small, and because the majority actually do get completed. But I also only contribute to people who I know enough about to feel confident that they are at least sincere in their efforts.
Last edited:
ItDonnedOnMe makes my point...
there is no FACTUAL basis for the statement in bold. Its just your perception. Its not really based in logic. There is no connection between the chances of the donation being used in the way the project owner says it will, and the owner collection 100% of the target or only 50%. The two concepts are impossible to link. Your filling in information that is not there. Thats how SCAMS work. Letting people fill in details that don't exists.
there is no FACTUAL basis for the statement in bold. Its just your perception. Its not really based in logic. There is no connection between the chances of the donation being used in the way the project owner says it will, and the owner collection 100% of the target or only 50%. The two concepts are impossible to link. Your filling in information that is not there. Thats how SCAMS work. Letting people fill in details that don't exists.
Actually you're misunderstanding what I was saying there - there absolutely is a factual basis for what I said.
Lets sat a particular project can't get off the ground for less than $100,000, but their crowd funding efforts can only net them $20,000. With IndieGoGo they get the $20,000 but they can't make the project because it simply isn't enough to get started. With Kickstarter they still can't make the project but they also don't get to keep the money.
This has absolutely nothing to do with determining whether the project is legitimate or whether the people behind it are running a scam. That's something you have to do your own research on - independent of the site they are running the campaign on - to determine. I'm saying that once you've done this research (or have first hand knowledge of the project), determined that the project is legitimate, and are confident that the people behind it are planning to complete it - then the Kickstarter model guarantees that they won't be put in the position of taking people's money but being UNABLE to complete the project because they didn't hit the minimum amount they needed. Again, nothing to do with their intention, only their ability to get the project underway.
Lets sat a particular project can't get off the ground for less than $100,000, but their crowd funding efforts can only net them $20,000. With IndieGoGo they get the $20,000 but they can't make the project because it simply isn't enough to get started. With Kickstarter they still can't make the project but they also don't get to keep the money.
This has absolutely nothing to do with determining whether the project is legitimate or whether the people behind it are running a scam. That's something you have to do your own research on - independent of the site they are running the campaign on - to determine. I'm saying that once you've done this research (or have first hand knowledge of the project), determined that the project is legitimate, and are confident that the people behind it are planning to complete it - then the Kickstarter model guarantees that they won't be put in the position of taking people's money but being UNABLE to complete the project because they didn't hit the minimum amount they needed. Again, nothing to do with their intention, only their ability to get the project underway.
Love ya ItDonnedOnMe, but your still doing it.
There is no connection, your creating one in your own mind.
There is the money donated.
There is the chance the donation is spent on making the movie.
The two are not connected.
There can never be a factual basis on any thing where CHANCE is involved. Only when chance is REMOVED is there a certainty.
Your gut tells you that there is increased ODDS of the film getting made if the entire desired amount is raised. But again, its you making that assumption.
What your doing is trying to make a logical argument where the only factors under consideration are emotional. How you "feel" about the person making the pitch. How "confident" you are that the people involved will complete the project .. etc.
This is NOT a criticism of you, we all work this way. Its a human survival mechanism, and it mostly works. Google up the "Monty Hall Problem" for a deep explanation.
FYI: Indiegogo offers the All or Nothing option too. I think its a valuable tool, and if everything else is aligned, then it makes sense. But it is NOT an indicator of weather or not a film will get made, only that it wont. This is a tricky point.
Not meeting the goal assures that the money is not spent on the film, this is true. But that does not automatically make the inverse TRUE.
Meeting the goal only assures that the money is given to the project owner.
OK, I made my point as best I can. NO offense was intended, I was rather ENJOYING this conversation, if you're not please forgive me.
There is no connection, your creating one in your own mind.
There is the money donated.
There is the chance the donation is spent on making the movie.
The two are not connected.
There can never be a factual basis on any thing where CHANCE is involved. Only when chance is REMOVED is there a certainty.
Your gut tells you that there is increased ODDS of the film getting made if the entire desired amount is raised. But again, its you making that assumption.
What your doing is trying to make a logical argument where the only factors under consideration are emotional. How you "feel" about the person making the pitch. How "confident" you are that the people involved will complete the project .. etc.
This is NOT a criticism of you, we all work this way. Its a human survival mechanism, and it mostly works. Google up the "Monty Hall Problem" for a deep explanation.
FYI: Indiegogo offers the All or Nothing option too. I think its a valuable tool, and if everything else is aligned, then it makes sense. But it is NOT an indicator of weather or not a film will get made, only that it wont. This is a tricky point.
Not meeting the goal assures that the money is not spent on the film, this is true. But that does not automatically make the inverse TRUE.
Meeting the goal only assures that the money is given to the project owner.
OK, I made my point as best I can. NO offense was intended, I was rather ENJOYING this conversation, if you're not please forgive me.
It's all perception, but as in many things in filmmaking, perception is reality.
If there is even a remote chance it might make some percentage of potential contributors FEEL more warm and fuzzy about giving then it's working to your advantage.
If there is even a remote chance it might make some percentage of potential contributors FEEL more warm and fuzzy about giving then it's working to your advantage.
Simply, yes. Sizzle > Steak
Don't worry, I'm enjoying it - and I actually think we are more in agreement than you seem to think.
Again - I'm not making any connection between those two.
There is the money donated.
There is the chance the filmmakers don't receive enough money to make the movie.
There is the chance the donation is spent on the movie.
The all or nothing approach guarantees that if the second chance occurs, the filmmakers don't receive part of the money and just pocket it because it's simply not enough to get the project started.
I don't think it has anything to do with determining the chance that they actually plan to spend the money raised on the film - like I said, that's something you have to do your own research on to get to a point where you are satisfied that they aren't likely to just keep the money and never do the project.
Interesting.
All has been said. I would only cause an echo in familiar halls.
All has been said. I would only cause an echo in familiar halls.
Right,
like I said in an "All or Nothing" scheme:
"Not meeting the goal assures that the money is not spent on the film, this is true. "
But you cannot infer that not meeting the GOAL in a "Keep it all" situation will assure that the film DOES NOT Get made.
Consider:
What is the difference between $199,999 movie and $200,000 movie? Are you saying a person cant make a comparable movie just becuase of a dollars difference? Of course not.. so then.. where is the line? The line is in your imagination thats where!
This is why I go back to the view that people are donating to people, not projects.
I think we might be annoying the grownups, so feel free to reply, but unless its REALLY good, Ill have to defer direct comment on this aspect. lol
like I said in an "All or Nothing" scheme:
"Not meeting the goal assures that the money is not spent on the film, this is true. "
But you cannot infer that not meeting the GOAL in a "Keep it all" situation will assure that the film DOES NOT Get made.
Consider:
What is the difference between $199,999 movie and $200,000 movie? Are you saying a person cant make a comparable movie just becuase of a dollars difference? Of course not.. so then.. where is the line? The line is in your imagination thats where!
This is why I go back to the view that people are donating to people, not projects.
I think we might be annoying the grownups, so feel free to reply, but unless its REALLY good, Ill have to defer direct comment on this aspect. lol