Distinctions

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

For various reasons, I'm trying to find a good definition for crowdfunded creative projects. My basic beginning was: any creative project where consumers pay the creator directly without recourse to a middle man. Which is an okay definition, but is nebulous enough to include most self-publishing... which is an old paradigm, and doesn't fit perfectly.

Here's what I've come up with:

Any project where consumers directly pay the creator for art in an intangible form, eschewing the middle man; or any project where a physical object's creaton was subsidized by the consumers in advance of its creation.

By that definition, for instance, my online-for-tips serial is crowdfunded and my reader-sponsored hard copies are crowdfunded, but the novel I'm about to publish (unless I start soliciting money for its publication now!) is self-published, and the art prints I sell over the internet are traditional sales. But if I were to take donations in order to sponsor the creation of a new work of art, that would be crowdfunding.

Does this seem to agree with your own perceptions of the definition?

Comments

[dulcinbradbury.livejournal.com]

That sums it up well, I think.

[jolantru.livejournal.com]

That sounds about right. :)

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

This prettttttty much agrees with how I perceive it.

But where does e-publishing fit? When you're buying a download of something, it fits into the definition above (being not tangible), but... somehow not (always) into the spirit of the thing.

And how do you count a 'middleman?' Paypal itself could be considered such a thing. What about group projects, like EMG-Zine (http://emg-zine.com), or Torn World (http://tornworld.net)? Does having a shared project that takes a cut necessarily preclude crowdfunding?

I have no helpful ideas of how to better define that boundary - it seems very fuzzy indeed, to me.

Some additional thoughts

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

Most of what we've referred to as crowdfunded is 'collectively' funded. One person is not responsible for individually funding a piece or project. I think that's a distinction that should be included, and is a big part of what makes crowdfunding unique.

Re: Some additional thoughts

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Good point! I wonder what a single-person-crowdfunded project would be called. A patron-funded project?

Re: Some additional thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

That's one of the reasons why I prefer "cyberfunded creativity" to "crowdfunding" -- because the former does not imply a number of sponsors and it explicitly references the cyberspace aspect.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I think if an editor buys your work and publishes it through an e-press, it's still "traditional" even if the distribution method is technologically advanced. In the crowdfunded model the readers are the gatekeepers, not a third party. I think, anyway, I'm still figuring it out. :)

I think "middle man" in this context... Hmm. I would say it refers to someone who gives you their creative imprimatur and collects money to do so.

Shared worlds... I don't know! I don't see why they can't come under the crowdfunded model if they fit the other criteria.

[themaskmaker.livejournal.com]

For me, there's also the fact that consumers find the art through online sources almost exclusively.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm going to have to think about that one.

My Answer...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

I tend to think in terms of "cyberfunded creativity" rather than "crowdfunding" and my definition goes along the lines of...

1) The project exists in, or at least is readily accessible through, cyberspace (be it a blog, website, email list, social networking site, or whatever).

2) The project involves a high degree of creator-audience interaction. This can take many forms - fans commenting about which sketches they'd like to see finished as paintings, creator posting polls about the project, a mutual discussion of plot twists, etc. - but the end effect is to make the creation and consumption of art/literature/music a two-way street.

3) The project, its online venue, its creator and audience all share social space with a sense of community spirit. People care about the project and each other; they discuss the project and share personal news. They're not just faceless buyers and sellers anymore; they are all invested in shaping and promoting this cool piece of cultural material.

4) Money is involved. The method of collection, amount, and framework may vary - examples include tip jars, subscriptions, buy it now, and others - but in some way a product or service is offered in exchange for payment. This payment may be optional or obligatory, or even include options for both.

5) Creator and audience deal directly with each other, cutting out the middlemen (galleries, agents, editors, publishers, bookstores, music stores, etc.) found in conventional industries. This means that far more of the money paid for material goes directly to the creator. Combined, #4 and #5 make the audience the "gatekeepers" who determine what appears for public view in most projects, rather than conventional gatekeepers (editors, gallery owners, etc.).

A feature that is not required, but is found in almost all cyberfunded projects, is the free sample. People like to know what they're getting, or at least have some idea of its flavor, before they pay for it. So most projects offer this - an exerpt of a larger work, older chapters in an ongoing story, one whole poem out of a set, etc. - to entice viewers to pay for more.