Thread: Crowdfunding, "ministry", and business Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020209
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
A young guy from my church forwarded me a request from a friend of his who is producing his second Christian music CD.

The artist says 50% of his budget is coming out of his own savings and is looking to crowdfund the rest. He claims to have raised half of that remainder and to need the other half (a not insignificant amount) within two weeks before he travels to the recording studio. His friend from my church suggested we (the church) host a concert to help the artist raise money.

Perhaps I'm just old and miserly, but I have several problems with this (aside from the gun-to-the-head pressure of an imminent deadline). For a start...

1. I really don't understand the mechanics of crowdfunding in general. What are the benefits for the donors? Can anyone enlighten me?

2. How does one draw a line between "ministry" with expenses covered by donations and a commercial undertaking, particularly in the field of Christian music, which at the top end is a multimillion dollar industry? Is it ethically possible to mix the two models?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I understand the donors get a sense of satisfaction from having contributed. And perhaps their names on a webpage somewhere. Definitely not a free or price-reduced product.

Tough call. What are your thoughts on his music? Does it fit in with your theology? Music is a ministry and witness, but I can see, and somewhat share, your #2 concern.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
On point 2, I think that a commercial enterprise

Naah, I don't know.

On point 1, crowdfunding should be considered the same as giving a gift.

I'd ask the guy to crowdfund the rent for the hall, but I am a grumpy person.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
crowdfunding should be considered the same as giving a gift.
So what is it about the younger generation that is so enthusiastic to give gifts to fuel other people's business enterprises (thinking of Kickstarter for instance)?
 
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :
 
I have had friends use crowdfunding to create a short film etc. but have given a copy of the film or product to those who donated a certain amount.
So basically you were providing the money to make the product while paying for a copy in advance. The creator would then need to sell more copies to make a profit of course, but it seems a fairer way than expecting people to give money for nothing.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think there are two different things which might be being a bit muddled here. First are forms of online fundraising, often for charitable uses, health bills etc.

The second is crowdfunding, which I think usually is for capital that a business needs to begin trading with a new product.

In the former scenario, I don't think the donor does expect anything back, it is just a convenient electronic way to collect donations. In the latter scenario, it is more of an "investor" relationship, and the donor is usually promised something in return. Usually an advance on the product.

It sounds like your example here is actually the former dressed up to look like the latter. The musicians are looking for donations, they're not planning to give anything back to those who donate. But it does also sound like it is a business. I wouldn't donate, but I'm not sure if there is a whole lot wrong with that.

But then Christian Contemporary Music has always been a weird combination of donations and purchases. It seems a lot of churchy people give money so that other people can fill the airwaves with crappy music.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
I have had friends use crowdfunding to create a short film etc. but have given a copy of the film or product to those who donated a certain amount.
So basically you were providing the money to make the product while paying for a copy in advance. The creator would then need to sell more copies to make a profit of course, but it seems a fairer way than expecting people to give money for nothing.
Ah, that's more like subscription publishing which seems a lot clearer to me. You're expressing confidence in the product by buying it in advance.

Crowdfunding appears to blur the lines in a way which to me opens up an ethical void. Indeed I see from the Kickstarter Wikipedia page that its co-founder says they have deliberately avoided a definition of crowdfunding and
quote:
focus on a middle ground between patronage and commerce
That middle ground looks decidedly soggy to me.

[ 07. June 2017, 07:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How does one draw a line between "ministry" with expenses covered by donations and a commercial undertaking, particularly in the field of Christian music, which at the top end is a multimillion dollar industry? Is it ethically possible to mix the two models?
I don't want to derail the thread - but I think this is a question worth asking. And I think the answer comes down to, "Is s/he expecting to make a living by it?" - which may, in turn, boil down to, "Is s/he so much in demand that it's not possible for them to hold down a 'proper' job?"

(ISTM that one could actually ask the same thing about amateur vs professional classical musicians, artists, authors, people who make crafty things, even lay preachers vs professional ministers).

I presume that, in the Christian world, there can be issues with people who "minister in music" (and, from anecdote, with big-name conference speakers) who expect to be treated like celebrities and - shall we say? - "well-looked after". But at the other end of the spectrum there are god and decent folk who give freely of their time and energy and are then given a mere £20 "to cover your expenses".

I remember my wife, many years ago, being involved with a big Christian concert in Glasgow, and having to defend the professional singer's not-unreasonable fee to those who said, "But he's a Christian, he ought to be doing it for free" without thinking that (a) singing was his "day job"; (b) he had had to make a journey of several hundred miles to be there - and so on.

I am amazed that people will crowdfund people who they do not know (just look at the small ads. in "Private Eye") - it seems to demand the most amazing level of trust on the part of the donor, also the willingness to realise that even a perfectly legal and honest venture is more likely to fail than succeed. But it does seem to be something that works at a time when getting startup money from financial institutions may not be easy (and presumably involves a great deal of paperwork, not that I have any experience of this).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It sounds like your example here is actually the former dressed up to look like the latter.
I certainly don't like this blurring between donations and buying something. The artist is also promoting a system whereby in return for a donation of x euros you will get a number of CDs, T-shirts, and other promotional goodies (also being touted by this artist).

This is more like a recognised form of marketing (that works if you have a confirmed fan base). I heard a talk in a professional jazz setting about how huge margins were to be made by selling "packs" which included, say, postcards signed by band members sent from the various stages of their tour and a backstage meetup with the band at one venue: actual cost; close to zero, price: enormous. There, you are very definitely selling the "experience" - not asking for a donation.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I have to say that I can't really see much difference between donating for someone's wages as a church leader or a musician.

Personally, I wouldn't give money to either.

<ducks>
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"Is s/he expecting to make a living by it?" - which may, in turn, boil down to, "Is s/he so much in demand that it's not possible for them to hold down a 'proper' job?"

(ISTM that one could actually ask the same thing about amateur vs professional classical musicians, artists, authors, people who make crafty things, even lay preachers vs professional ministers).
I think there is an important difference between a minister or ministry team member being paid by a congregation to have time to serve that congregation and someone seeking to make a living based on revenue from a congregation seen as a "captive audience" of some kind.

(In another related tangent, I'm leery of congregation members effectively being coerced into giving (in some shape or form) twice over (or more) for the same end beneficiary; we already have a policy in our church that we won't give regular support as a church to Christian organisations whose team members also target our individual church members for their financial support).

I have also heard stories about a major Christian music label persuading many of its artists that they should not make any royalties claims "because it's the Lord's work" and basically making a mint out of them.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Ah, that's more like subscription publishing which seems a lot clearer to me. You're expressing confidence in the product by buying it in advance.
Just backing up on this for a second: crowdfunding isn't really the subscription model. The big difference in crowdfunding is that you're only buying a promise of a future product, in practice a very large number of crowdfunding projects fail and the investor gets nothing back at all.

Traditional subscription models of publishing are about purchasing once the product is established and in the market. There is still a level of risk involved, but they tend to fail less - because the "investment" is later in the process.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
1. Crowdfunding is where someone asks for money for a project or product via an internet site like Kickstarter. It's a form of investing really. The incentives are usually in the form of rewards given at different levels - $5 for a mention on the liner notes, $10 for a download, $15 for a signed CD. My rule of thumb is only give to a Kickstarter if you want the thing to exist in the world, not that you want the thing itself. Otherwise wait until the book/album/movie/gadget exists and buy it then. Also note that for creative endeavours, Kickstarter works best if you've already got an audience.

2. The music industry is multi-million dollar but most of that money goes to a very small handful of artists. So the ethics of it may never materialise except on the level of is it right to charge for your work at all - and I think it is. I do think you should sell the music and not the ministry though, "buy this album because you like it", not "support my spreading of the gospel through music".
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
There are lots of articles about the big failures in crowdfunding, eg this one.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul., my bold:
1. Crowdfunding is [...] a form of investing really.
You then go on to say
quote:
The incentives are usually in the form of rewards given at different levels - $5 for a mention on the liner notes, $10 for a download, $15 for a signed CD.
To me, whatever this is, it's not investment: your expectation, if any, is a little ego boost or goodie, rather than getting out more money than you put in.

This is what I don't get. It seems to be confusing two completely different things, and it seems to me that the confusion helps the askers get more money than they may deserve.

quote:
I do think you should sell the music and not the ministry though, "buy this album because you like it", not "support my spreading of the gospel through music".
Yes, that's a good distinction.

Incidentally I was impressed to note the other day that Paul Baloche, who is a successful contemporary worship leader, appears to give away at least some of his worship tracks and accompanying sheet music. Not quite as radical as Keith Green in the early days but still...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Crowdfunding is a popularity contest, yes. If you are incredibly lucky you get something back from the money you throw at a project.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So why do people talk about it as an investment?

Is this a harbinger of social change, such that young people actually see hit-and-miss contribtions to the collective as valid and meaningful in a way old individualistic fogeys like me don't? (cf car-sharing, shared office space, airb'nb, Uber, etc...)

Or is it just a con trick?

[ 07. June 2017, 08:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
No, I don't think it is exactly a con, but it clearly isn't a normal investment; those who contribute have no ownership of the business and the money they put in is not considered to be a loan.

It is basically just a donation. You only get something back if the business feels like giving it to you.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
OK so investing may not be the best choice of word. I wanted to distinguish it from merely donating to something. It's a way to raise money for a project. Also it's not strictly buying something. I've seen a lot of consternation in Kickstarter comments sections caused by people failing to differentiate between buying a product and backing a campaign where you get a product as a reward.

But it's not true investment because you never get a share in ownership of the thing being made, nor a return on your money (other than the reward).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
There are a number of different models that are being discussed in the thread, many of which are somewhat different from that discussed by the OP.

However; there are the indiegogo/kickstarter type 'crowdfunding', where the rewards are usually either some kind of ego boost/a chance to buy the final product at a discount or some kind of special edition/enhanced version of the final product. These can range all the way from one enthusiastic person having a really good idea to a some way of trying to get VC funding without actually losing control/having any of the obligations that go along with getting VC funding. There are a number of projects that would have previously had to seek angel funding (or some vehicle like the UK SEIT) that appear to have gone down this route especially because of the latter. A few projects have ended up raising so much money that it all becomes problematic of which Star Citizen is probably the most notorious example.

There are subscription publishing platforms like patreon where the reward is sometimes linked to the amount of content someone produces and the rewards can include exclusive content or a pledge that the producer will work on something specific.

There are sites like pledgemusic which are more niche and aim to get funding for specific projects which may not be immediately commercially viable.

You can find Christian projects on all these platforms, one example which I could immediately find:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/478789344/the-warden-and-the-wolf-king

To be honest there are problems inherent with every approach. However I do not see that the crowdfunding model in and of itself adds additional issues in the specific case the OP describes. Over and above the problems posed in general by career posing as ministry.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I have also heard stories about a major Christian music label persuading many of its artists that they should not make any royalties claims "because it's the Lord's work" and basically making a mint out of them.
The ethics of the Christian music industry could spawn another thread. Suffice to say that too often they marry the worst of commercial sharp practice to the type of attitude you mention above.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Over and above the problems posed in general by career posing as ministry.
That's a pithy summary of the issue (although not necessarily a solution...)
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Over and above the problems posed in general by career posing as ministry.
That's a pithy summary of the issue (although not necessarily a solution...)
Yes, I wasn't intending to put forward a solution, as I'm not entirely sure what it would look like. I was mainly riffing off your second point here:

"How does one draw a line between "ministry" with expenses covered by donations and a commercial undertaking, particularly in the field of Christian music, which at the top end is a multimillion dollar industry? Is it ethically possible to mix the two models?"

Where it seemed that the important factor was the line between 'ministry' and a commercial undertaking.

Personally I'd assume that the best evaluation would be the same as the way you'd evaluate any ministry and any ministry project. i.e is it a valid ministry to start with, and given the content of the ministry is this a valid project within the context in which it operates, and is a valid means to raise money given that context.

[ 07. June 2017, 09:44: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Yes, I think I'd agree with all that, although as evidenced by mr cheesy above, not everybody would.

I also find that in my circles anyway, Christians often tend to throw money rather unthinkingly at requests for it without necessarily thinking through just what they are throwing it at, usually under this vague justification of "the Lord's work", and discussions along the lines you suggest can be met with blank stares (or accusations of "lack of faith"...).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
As someone who has a so-called career in the arts...

The whole area of remuneration is fraught. Currently, I'm doing more work than I ever have done for less money than I've ever done it for, but you have to do what you can to keep the balance sheet black - and to justify not having a 'proper job'. (On the other hand, a minor project I did in a matter of weeks (see sig link) has done extraordinarily well, and I'm going to have to think long and hard about why.)

I know some authors have gone down the Patreon route, or have used Kickstarter for publishing novels, or more recently put their works on the Unbound platform. I've not done any of those because I'm deeply uncomfortable about asking other people to take a commercial risk that should in all good conscience be taken by either the author or their publisher (and in the event of self-pubbing, they're one and the same).

Neither can I take the line that I'm a 'Christian' author (I mean, yes, I am, but not in *that way*). This isn't my 'ministry'. This is my job, and I see it as such. If I need to raise the money to self-pub a book - hire an artist and an editor - then I will raise the funds myself. I might sell some stuff, use money earned from other projects, or simply, if I felt I had to, get a temporary job to cover the expense.

And in the situation where I was a musician looking to record a CD professionally, I'd be gigging commercially, selling merchandise and doing what musicians the world over do. Living out of a suitcase and travelling from town to town. The world doesn't owe me, them, or anyone a living.

There was a reason Paul was called a tent-maker.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm deeply uncomfortable about asking other people to take a commercial risk that should in all good conscience be taken by either the author or their publisher (and in the event of self-pubbing, they're one and the same).
This - the shouldering of risk - was exactly my misgiving about the project in the OP.

I have a lot of discussions with people about "faith" and the fact that for many, it seems to mean "I use your resources to make my project a reality".
quote:
There was a reason Paul was called a tent-maker.
I am far happier now I am to all intents (ha ha) and purposes a tent-maker than I was being in Full-Time Paid Christian Ministry™, but I'm not sure that's a standard that can be imposed on everyone.

(In another tangent, I wonder about what millenials' approach to FTPCM™ might be in that their whole approach to the world of work is more freelancey. Or so it seems to me).

[ 07. June 2017, 10:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I like crowdfunding - if each member of the crowd who supports the business adds a little (say a fiver) and they have plenty of backers - I think it's a great idea [Smile]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[qb]IThis - the shouldering of risk - was exactly my misgiving about the project in the OP.
But I don't think there was any "shouldering of risk". As I read it, people are being asked to "cough up" out of the goodwill of their hearts simply to get the recording made. Any return they may get is pure icing on the cake.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
No, you're right. What I meant in this context was "shouldering of faith".

Boogie, to me "financial backing" indicates an expected return on investment of some kind. If not immediately financial, in terms of reputation (e.g. for sponsorship).
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
The term crowd funding is certainly not only used in relation to arrangements without an anticipated return.

For example quite a few solar and wind farms have been financed by so called crowd funded bonds, whereby the bond holders own a stake in the physical assets and get an income if it operates profitably. Other types of business like bio fuel plants have also used it.

I could post a link to financial institutions operating in this market but advertising on here is probably not right.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Boogie, to me "financial backing" indicates an expected return on investment of some kind.
That may be so but "backers" is the term used by many of these platforms, Kickstarter, Indiegogo and so on.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

(In another tangent, I wonder about what millenials' approach to FTPCM™ might be in that their whole approach to the world of work is more freelancey. Or so it seems to me).
There seem to be several things at work here; there seems to be a general trend towards shorter time spans and shorter attention spans. A number of missionaries have commented to that they have fewer and fewer folk who fund them for over decades, and quite often people switch donations are 2-5 years. Certainly there is the expectation of projects bearing fruit in shorter spaces of time.

I think there's a far amount of general business practice leaking into the world of church - often for the worse, as they tend to get the financing models without the governance structures that go along with that, and so forth.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0