Crowdfunding Manual :: Discussing the Draft!

[Joe Brewer]

Hey Everyone,

I've heard back from some of you individually about your thoughts on the draft manuscript we sent out earlier this week.  It's been a pleasure to hear positive reactions about our progress.

Let's use this thread to share reactions, suggestions for improvement, additional topics you'd like to see covered, and anything else that comes up about the Crowdfunding Manual as we work to get it into final form for publication.

We'd LOVE to hear what you think about the work we've done so far!

Thanks,

Joe

P.S.  I am attaching the manuscript again, just in case it got lost in the mix for some of you.

--
Joe Brewer
Founder & Director
Cognitive Policy Works
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com
--
Founder & Director
Seattle Innovators
http://www.seattleinnovators.org
206.914.8927 (mobile)
--

[Jay Standish]

Hey,

So I love the 35 page treatise on social finance at the beginning. Not exactly what I was expecting, but it only makes sense that Suresh and Joe would spend most of their time in professor mode ;) There are a lot of people who would be interested in reading a "how to crowdfund" manual that is more in-depth than a blog post, but most really don't care about the geeky backstory-- however powerful and important it may be. The second half that consists of the actual crowdfunding manual is good too, but I'd like to see more stories about actual campaigns. 

Consider breaking the piece down into two halves: 

1) the academic case for why crowdfunding is interesting

2) a practical guide to designing and executing a campaign

This way people who aren't academically-inclined can skip to the part where it tells you how to raise a bunch of money.

Jay

--
jay.standish //skype
@yodelheck //twitter
jaystandish.com //web

[Joe Brewer]

Hi Jay,

A very perceptive suggestion!  Suresh and I have similar sentiments.  We'd like to share the larger story about the paradigm shift that needs to happen across financial institutions to help reveal where crowdfunding fits in (the backstory) and also offer hands-on advice for setting up and running successful crowdfunding projects.

We'll think more about how to do this effectively... specific suggestions about how to do this are appreciated too!

Thanks,

Joe

--
Joe Brewer
Founder & Director
Cognitive Policy Works
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com
--
Founder & Director
Seattle Innovators
http://www.seattleinnovators.org
206.914.8927 (mobile)
--

[Joe Brewer]

Hey Jay,

After thinking a bit more about it... what do you think of this idea:

Recruit someone to go out and interview four or five people who ran successful crowdfunding campaigns about what lessons they'd like to share in this manual.

I know that you've run a successful campaign for Symbionomics, so you'd be a good candidate for an interview. Perhaps there's someone else in this Google Group community who'd like to step up and help us gather more information?

Best,

Joe

 
--
Joe Brewer
Founder & Director
Cognitive Policy Works
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com
--
Founder & Director
Seattle Innovators
http://www.seattleinnovators.org
206.914.8927 (mobile)
--

[Jay Standish]

Hey Joe,

It seems to me that the charge of this project was to create a how-to guide for crowdfunding. It would seem like an important initial task would have been to talk to more than 4 or 5 people to gather evidence about how to run a successful crowdfunding campaign. So it might be a day late and a buck short to get a volunteer to do interviews. But looking back over the pitch on Rockethub, I see that it was never really focused on being a practical guide, but more of a high-level treatise, which you have written. 

So my suggestion is really to just change the name to something more indicative of the actual content of the paper. Its primarily a case for pursing innovation in social finance, and secondarily a manual on crowdfunding best practices according to Joe and Suresh.

Jay

[Ariel Dougherty]

Joe and Suresh,

 

      Thank you both for pulling all this thinking together and pushing us all to better understand and move the process of Crowdfunding forward.

 

       The scope of what you outline is very significant.  Numerous of the charts, I have found very informative and useful.

 

      On the old financing methods:   A clearer picture needs to be laid out:

 

A.   Philanthropy / not for profit giving – largely based on some kind of tax benefit and or contractual agreement for services….  [Foundations have scant mention in document at present.  But they need to be discussed some more and seen for their limitations.]

B.    Investments  --  capital given for start ups that require large returns for that investment.  [You  have much more on this, but maybe it can be treated more concisely ??]

 

             To a large extent BOTH of these are dependent on ones “contacts” to those individuals who hold the purse and decision making in how the funds are allocated……   There is a gatekeeper process.

 

             For me – key in CROWDFUNDING – is something I don’t think you mention.  Crowdfunding – turns the above on its ear.   It puts the initiation and control of the process in the hands of the project initiator(s).  I call this process participatory financing  -- because it has both historic and political reference.    No more gatekeepers. 

 

 

Except, if we DO NOT design a process that is INCLUSIVE of gender / race / cultural difference --- and acknowledge those disparities within the present context of domination (gate keeping) --- then we may find ourselves creating a delusion of change. 

 

In contrast, as the primary “success” model you use GRAMEEN, whose beneficiaries are 97% women (in the Third World) with an astounding 98.35% repayment rate. Extensive study has transpired over the past 40 years on the differences of women’s modes of learning and social transactions.  In particular the work of Carol Gilligan underscores, “Men normally think in terms of rules and justice and women are more inclined to think in terms of caring and relationships”.  Without some recognition and understanding of this significant difference, I think it is precarious to use a successful model that worked for women and adopt it into a new paradigm without that analysis. It may be the perfect model, I just believe a larger explanation of why it will work for more even, within the West/North, needs to be mapped out.

 

I bring out these points because already as in the Kickstarter summary of its 2010 success (http://blog.kickstarter.com/post/2686751109/kickstarter-awards-by-the-numbers ) I see a growing gender problem.  In the way KS lauds all its successes not one project is woman created.  Why is that?  The time is now to address these brewing cultural discriminations before the processes are more deeply entrenched.  

 

Your conception of “ecosystems” is great. As I see the Crowdfunding community it needs such analysis for subsections to both coalesce and thrive in the evolving platforms.  This will be critical in garnering larger sums of support and creating vast, necessary infrastructure to enable progressive change.  On a second reading, however, I wonder if “ecosystem” is the apt term.  As I understand ecosystem it has to do with species & climate interaction and interdependence within a defined geography.  I would dearly like to see a term here be more dynamic of philosophy and consciousness change that are global and heart driven, not locally or geographically bound in some way.

 

[Echoing Jay]  Overall I think you need examples to illustrate your points.  The abstract theory needs a grounded story line to carry it.  Already there are many good examples and tales of caution where issues need to be better addressed.  These kinds of specifics will make the overall manual more useful.

 

 

            Best, Ariel   

--
________________________________________________________________
Ariel Dougherty            advocate 4 gendered media                  www.mediaequity.org
575. 894. 1844  fx 575. 894. 1845  Ariel...@gmail.com   Twitter:  MediaEquity
latest piece:  Three Feminist Media Principles: Envisioning a Path to a Less Violent, More Truthful Media
Associate Producer:! Women Art Revolution Lynn Hershman Leeson's documentary on the feminist art movement
    Now showing in cities across the US.  See Zeitgeist Films for schedule   
            

[Ariel Dougherty]

On one item of language, "The Killer Project", I know (understand) your intent, but an entirely different word than "killer" might be more beneficial. 

            Best, Ariel

[Joe Brewer]

Hi Ariel,

Thank you for such substantive and thoughtful comments!

I really resonate with the participatory finance frame.  I'll ponder how to build it into the manual effectively... the thing I like is how it evokes the participatory democracy frame by linguistic association, which really opens the conversational space about diversity, inclusion, structural power relationships, and all of the other important considerations you've listed.

There's a lot more good stuff in there too.

Best,

Joe

--
Joe Brewer
Founder & Director
Cognitive Policy Works
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com
--
Founder & Director
Seattle Innovators
http://www.seattleinnovators.org
206.914.8927 (mobile)
--

[Tiberius Brastaviceanu]

Hi Suresh, hi Joe, and hi all,

I read the entire draft carefully and I can say that I learned something. I understand that it is not finished, and I am convinced that it will get a lot better.

Suresh and Joe, please accept my constructive criticism in the spirit of collaboration. Our intentions are certainly aligned and we all want to improve our understanding through this process (editing this manual). I also encourage you to give me feedback, so that I can also get a chance to see my own reflexion from your understanding.

1) I think that the first part, where you provide the context, needs to be improved. It doesn't capture the essence of the transformations we are living. I would start by providing a thorough examination of the new technology and the new possibilities it introduces, and by providing clear examples of how these possibilities are being actualized. Further, I would show that these new possibilities (communication, coordination, etc.) lead to the expansion, at massive scales, of collaboration and commons-based peer production, a third mode of production that is growing more important than the capitalist and the socialist modes of production. These things are not new, they are just amplified by the new technology. Then I would go into the moral/social value system that supports massive collaboration and commons-based peer production. Again, this value system is not new, but it is on a path to become mainstream because of the socio-economical advantages provided by massive collaboration and commons-based peer production, which will shortly offset classical means of production (that is why we’re tipping!). I find your section on culture and moral/social values weak. I think you can get a lot of inspiration from p2pfundation.

2) I very much enjoyed your section on the “ecosystem pooled fund”, there are new ideas in there, and you could take it further than that. But I don’t see the connection between this section and the last one, on crowdfunding. You also failed to convince me that this will work for purelly social ventures. Your language is more about ecosystems of businesses (or social businesses), generating revenue, less about purely social ventures, generating non-tangible value for the local community or for the society at large. You need to do a better job to integrate quantifiable outcome (which is the bases of capitalism) with non-quantifiable outcome. You need to integrate non-tangible assets with tangible assets into an overarching value system (get some inspiration from Verna Alee). One solution for you would be to build mixed ecosystems composed of revenue-based entities, those who produce material/quantifiable things to be exchanged on the market to generate profits, AND social enterprises. Within these ecosystems, because we are within a narrower context, non-tangible assets will be better recognized and valued by revenue-based entities. For example, it is widely accepted that education fuels economical development, and we already see corporations investing and lobbying for education, although that system is also perverted because education gets subordinated to mindless economical development. Within this system of interlocking relations, with corporation having the longer part of the stick, education becomes a travesty of education, producing compartmentalized minds, highly specialized workers rather than good citizens. In fact, this is precisely why I am against the approach you propose. If you put social ventures into an ecosystem with profit-motivated organizations, and the “vital” cash infusion greatly depends on profit-motivated organizations, because in the end the ecosystem needs to produce a return on investment, you effectively subordinate social ventures to the point of their travesty, like in the case of education. But if you want to keep digging the same hole this would be a pardonable way out for you, in my opinion.

3) The last section, the practical manual on crowdfunding is nicely done!

Now here are some philosophical consideration.

I fact, I think that you are trying to solve an insolvable problem. “funds are deployed for financial gain” This is in fact inherent to debt money. When money come into existence through debt it means that for the cash you are using for social good someone, somewhere needs to repay the “federal” Reserve with interest. This is a fundamental problem that you can ONLY eliminate by abolishing this type of currency, or at least by bypassing it through alternative currencies. In my view, you are just pushing the problem a little further. Yes, your system can open a cash-flow into social ventures, but you’ll not replace the masters of our society who got us in this miserable state in the first place. Ultimately you’ll depend on them. You don’t bypass the monopoly on the system of value exchange to reduce its power. If these guys on top of the pyramid feel threatened by your social ventures they will find a way to cut your funds, because they will still have the power to do so. If you don’t dislocate this mad power you will NOT induce the social change we are all dreaming about. Your system relies on it and thus reinforces it.

You need to acknowledge alternative currencies and provide a mechanism to phase out mainstream currency, to phase out the monopoly on the flow of value. In fact, I’m surprised that you don’t even mention alternative currencies, taking into consideration all the buzz they are generated. But perhaps your manual is only meant for the transition period, and in that case my suggestion is out if its scope.

Another problem I have with crowdfunding is that it creates this division between the game changer and the crowd.

“Crowdfunding is a community-engagement process between an individual or organization seeking money to create something new and a crowd of supporters “

I know that this division is not so clear in your case (this message is actually a proof of that), and you take your time to explain that anyone from the crowd can get involved in other ways with the social project, but I think this is not enough. We need to create systems that go beyond the shepherd and the flock paradigm. You are taking a step away from it; I am more radical in that respect. In fact, your practical manual on crowdfunding contains a lot of material on how to manipulate the crowd. What about including the crowd into a totally open and transparent commons-based peer production system, producing tangible and non-tangible value, quantity and quality?

Sometimes I get the impression that you call the relation between the game changer and the crowd “collaboration”. Because of the dividing that crowdfunding (as presented by you) operates this relation is more on the side of “support”. And that is not enough... Our representative democracy runs almost entirely on support, and this is probably why it drives us straight into the wall, because there is no real participation, no real collaboration. People are manipulated into voting and after they pose the act they go home thinking that they’ve participated in building their society. We know that this model doesn't, why reproduce it again?  

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my looooong comment!  

Tibi

--
t!b! 

co-founder of SENSORICA, 

an open, decentralized and self-organizing

value network (an open enterprise)

founder of Multitude Project

[Joe Brewer]

Hi Tibi,

Lots of important things to chew on in your comment.  I'll respond briefly for now (only because I am vacationing with family and need to get back to dinner preparations)...

I completely agree with you about the deeper issues with fiat currency and the importance of alternative currency systems.  It is a deep structural issue that drives much of the underlying dynamics of our global capitalist system, and so deserves careful consideration in the larger discussions about global change.  For our purposes in this manual, it is a bit out of scope only because we want to place what Ariel described as participatory finance in a more central position as part of the shifting power landscape that is happening around changes in culture and technology across the planet.  We recognize the need to address financial systems with monetary theory for the full set of systemic challenges that must ultimately be addressed, but don't want to open too big a pandora's box in this project.

Your comments about the need to better capture the transformation strike me as hitting a deeper chord... in the positive sense that I am inclined to agree with you and would LOVE your help better articulating how we discuss the technology revolutions, values transformations, and emerging new models of collaboration and social organization.  I realize that this is an area of passion for you and know that we can benefit from more elaboration of your thinking.  Please help us improve these sections!

;-)

Best,

Joe

--
Joe Brewer
Founder & Director
Cognitive Policy Works
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com
--
Founder & Director
Seattle Innovators
http://www.seattleinnovators.org
206.914.8927 (mobile)
--

[Suresh Fernando]

Ariel,

Thanks for the detailed response. See below.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Ariel Dougherty <ariel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Joe and Suresh,

 

      Thank you both for pulling all this thinking together and pushing us all to better understand and move the process of Crowdfunding forward.

 

       The scope of what you outline is very significant.  Numerous of the charts, I have found very informative and useful.

Thanks!

 

      On the old financing methods:   A clearer picture needs to be laid out:

 

A.   Philanthropy / not for profit giving – largely based on some kind of tax benefit and or contractual agreement for services….  [Foundations have scant mention in document at present.  But they need to be discussed some more and seen for their limitations.]

B.    Investments  --  capital given for start ups that require large returns for that investment.  [You  have much more on this, but maybe it can be treated more concisely ??]

 

             To a large extent BOTH of these are dependent on ones “contacts” to those individuals who hold the purse and decision making in how the funds are allocated……   There is a gatekeeper process.

 

             For me – key in CROWDFUNDING – is something I don’t think you mention.  Crowdfunding – turns the above on its ear.   It puts the initiation and control of the process in the hands of the project initiator(s).  I call this process participatory financing  -- because it has both historic and political reference.    No more gatekeepers. 

This is an important distinction...

 

 

Except, if we DO NOT design a process that is INCLUSIVE of gender / race / cultural difference --- and acknowledge those disparities within the present context of domination (gate keeping) --- then we may find ourselves creating a delusion of change. 

Are you suggesting that 'affirmative action' type policies need to be built into the actual financing processes?

 

In contrast, as the primary “success” model you use GRAMEEN, whose beneficiaries are 97% women (in the Third World) with an astounding 98.35% repayment rate. Extensive study has transpired over the past 40 years on the differences of women’s modes of learning and social transactions.  In particular the work of Carol Gilligan underscores, “Men normally think in terms of rules and justice and women are more inclined to think in terms of caring and relationships”.  Without some recognition and understanding of this significant difference, I think it is precarious to use a successful model that worked for women and adopt it into a new paradigm without that analysis. It may be the perfect model, I just believe a larger explanation of why it will work for more even, within the West/North, needs to be mapped out.

There are no doubt a host of subtleties, including the points you raise, that we could analyze in great depth. The document is already fairly long, wide scope and currently incomplete. The reality is that there is a limit to what Joe and I are able to address within the parameters of the $5K that we raised to put this together. It is certainly our desire for this initial effort to represent the beginning of something as opposed to the end.

Hence, at this point the objective is to identify what work is sufficiently important to the wider community that it would warrant us attempting to crowdsource the resources to devote the time to moving this whole process to the next stage. The point being that there are many issues that we didn't cover in depth, but we need some help to identify what the path forward is.

Jay has made the point that the document is heavy from a theoretical/academic perspective but what people want to know is simply how to raise money!

We are interested, more generally, in the relationship between crowdsourcing techniques and social change/social movements. What is the next stage in the evolution of crowdsourcing? What are the more innovative ways to think about organizing labour and resources using the internet to bring about social change etc?

 

 

I bring out these points because already as in the Kickstarter summary of its 2010 success (http://blog.kickstarter.com/post/2686751109/kickstarter-awards-by-the-numbers ) I see a growing gender problem.  In the way KS lauds all its successes not one project is woman created.  Why is that?  The time is now to address these brewing cultural discriminations before the processes are more deeply entrenched.  

This is interesting and not something that I was aware of. Do you have any thoughts as the source of this disparity? 

 

Your conception of “ecosystems” is great. As I see the Crowdfunding community it needs such analysis for subsections to both coalesce and thrive in the evolving platforms.  This will be critical in garnering larger sums of support and creating vast, necessary infrastructure to enable progressive change.  On a second reading, however, I wonder if “ecosystem” is the apt term.  As I understand ecosystem it has to do with species & climate interaction and interdependence within a defined geography.  I would dearly like to see a term here be more dynamic of philosophy and consciousness change that are global and heart driven, not locally or geographically bound in some way.

The wikipedia definition of ecosystem is: An ecosystem is a biological environment consisting of all the organisms living in a particular area, as well as all the nonliving, physical components of the environment with which the organisms interact, such as air, soil, water and sunlight.^[1] It is all the organisms in a given area, along with the nonliving (abiotic) factors with which they interact; a biological community and its physical environment.<sup>[1]

In the document, I define the term very specifically as relating to a system of relations fostered by our emerging and evolving technological context. Hence, the sense in which I use the word, is by way of analogy to the way it is traditionally used. Sure, it might have been better to define a new word but, just as with all analogies, some meaning is conveyed by reference to the more common use.</sup>

 

[Echoing Jay]  Overall I think you need examples to illustrate your points.  The abstract theory needs a grounded story line to carry it.  Already there are many good examples and tales of caution where issues need to be better addressed.  These kinds of specifics will make the overall manual more useful.

Fair enough... again, the theory is designed to get people thinking about the next stage... about what is possible.

This, of course, doesn't help those that want to raise fund now ;-)

--
Suresh Fernando
Partner
Vicinus Group
http://www.vicinusgroup.com
778-709-7526

[Suresh Fernando]

Hi Tibi - long time no talk... hope all is well!

Thanks for the insightful comments as usual. See below.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Suresh, hi Joe, and hi all,

I read the entire draft carefully and I can say that I learned something. I understand that it is not finished, and I am convinced that it will get a lot better.

Suresh and Joe, please accept my constructive criticism in the spirit of collaboration. Our intentions are certainly aligned and we all want to improve our understanding through this process (editing this manual). I also encourage you to give me feedback, so that I can also get a chance to see my own reflexion from your understanding.

1) I think that the first part, where you provide the context, needs to be improved. It doesn't capture the essence of the transformations we are living. I would start by providing a thorough examination of the new technology and the new possibilities it introduces, and by providing clear examples of how these possibilities are being actualized.

This could/should certainly be included... but further to my response to Ariel... this is turning into a book ;-)
 

Further, I would show that these new possibilities (communication, coordination, etc.) lead to the expansion, at massive scales, of collaboration and commons-based peer production, a third mode of production that is growing more important than the capitalist and the socialist modes of production. These things are not new, they are just amplified by the new technology. Then I would go into the moral/social value system that supports massive collaboration and commons-based peer production. Again, this value system is not new, but it is on a path to become mainstream because of the socio-economical advantages provided by massive collaboration and commons-based peer production, which will shortly offset classical means of production (that is why we’re tipping!). I find your section on culture and moral/social values weak. I think you can get a lot of inspiration from p2pfundation.

No argument here. The goal was not to write a full dissertation of the values transformation... just identify that it is in process. The point that I am trying to make is that we are at a Tipping Point... I did not attempt to examine in depth all aspects of what constitutes this tipping point. 

2) I very much enjoyed your section on the “ecosystem pooled fund”, there are new ideas in there, and you could take it further than that. But I don’t see the connection between this section and the last one, on crowdfunding.

Admittedly the connection is a little tangential, but if there is one it is that both relate to mechanisms to finance social change related activity. The logic underlying the Ecosystem Pooled Fund model is specific to social enterprises (ventures that both deliver financial and social value). There is also some loose sense in which they are both 'collaborative'. Admittedly the connection is loose.

 

You also failed to convince me that this will work for purelly social ventures. Your language is more about ecosystems of businesses (or social businesses), generating revenue, less about purely social ventures, generating non-tangible value for the local community or for the society at large.

The model is designed to describe a way to reduce financial risk for early stage social ventures (what you call social businesses). So when you say you are not convinced that the model will work for organizations attempting to deliver only social value, you are on the right track since it does not target those sorts of ventures specifically since there is no financial risk associated with purely socially driven projects. Since there is no financial risk, there is no financial risk that needs to be mitigated.
 

You need to do a better job to integrate quantifiable outcome (which is the bases of capitalism) with non-quantifiable outcome. You need to integrate non-tangible assets with tangible assets into an overarching value system (get some inspiration from Verna Alee).

I intentionally ignored the entire SROI (Social Return on Investment) sphere because this just increases the scope that much further... You are right that, in a sense, this needs to be a part of the discussion. The problem is just one of time and resources to cover everything.
 

One solution for you would be to build mixed ecosystems composed of revenue-based entities, those who produce material/quantifiable things to be exchanged on the market to generate profits, AND social enterprises. Within these ecosystems, because we are within a narrower context, non-tangible assets will be better recognized and valued by revenue-based entities. For example, it is widely accepted that education fuels economical development, and we already see corporations investing and lobbying for education, although that system is also perverted because education gets subordinated to mindless economical development. Within this system of interlocking relations, with corporation having the longer part of the stick, education becomes a travesty of education, producing compartmentalized minds, highly specialized workers rather than good citizens. In fact, this is precisely why I am against the approach you propose. If you put social ventures into an ecosystem with profit-motivated organizations, and the “vital” cash infusion greatly depends on profit-motivated organizations, because in the end the ecosystem needs to produce a return on investment, you effectively subordinate social ventures to the point of their travesty, like in the case of education. But if you want to keep digging the same hole this would be a pardonable way out for you, in my opinion.

This is interesting. I didn't actually define an ecosystem as consisting of both financially and socially motivated organizations. Just to be clear, when I say 'social venture', I refer to an organization that delivers both financial and social value. I don't actually have a specific term that I use to refer to projects that are just trying to deliver social value. I loosely refer to them as not-for-profits etc. I should probably clarify this.

That said, you are getting me to think more broadly about what the dynamics of group of projects/organizations would be if the consisted of both financial and not-for-profit projects... I need to think about this more

3) The last section, the practical manual on crowdfunding is nicely done!

Now here are some philosophical consideration.

I fact, I think that you are trying to solve an insolvable problem. “funds are deployed for financial gain” This is in fact inherent to debt money. When money come into existence through debt it means that for the cash you are using for social good someone, somewhere needs to repay the “federal” Reserve with interest. This is a fundamental problem that you can ONLY eliminate by abolishing this type of currency, or at least by bypassing it through alternative currencies. In my view, you are just pushing the problem a little further.

Agreed that in the current economic system, at best the solution will be stop-gap or 'band-aid'. The larger solution requires alternative currency models that eliminate interest (at the least) so that money doesn't grow in and of itself. The reason I focus on the social venture space is that there is an emerging infrastructure that is evolving in this space. I am choosing to ride that wave because there are many institutions that have money and we need money (real money!) to eat and pay the rent today while we try to overthrow the entire global monetary system which might take some time ;-)

Again, this sort of analysis is beyond the scope of this document in my view.
 

Yes, your system can open a cash-flow into social ventures, but you’ll not replace the masters of our society who got us in this miserable state in the first place. Ultimately you’ll depend on them. You don’t bypass the monopoly on the system of value exchange to reduce its power. If these guys on top of the pyramid feel threatened by your social ventures they will find a way to cut your funds, because they will still have the power to do so. If you don’t dislocate this mad power you will NOT induce the social change we are all dreaming about. Your system relies on it and thus reinforces it.

This is sadly true which is also why I introduce the notion of mass collaboration and the discussion surrounding mechanisms for the mass coordination of activity. In the absence of financial capital, all we have as revolutionaries is strength in numbers. You therefore see why collaboration (as a mode of interaction and being in this world) is so important to me. It has interesting implications for revolutionaries:

1. It can help to offset financial risk for early stage social entrepreneurs
2. It can help to create strength in numbers and therefore to mobilize lots of people... to possibly overthrow the monetary system.
   

You need to acknowledge alternative currencies and provide a mechanism to phase out mainstream currency, to phase out the monopoly on the flow of value. In fact, I’m surprised that you don’t even mention alternative currencies, taking into consideration all the buzz they are generated. But perhaps your manual is only meant for the transition period, and in that case my suggestion is out if its scope.

Yes, it's a scope issue. Crowdfunding is a tightly defined term... All the discussion about collaboration and social change is, in itself, pushing the scope of the problem a bit.

[Ariel Dougherty]

Dear Suresh,

       Thank you so much for your considered response.

       As three of your points, I see as interrelated, I will attempt to cover as one.  

      In terms of "diversity" or full equality/human rights and equitable distribution of resources, I have to confess I had not seen what I was discussing as 'affirmative action'. I guess it is a matter of perspective and or orientation.  My hope, expectation, as we work toward a more affirming and progressive society/future, is that we have all gained collective knowledge about bias and discrimination and that in designing a new funding model we work to alleviate those bias. That should be the start point. Jon Pincus has raised these issues (http://www.quora.com/How-would-Quora-be-different-if-it-prioritized-diversity).  Some argue that it is "too expensive".  I say, the continued discrimination is too costly.  Grameen might be a good model.  It's successes have been hugely studied and widely publicized. My caution is largely in that it was so effective for women---and women do have different social interactions (Gilligan et al)---will and does that model translate fully for men? Further, there are other models -- like SEWA / Self Employed Women's Assocation (in India) especially because of its cooperative process (less "gate-keeper" in nature than Grameen) or Green America (formerly Coop-America).

       On the potential of growing gender disparity at Kickstarter, you ask its source?  This in not intentional, but operating within a male-dominated framework (considered "normal") males will easily predominate.  All the "rewards" lauded are based on competition for the "best", "most", "greatest".  How women excel is not in these quantitative "best" hierarchies.  Again study Gilligan et al.  So, from my viewpoint the seeds of a gender bias are well rooted in Kickstarter's 2010 end of yr report. Unless it is addressed now with reframing various concerns, it will grow.  (Again, see work that Pincus has done). Just at the end of last week another issue within Kickstater came to my attention. This one does not bode well for work we are attempting here via this collaboration.  A colleague who runs one of the most innovative international anti-sexist campaigns off of cellphones just launched a new fund raising campaign on IndieGoGo. Last year, May 2010, she ran a great successful campaign on Kickstarter.  I asked her why she switched platforms. She said it was not her choice, but Kickstarter is now prohibiting non-profits to use its site.  I had to hunt for a bit, but here is their (new) policy:      
No charity or cause funding. Examples of prohibited use include raising money for the Red Cross, funding an awareness campaign, funding a scholarship, or donating a portion of funds raised on Kickstarter to a charity or cause.   (http://www.kickstarter.com/help/guidelines)
IMHO, this is a lot to "gate-keep" out of crowdfunding.

        Lastly on the point of ecosystems, I think we are in agreement--The term is good and they are usually defined within "an area".  But now I have come to see this and the ecosystem I deal with -- women / gender  -- in its widest frame -- the whole of the planet/the entirety of the universe.  Thank you for helping me see this in a much larger scope. 

        I am attaching a four page chart of the 19 models Media Equity identified as on June 2009.  This paper was drawn up as a working document for a meeting of the field of some 65 representatives of the feminist gender media justice community.  It might have a few points that are useful.


                  Best, Ariel

[Suresh Fernando]

Ariel - thanks for the document with the models. Can you do me a favour and clarify whether your group is trying to create a fund. Is the research in service of defining a model that you plan to implement? Maybe you already have since the research was from 2009.

Thanks!

--
Suresh Fernando
BLOG, YOUTUBE, OK WEBSITE, OK FAN PAGE, OK GROUP, OK-WE, PHILOSOPHY,  TWITTER,  FACEBOOK, WOTW FAN PAGE LINKEDIN, SLIDESHARE

-------ProM: Climate Change Project Matching System------
Project Description: http://cotw.cc/wiki/Project_Matching
To Join: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/cc-pms
Workstreams: http://cotw.cc/wiki/CC-PMS_etherpad_index

[Ariel Dougherty]

Suresh,

       Greetings.   Good question.

       Yes, when Media Equity Collaborative was initiated (Spring 2007) the idea was to establish a new fund.  The growth of women donors was tipping to the majority of donors [officially this happened 2005; first report was Fall 2008 with virtually NO media] so over all conditions seemed favorable.

        But these three factors have stalled process / altered thinking:

1)  From a summit of 65 field representatives NEED for such a fund was inconclusive,: Intergenerational leadership challenges; different perceived needs of the problem; no agreement on solutions.  (Too little time to work through to solution)

2)  MEC is a field directed initiative.  In Fall of 09 into Spring of '10 it became VERY CLEAR no new fund has emerged without substantial foundation involvement. (#1 item on sheet I sent yesterday deeply foundation created).  I worked hard with the foundation affinity groups GFEM (Grantmakers in Film & Electronic media) and the Women's Funding Network to encourage greater awareness (see SNAPSHOT report at www.mediaequity.org) on collaboration.  No leadership there.  {Nor is there any from academia!}

3)   The Recession (and ensuing political climate) have been especially devastating on women, and particularly women of color.  A key collaborating partnering org, Chica Luna Productions, while it started with a budget of $187K, 18 mos later toward close of 2009, it was unable to raise funds and closed shop.  So, in fact there has been a decline, not an evolution forward.  Even among the 160 women funds (which have traditionally not funded women's media) , they have been in "holding patterns" with declined support, nothing new.

         There are a few other hassles too.   But the above is the gist.

         This is why I find crowd funding potentially very exciting.


                     Best, Ariel