House of Drumming.com

Can someone help me out with the public financing thing? I get the part about the public paying the production costs of the project by donations and how they get a copy of the DVD when it releases. What I'm having trouble with is why would I want to pay the full freight for the retail release DVD when at that point the only costs involved are minimal? What I'm saying is, once the funding goal is met and the DVD is made and paid for, shouldn't the retail price of the product reflect that ....... Or am I off here?

Old Pit Guy wrote:Can someone help me out with the public financing thing?

Sure. The reason for these crowd-funding initiatives is actually quite simple. Once a DVD (or CD) is released, artists generally make no money from them. They just end up on YouTube, and then Google makes the money. By getting the money up front, they are at least covering expenses, and possibly getting some grocery money to boot. One the DVD is released, anyone that actually pays for a copy helps to generate actual profits.

Old Pit Guy wrote:Can someone help me out with the public financing thing? I get the part about the public paying the production costs of the project by donations and how they get a copy of the DVD when it releases. What I'm having trouble with is why would I want to pay the full freight for the retail release DVD when at that point the only costs involved are minimal? What I'm saying is, once the funding goal is met and the DVD is made and paid for, shouldn't the retail price of the product reflect that ....... Or am I off here?

Just thinking about the opposite, giving it for free because the initial goal is achieved, shows the answer.
Anyone putting effort in a product has the right to get some economic profit of it.
I haven´t participated in the project yet, but I will soon.
I want the DVD.

It's not that those who contribute financially to the creation of a product in question don't get anything for their money. Depending on how much money you put in there are different things you can get in advance, and in the case of something like Benny is doing it can be the DVD itself, a signed copy of it, a signed copy with his signature sticks, or even being credited as a co-producer if your contribution warrants it. As for everyone else, well, they just have to pay the retail price.

Paul Marangoni wrote:

Old Pit Guy wrote:Can someone help me out with the public financing thing?

Sure. The reason for these crowd-funding initiatives is actually quite simple. Once a DVD (or CD) is released, artists generally make no money from them. They just end up on YouTube, and then Google makes the money. By getting the money up front, they are at least covering expenses, and possibly getting some grocery money to boot. One the DVD is released, anyone that actually pays for a copy helps to generate actual profits.

I understand everything up until "covering expenses" and here's why I'm still confused. If the project is handled without crowd-funding, the old fashioned way, doesn't the publisher/producer of the DVD -Hudson etc- cover production costs? And that cost is recovered by their cut of sales, correct? And some money beyond that in profit, sure. So are you saying that the artist's cut of sales is larger because the public paid the production costs, and therefore an agreement more equitable to the artist is worked out on the sales percentage? Or is the impetus the grocery money skimmed off the contributions?

I mugged Santa too

Old Pit Guy wrote:I understand everything up until "covering expenses" and here's why I'm still confused. If the project is handled without crowd-funding, the old fashioned way, doesn't the publisher/producer of the DVD -Hudson etc- cover production costs? And that cost is recovered by their cut of sales, correct? And some money beyond that in profit, sure. So are you saying that the artist's cut of sales is larger because the public paid the production costs, and therefore an agreement more equitable to the artist is worked out on the sales percentage? Or is the impetus the grocery money skimmed off the contributions?

Hudson is notorious for paying a paltry amount to the artists. By going in with the finished product, the artist has much more leverage as far as compensation goes, and will probably retain control of the content for potential re-release after a certain timeframe.

Old Pit Guy wrote:

Paul Marangoni wrote:

Old Pit Guy wrote:Can someone help me out with the public financing thing?

Sure. The reason for these crowd-funding initiatives is actually quite simple. Once a DVD (or CD) is released, artists generally make no money from them. They just end up on YouTube, and then Google makes the money. By getting the money up front, they are at least covering expenses, and possibly getting some grocery money to boot. One the DVD is released, anyone that actually pays for a copy helps to generate actual profits.

I understand everything up until "covering expenses" and here's why I'm still confused. If the project is handled without crowd-funding, the old fashioned way, doesn't the publisher/producer of the DVD -Hudson etc- cover production costs? And that cost is recovered by their cut of sales, correct? And some money beyond that in profit, sure. So are you saying that the artist's cut of sales is larger because the public paid the production costs, and therefore an agreement more equitable to the artist is worked out on the sales percentage? Or is the impetus the grocery money skimmed off the contributions?

The most obvious reason for crowdfunding would be simply the fact that, as opposed to publishers, individual artists just don't have the cash upfront which can be invested by a publisher and then cut the profit from. Not to mention, as Paul said, being independent and probably making much better margin, despite not having as much exposure. I think it just comes down to this (not sure how accurate it is as of now): http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/selling_out_550.png

Cool. Thanks for the answers, guys, I appreciate it!