hope | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

Browncoats Rise Again: The fund-raising drive to revive Joss Whedon's Firefly.

To summarise it for you: a group of fans (or just one? it doesn't elaborate) are doing a 'fund-raising drive' to raise money to subsequently fund the creation of more episodes of Firefly. In a nutshell, they calculate that at $1million an episode, they need 500,000 people to donate $25 (US) a piece to make 12 episodes. and, of course, another 500,000 to donate the same amount to make a whole season (24 episodes) - ie. US$24,000,000. They claim that if they do not raise enough money, they will donate the funds the receive to 'Joss's charity of choice'.

I have a few things to say about this.

Firstly, ethically:

stimpson commented that Now, I would dearly love to see another season or 2 of Firefly, but donating my money to a bunch of fans with this idea isn't going to do it. I would much rather they try and raise millions of dollars for charity, and have each fan donate their 25 bucks to someone who really needs it. Fandom and television isn't all there is to life, to be honest.

And I can see where she's coming from. But I think it's also worth remembering that philanthropic funding - ie. the planned/structured/organised giving of funds to others to benefit the 'greater good' doesn't only go to those 'in need' (starving people, homeless people, disabled people, etc). A good deal of philanthropic funding goes toward the arts. individual artists, filmmakers, performers; art galleries, museums, theatre and music companies. I'm sure a whole bunch of film fans reading this would morally support the funding of struggling artists, would support and enjoy independently made and philanthropically funded films, for example.

In other words, in those cases, the common good is thought to be 'art'. Now, fandom and television might not be all there is to life, but I think that art is a pretty big and pretty important part of life. I'm also of the opinion that television lately is increasingly getting the recognition it deserves as an art form, an artist's medium just as valid as film (which is in turn just as valid an art form as painting, sculpting, composing, etc). I personally honestly think that Firefly is a work of art, one that does what I like my works of art to do - have an impact on my life, change my way of thinking, make me look at things differently. I believe it deserves funding as much as any work of art needs funding to be developed.

(The issue of how much money the people making it already have is an issue also, though... something to think about.)

Secondly, issues of fund-raising $24,000,000:

I am going to make this post public, so I'll keep it vague, but lets just say I work at a non-profit organisation that deals with a lot of issues of governance & accountability in the non-profit/charity sector. With the knowledge I have (though my knowledge is primarily Australian, not US, though the same key issues are ISSUES, i think), here are things I am mightily concerned about:

they are planning on fundraising a HUGE amount of money, and yet appear to be organised completely amateurly. If they are serious about this, they ought to set up a legally-recognised organisation whose purpose it is to seek funds (ie. all this fundraising) and also to give funds (ie. fund a specific project - ie. Firefly). This would mean they had a degree of accountability in terms of what is happening to the money and where the money is actually going. (because honestly - if they raise $800,000, for example, i'm not going to be comfortable just having a post on this anonymous website saying "yeah, we donated it to joss's fave charity!")

Setting up a proper organisation for it would mean (and feel free to clarify/correct me on this stuff, I'm going with my own knowledge of Australian & somewhat sparser knowledge of American charity law/structure etc):
- there would have to be transparency as to how the funds were being spent, invested, banked, etc
- they would have to be transparent as to who exactly is running the show/organisation
- quite possibly, there would be tax-related repercussions that come with fundraising that legally need to be taken into account also.

ie. they would be held accountable both to the law and to the supporters as to what is happening with the money that is being raised.

another benefit of setting up an organisation like this would be that if they failed to raise the $24,000,000, or if there was an 'unexpected' obstacle - eg. Fox (or Mutant Enemy, or Joss) objecting to a project such as this, the 'Browncoats Foundation' would be able to engage in effective philanthropy - donate their lump sum of money to a cause they (and their supporters) deem worthy, perhaps even invest it in order to set up a corpus and continue charitable activity further into the future, on behalf of Browncoats who want funding to be given in their name. (there are existing charities/philanthropic bodies set up with this kind of model - pooled donations being directed at certain areas/projects in order to be more effective than just the $1 you put in the tin rattled under your nose.)

Thirdly, but not un-importantly, they're using PayPal:

no. no, no, NO, they should NOT use PayPal. If anyone reading this is considering ever doing charity work through PayPal, read this first. If you don't want to click the link, let me summarise again: somethingawful.com held a fundraiser to generate money for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. It was a giant success, and raised over $30,000 in 9 hours. PayPal, deciding this was suspicious, locked the account, without warning or contact with the account's owner. During a whole lot of non-existent customer service and inefficient paper-work, PayPal was charging interest on the account - which ended up being almost $4000 of the original $30,000. In the end, the owner of the account had all the donations refunded, as PayPal refused to donate the money to the charity of choice, let alone unlock the account.

If you need/want more info on why you shouldn't use PayPal, visit paypalsucks.com.

So, personally, although I support art funding and would love to see more Firefly made; I am unwilling to donate money to an anonymous website, using paypal, with no transparency or accountability evident as to who is running the show and what is happening with the money.

I do not believe that they'll make even $1m; however I think they might have a chance if they took into account the things I've talked about above, and set up a proper organisation (one that had the approval of Joss, etc!).

I'd like to raise all of the above with the people who are running this site/drive, so if you have any input/corrections on what I've said up there, I'd greatly appreciate your comments.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

AMEN.

The sad thing is, this post here? You only scratch the surface of what sort of troubles may ensue from a financial undertaking of this magnitude, even if every person who is ever associated with this project is completely honest, trustworthy, and trying to do the ethical thing with the money.

Just the process of getting proper 501(c)3 status in the U.S. is quite expensive and can take years.

My brain hurts just thinking about it. Och, I'm going to bed.

(Excellent post to use the "rum gone" icon on, though. thanks for this one, again. It's my fave, at the moment.)

Just the process of getting proper 501(c)3 status in the U.S. is quite expensive and can take years.

oh pah. I mean, i wish we had more charity law enforcing transparency/accountability in Australia, but I also wish bureaucracy wasn't so prohibitive for doing good things, yaknow?

how cool would a Browncoats Foundation be, though? how groundbreaking, wonderful for fans! to have something that proved how valid, sound and wonderful fan communities can be.

wheeicon :D

Hmm.

You make a good point that a lot of philanthropic org's donate to arts-oriented stuff. This is good. And people need it. I don't know about Joss being a struggling artist - on the one hand, he created Buffy, one of the best known TV shows of all time; on the other, he can't seem to get a gig with the 'verse. I guess he's in the middle somewhere that funding wouldn't reach him.

While I do understand this arts side to a lot of charity etc, I still think that if people are being encouraged to donate bits of money, they ought to think about whether that little bit of money can be used to really help someone, people who need water and basic shelter. Essentially, should that money be used to try and help the fucked up situation the world is in, before thinking about using it for a tv show.

Of course, I don't spend every spare cent I have on charitable donations. I buy DVDs, and I go to the movies. I enjoy art and entertainment. But I balance that with other uses for my money too. I'm sure a whole lot of people do! But it still concerns me that *all* of this money would be used to make a TV show. Surely they could skim 1% for a charitable donation?

And you're damn right about the way they're going about it - which is another of my big concerns, although I didn't think to write much about it. And yeah, getting Joss to give the nod to it might be nice. Him knowing and saying "hey, it's not a bad idea, it could work" rather than "omg you crazy people, it's okay, stop it!" would be good :)

I think some more on this now.

*massages brain*

true, that 'the common man' probably needs more to be educated on the state of the world and what they can do to help rather than just getting a new tv show.

but you know, personally, if i donated $25 to a legit cause for reinstating firefly, i'd feel like that was similar to, say, buying a dvd or something else as self-serving... and then go out and do my charity giving same as usual, heh.

That second point is quite true - the more I thought this issue over, the more I kind of thought that (if it were organised properly and actually had Joss behind it) that it would be like a preprepre-order of a DVD. You're just buying the DVD before the show's even filmed. It'd be like financing a straight to DVD show, if done correctly.

Anyhow, they've thrown in the towel, by the looks of things.

*refreshes*

huh, yeah. seems so. well, it's sad, but i'm kinda glad they decided to quit early...

like, they ought to use their resources to encourage people to buy more dvds, etc. if people are willing to donate $25/$50, surely they could use that to buy dvds and give them to people who are yet-to-be-initiated?

I'm on the baord of an incorporated body that operates as a not-for-profit body promoting SF in the state. It's a nightmare, and we're operating with a gross annual turnover that's under six figures. I keep thinking of things that this Browncoat Foundation would need to deal with, like insurance and audits. And getting the board I'm on to make a decision is painful. We were supposed to have a barbecue last week, for the board members and their support crews, and the whole process fell to pieces at the budget approval point. It was a barbecue, with sausages and buns, not difficult.

Since you work in the field, you know this better than I do, I'm sure.

och, yis, i feel your pain. bureaucracy is a cruel, cruel mistress. i hope you get your barbecue eventually. *petpet*

I'm in total agreement with all the legal ramifications (of course) and there are a lot of other problems involved too.

You're right, it's a colossal amount of funding. If I were talking to these people because they called me up at work, I'd be advising them to do some checking of the feasibility of raising that much money, and of being able to handle it. It's not just a matter of having a large fan base - it's checking that the fan base is dedicated enough to cough up enough funds to actually get something done, and that is going to involve trust. It wouldn't surprise me if the friends of this bunch of fans are willing to donate, but I can't see your average fan donating to something like this without a lot of proof that the organisation is legit AND that there is some indication that Fox, or Joss, or whoever has to get on board for this to happen, is actually willing to get on board. I know Joss has said he would love to make the show if someone came to him with the cash, but I don't think that constitutes any kind of guarantee.

Other issues I can see straight off... where does the estimate of a million bucks come from, and is it realistic? For all I know, it might be - but does it include insurance, catering, marketing, payroll, all the infrastructure stuff that a company which makes TV has access to from its resources, but which a small independent production might have to go out and source? Who's going to own the bank account, if they don't set it up as an independent organisation, and what impact is that going to have on their income tax - because that money will be taxed if it's going to an individual rather than an organisation. And say they manage to raise the funding, how long will it take, how likely is it that Joss and the actors will be able to be on board and won't have moved on to other long-term projects, and how will they convince Joss and his people of their bona fides?

I don't know they'd get 501 c 3 because the funds would ultimately be going to something that's a profit-making enterprise and company, but setting up some kind of organisation with a proper treasurer and some legal status would be an absolute minimum for a lot of people before they'd fork out $25 to people they didn't know, no matter how good the cause, and even if the people involved were friends or were apparently trustworthy. The Bit of Earth scandal and the cancelled Buffy convention in Adelaide spring to mind as examples of well-intentioned fan events which ended up as a huge mess because they were being run by amateurs with little to no experience who hadn't properly planned the massive effort needed to get their plans going.

It's a lovely idea, but not, IMHO, practical.

thanks for your input - obviously, i appreciate your expertise! you are so good at comprehensively raising the practicalities that need to be addressed.

I agree with all of your points. It would be a great cause to support, since I love the show and I too think it is a form of art, but I would be suspicious of donating money to a disorganized cause. Paypal seems like a system set up for small-money amounts; surely there must be a more efficient means to do it.

Furthermore, even after the money was raised, I am not so sure it would even be picked up by television. What TV really wants is viewers because it's run on advertising, and the more people who watch commercials are the more likely to support the main fuel of TV; and a few people raising a whole lot of money doesn't necessarily equal consistency in viewership over a long period of time. It seems like they're going about it from the backdoor, the other way around - and that's not necessarily the most efficient way to do it in the eyes of a television producer. Even if we are talking about eventual large sums of money. It just seems as if the money that could be raised in such an effort would not be acknowledged by television, but it could be a consideration for some charity event that needs it.

So, in short, I agree and disagree - if that makes sense.

you have some very good points to make about television production. it's a bit easier to fund and distribute independent films ot theatres, but yeah, when it comes to netwok television... it's a bit different. unless they decide to release direct to dvd or something... but still. there is already a huge tangle of copyright difficulties there, i suspect.

thanks for your input. i agree - i'd love to see more firefly, but that desire doesn't really outweight the problems with this plan.

I am so cynical about these kinds of things. Just - so cynical. They always seem to be the brainchildren of people whose heads are in the clouds. I'm not saying I'm not a little idealistic, some days, but. Argh. Anyway, I love your points about it all.

yeah, these kind of things make me a bit cynical, and a bit sad... because their heads are in the clouds, but their hearts are in the right place (most of the time). I just wish it were that easy.

I clicked on the link, and they've shut down the donations. I guess they did encounter all of the legal problems.

this is an old-ass entry that i had to track down, but i was reading star trek lives!, a sort of in-the-moment history of star trek fandom (published in 1975), and i just read this, in the context of fans banding together for common goals:

"They march in parades, circulate petitions, form organizations, think up crazy stunts. . . They even offer to take up a collection and give Gene Roddenberry the money to produce new episodes. (He had to decline for legal reasons.)"

fascinating. not only has it been done before, but it definitely did not work. i wonder if the people behind the fundraising had heard of this earlier case.

anyway yeah, just wanted to share. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only