![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.