Indie artists and social funding services
Well-intentioned social funding started(?), arguably, from successful cases like sellaband — a service for indie music artists in the U.S.
Because of that, many startups at home and abroad are making attempts. For talented artists, it becomes an opportunity, and for fans, through this kind of funding they get a chance to indirectly take part in the artist's work, feeling their own sense of achievement and a chance to communicate directly with the artists they love.
... But ultimately, what I want to say is that for still-growing indie artists, this kind of service can actually be a rather risky prescription.
Since the entity running the funding service is a startup, the in-service foot traffic is very small. The same difficulty, I think, applies even to large portals.
Actually, personally, this is also the reason I am very cautious about the methodology of '(1) benchmarking' and the approach of '(2) good intentions.' (-> 1) Because unless you are the main person in charge on the inside of the service you are benchmarking, you do not know the core concept and ultimate goals of that service. You derive conclusions by merely looking at and analyzing the tool, frame, or platform as it is being served. Because any service, by going through the process of collecting and reflecting customer feedback, can never have a truly finished version. (Because of that, even the person in charge there cannot cleanly judge the current state.) All around us, we frequently see various knockoffs of KakaoTalk, or services that chase after the App Store, the iPhone, or their platforms. (-> 2) We need to think together, and very carefully, about the point that through my good intention, a service aimed at a minority can breed a smaller minority within that minority.
So am I just going to raise problems and stop?
No. Clumsy as it is, let me mention just one alternative. The core problem I raised is "risk of failure." One response, taking the example of an indie music festival in a partial way, is like this.
> Current progression on a certain site
as-is: Each artist's application -> review -> funding mission registration -> customer participation -> period ends -> success or failure
to-be: Artist(s)' music registered -> customer participation (bundling matching bands or "likes")
-> when it reaches a certain level -> mission automatically completed
> Tip
The hurdles of as-is are: (1) the artist writes a stiff application form: will they really enjoy it? (2) they themselves form a festival team and register a mission: the customer does not want certain bands, yet has to fund? (3) after going to the trouble of funding and checking in every day, the mission fails: both artist and customer frustrated, disappointment in funding, a negative perception.
The advantages of to-be: (1) there is no concept of failure. (2) the customer only has to press "like." (3) the customer just listens to the music they like, rather than dealing with a mission. (4) the customer discovers other bands similar to the music they like. (5) similar indie artists gather together. And their own festival ends up creating their own new genre.
(...abridged)
In short, focus on "social," not "funding."
Funding is just a process for the artist. (To add:) "Social" is the tool; the goal is to open a festival that becomes the core of the artist's creative activity. The intent is customer participation. I hope that point is not forgotten.
Other solutions I deliberately keep private, but... the reason I am posting this openly is because I hope they (the indie bands + the service planners working with them) do well.. (Of course, most people will probably think this is useless.. haha)
