Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
The success of this DIY release (which took $1 million in 12 days
5
) seemed to
establish an impressive precedent: however, a sensible amateur might think, 'well
that worked for the already-established comedian, Louis C.K. - but I'm not Louis
C.K.'. In a blog post entitled 'We're not Louis C.K. - and you can be too!',
6
the
makers of
Indie Game: The Movie
discuss this reservation, from the standpoint that
they managed to have a successful DIY-released movie without already being well-
known movie makers. As they point out: 'Even Louis C.K. wasn't “Louis C.K.”
until he was “Louis C.K.”'. Nevertheless, they note that they, like him, did work
very hard, establishing their skills and their contacts over a number of years, build-
ing up the position which would enable their eventual success. So, on the one hand,
it is obviously the case that not everyone can spontaneously generate a big DIY hit.
But it
is
the case that new online platforms enable crowdfunding and DIY distribu-
tion opportunities which help talented and dedicated people to break through with-
out having to gain the support of others already embedded in mainstream media
businesses.
7
Of course, the potential of online crowdfunding goes beyond individual creators
wishing to realise their publishing or fi lm projects. A really notable tool that was
made possible by Kickstarter is MaKey MaKey, 'An Invention Kit for Everyone',
which enables children and adults to use everyday objects as input devices for a
computer, and so use food, cutlery, or pets as interfaces for the internet. A popular
5
Details at
https://buy.louisck.net/news/a-statement-from-louis-c-k
and
https://buy.louisck.net/
7
A simple way of thinking about the economics of this kind of thing was offered by Kevin Kelly in
2008
, in a blog post entitled '1,000 True Fans'. Kelly suggests that a creator 'needs to acquire only
1,000 True Fans to make a living'. A 'True Fan' is defi ned as 'someone who will purchase anything
and everything you produce'. Kelly explains:
Assume conservatively that your True Fans will each spend one day's wages per year in
support of what you do. That 'one-day-wage' is an average, because of course your truest
fans will spend a lot more than that. Let's peg that per diem each True Fan spends at $100
per year. If you have 1,000 fans that sums up to $100,000 per year, which minus some mod-
est expenses, is a living for most folks.
This sounds promising, although in subsequent posts ('The Reality of Depending on True Fans'
and 'The Case Against 1,000 True Fans') Kelly had to admit that for artists bumping along at this
level of success, with no security and a rather continuous need to generate products or ticket sales
to avoid the drift into poverty, this is an uncomfortable existence. Conversely, as one commenter
said:
In the old environment most musicians weren't making any money anyway or had debts to
the record companies. And they did not have control over rights [to their own work]. At least
some things have changed for the better now. ('Max', 11 May 2010)
Certainly, a lot of comments on these posts referred to the pleasure of
control
over an artistic
career, and 'making a living' from it, with a meaningful connection to some people who love the
work, even if the artist is not having big hits.
