I wonder about a potential content delivery system that works like the stock market/investing.
If a group or person wanted to make a song, movie or video game, people who cared would contribute 1$. If the group got a certain amount, enough to get them started, they could set the amount, say 20K, as a starting point, when reached they'd make the song public.
Later on they could increase their cap from 20K contributions of 1$ as more than 20K people pay in, or the more people over 20K people that pay in those people who initially put in 1$ would be refunded. So after 20K contributions say 100K, all the 1$ people get a refund of 80 cents. They could keep it or put it back into the authors account for more content. Whatever terms are agreed upon basically.
I'm thinking about it because games and songs especially are things that people don't want to spend big money on. Frankly they aren't worth the investment half the time. But mainly I'm wondering about the refund potential since a group that's more interested in rolling capital so that can keep doing what they love instead of being in it for the money, can set reasonable caps on how much money will be made from a song or game.
But at the same time, if 20K gets you started, but you for whatever reason fall short... what happens if you need more investment or decide you want more profit, or don't even bother putting the content out.
I'm thinking the accounts would have to managed by an impartial 3rd party.. for whatever reason I thought of Google first, then Apple (iTunes) or Amazon. They'd be the point of sale anyway.
In the example case of a starting fund of 20K (by 1$ ), that's not much profit at all. If there are 1 million contributions though, then yeah, the author makes some money (if all he needed was the 20K). Before it goes live though the author could bump the contribution level up to 5$ or 10$. So again like the stock market, those initial 20K paid at 1$ would get a hell of a refund.
Then, for games especially people would be compelled to put their refunds into DLC packs which drive sales of the game because of the added value they bring to the game.
More importantly people would be willing to make those initial contributions in the first place. It could get nasty though if those first 20K starter contributions, and any bumps later on before they start hitting normal prices ($30 to $50), are presold only to certain groups. Where everyone should get a chance to be an early contributor. Either because they actually care about the games enough to pre-order (which people do now) or because they know a certain game will far exceed sales expectations.
I'm looking at it also for TV shows, because after a pilot airs people might be willing to buy into a whole season, and not leave it up to networks. How many times does it happen that a show that had potential, after a pilot and a few good episodes, with no reason given? At least if the public can make contributions (which sounds like public television) for network shows that don't do well, they can be publicly funded so the network doesn't have to carry the whole burden. Where I assume they lose interest or can't secure the marketing to ensure a full season even though there's public interest in the show.
If a group or person wanted to make a song, movie or video game, people who cared would contribute 1$. If the group got a certain amount, enough to get them started, they could set the amount, say 20K, as a starting point, when reached they'd make the song public.
Later on they could increase their cap from 20K contributions of 1$ as more than 20K people pay in, or the more people over 20K people that pay in those people who initially put in 1$ would be refunded. So after 20K contributions say 100K, all the 1$ people get a refund of 80 cents. They could keep it or put it back into the authors account for more content. Whatever terms are agreed upon basically.
I'm thinking about it because games and songs especially are things that people don't want to spend big money on. Frankly they aren't worth the investment half the time. But mainly I'm wondering about the refund potential since a group that's more interested in rolling capital so that can keep doing what they love instead of being in it for the money, can set reasonable caps on how much money will be made from a song or game.
But at the same time, if 20K gets you started, but you for whatever reason fall short... what happens if you need more investment or decide you want more profit, or don't even bother putting the content out.
I'm thinking the accounts would have to managed by an impartial 3rd party.. for whatever reason I thought of Google first, then Apple (iTunes) or Amazon. They'd be the point of sale anyway.
In the example case of a starting fund of 20K (by 1$ ), that's not much profit at all. If there are 1 million contributions though, then yeah, the author makes some money (if all he needed was the 20K). Before it goes live though the author could bump the contribution level up to 5$ or 10$. So again like the stock market, those initial 20K paid at 1$ would get a hell of a refund.
Then, for games especially people would be compelled to put their refunds into DLC packs which drive sales of the game because of the added value they bring to the game.
More importantly people would be willing to make those initial contributions in the first place. It could get nasty though if those first 20K starter contributions, and any bumps later on before they start hitting normal prices ($30 to $50), are presold only to certain groups. Where everyone should get a chance to be an early contributor. Either because they actually care about the games enough to pre-order (which people do now) or because they know a certain game will far exceed sales expectations.
I'm looking at it also for TV shows, because after a pilot airs people might be willing to buy into a whole season, and not leave it up to networks. How many times does it happen that a show that had potential, after a pilot and a few good episodes, with no reason given? At least if the public can make contributions (which sounds like public television) for network shows that don't do well, they can be publicly funded so the network doesn't have to carry the whole burden. Where I assume they lose interest or can't secure the marketing to ensure a full season even though there's public interest in the show.