People are pissed. The new trend that’s got everyone heated is the rise of celebrities using online crowdfunding platforms, like Kickstarter or Indiegogo, to fund their high-budget passion projects. Popular history suggests these platforms are for “the little guys,” or those left out of other funding sources, to have a place to find funds for their creative projects. And fund they do. According to Kickstarter’s website, over $798 million have been given to over 48,000 projects. Except $5,702,153 of that went to Rob Thomas’ campaign to make a Veronica Mars movie.
So, I get the sentiment. Do celebrities the likes of Spike Lee or Zach Braff or James Franco really need to ask for our money (and I’m talking millions) to fund their passion or fan projects? I mean Vin Diesel just refinanced his home to fund Riddick, so how come others can’t find ways to foot their own bills?
Kickstarter emphasizes “independent” projects. And therein lies one of the problems. Ultimately, Kickstarter has a financial interest in larger budget projects and gets around 5 percent from successfully funded campaigns. So, keeping the definition of independent, let’s say “open” is worth their while (cough, bottom line). So, then who is indie? On one hand, Spike Lee is a celebrity and a successful filmmaker. On the other, Lee, though high profile, has a history of self-funding, working both within and outside of the mainstream. Looking at the path of his career, he justifiably considers himself an independent filmmaker. Should his bank account, which I might add we don’t know anything about, though is presumably larger than mine or yours (no judgment), segregate him from using this populist-spirited funding source?
In reality, how much cash celebrities — or any of the other users — have access to has nothing to do with the legitimacy of their Kickstarter campaigns or the quality of their projects. And celebrity doesn’t guarantee they will be funded (looking at you Melissa Joan Hart or Mamet sisters recent music video fail). If personal finances mattered then it would also matter how much money everyone else who started a Kickstarter campaign had. You feel the slope getting slippery? And who gets to determine this sort of exclusivity? I, personally, can think of a number of projects I was invited to donate to by artists whose parents, I suspect, could probably have footed the bill. But again, that’s not the point.
Ironically, it’s not all about the money. Sure, with star power there also comes a social and professional economy that is paired with a public trust (and a solid dose of skepticism). Ultimately, because of their established careers they have more access to people who can, have and will continue to take financial risks on them. So could celebrities find other avenues for funding and leave online crowdfunding to the socially un-elite? Sure they could, but why would they? If it works for you, why shouldn’t it work for them?