Kickstarter for Soul Doctor - a new musical- Page 1

[karmachameleon2]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 12:42pm

It looks really interesting. Anyone thinking of donating?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andersonenvy/soul-doctor-broadway-launch?ref=live

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 12:47pm

I don't know if I'll have the funds to donate myself at the moment, due to impending graduate school costs, but I'll be closely monitoring this project's success, as I have always thought about funding one of my new works with a Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign.

If I get a sudden windfall or unexpected bonus, though, I may kick some back!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 1:14pm

Couldn't you just admit that you are involved? NO WAY that you just happened to join today and also just HAPPENED to notice a brand new Kickstarter campaign.

Full disclosure goes a long way, here and in life.

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 1:39pm

Dramamama has a point. We take less kindly to shills than we do to ambitious artists trying to fund their work openly and honestly.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 1:41pm

How do you plan to pay back the investors?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 1:55pm

This is a troubling (but not unusual) use of Kickstarter. The show is a for-profit enterprise that is now seeking (non-deductible) "donations." Yet if it is successful, the actual producers and investors will profit from the donations. I can think of better ways to spend my money.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 3:14pm

Hence my post above yours: "How do you plan to pay back the investors?" And by investors, I mean the people coming to his Kickstarter.

Updated On: 7/22/12 at 03:14 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 3:23pm

I don't know why you're asking that question, gdelphi, unless to be difficult. The link plainly states what one gets for one's donations. DONATIONS, not investment. Any other return on the money isn't even remotely implied.

I saw this last year in New Orleans. It was, in fact, pretty good - but no, I won't be donating. I think they should find another way to fund themselves.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 3:41pm

I'm not asking to be difficult, I'm asking as a producer interested in the possibilities of crowd funding who has so far seen it as less than feasible, legally speaking. If this guy (or gal)'s got a workable plan, it's like the old saying: "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your doorway."

However, HogansHero does adequately sum up the point I was trying to make: Kickstarter is mainly designed for smaller, not-for-profit ventures, and though usage in the way Soul Doctor is trying to use it is not unknown, this show is a for-profit enterprise that is now seeking (non-deductible) "donations." If it is successful, who is going to profit? The actual so-called producers and investors? Or is anybody getting a slice of the pie they made? This venture, so far as I can tell, is of no less questionable legality than previous contenders.

You yourself said you wouldn't be donating because they should find another way to fund themselves! Why are you yellin' at me? :P

Updated On: 7/22/12 at 03:41 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 3:47pm

In reality, these "donations" are income, and have to be booked as such by the producing entity, even though there is nothing really being provided in exchange for the income. It's like walking into the Apple store and dropping a ten on the counter because you think their products are pretty. (On a smaller scale.)

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 3:55pm

Which means the actual so-called producers and investors get shinola, and the benefactors providing "donations" get ****. Sounds bogus to me.

[dexter3]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 3:57pm

If they were trying to raise...$10,000, maybe...I could understand the producers trying to raise a supplement to their fundraising. BUT, $50,000?!?!?!? Puh-lease. They will not be raising $50,000 for this musical on kickstarter. Ain't no way!

An seriously, show us more of the show, not crowd interviews, come on...

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 3:57pm

I agree with HogansHeros point, but you're being disingenuous asking how people who donate will be reimbursed, when from that site it is very clear that there will be no further reimbursement beyond the coffee mug, t-shirt, etc.

"This venture, so far as I can tell, is of no less questionable legality than previous contenders."

This is really your point. Don't be coy - just say so and be done with it. No one is being hoodwinked here. If someone wants to GIVE them a helping hand, there is absolutely nothing in that kickstarter statement that suggests any possibility of reimbursement.






Updated On: 7/22/12 at 03:57 PM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 4:20pm

And it's a damn shame too.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 4:28pm

Why do you take such issue with this? I don't see any thing bogus, shady or illegal about it. Anyone who donates does get something for their money, and that something is very clearly stated. I think it's ridiculous that their goal is so high (and I doubt seriously that they'll make it), but what is it to you how they get their money?
Some video from when it was Schlomo the musical.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 4:54pm

"Why do you take such issue with this?"

Why are you so worried about what other people think?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 4:59pm

I'm not remotely worried. I am curious. gdephi has a record on this board for attacking people for the way they do business. I wonder why that is, and I'd like him to elucidate rather than simply cast aspersions.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 5:06pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. -- I even separate it with marks. Just a minor nitpick.

As for my major nitpick... these people already have a (limited) following. Why aren't they just raising the small money in regular shares?

As HogansHero pointed out, these non-deductible "donations" are income, and have to be booked as such by the producing entity, even though there is nothing really being provided in exchange for the income. And like dexter3, I could see if it was a small supplement to their investment, but they're asking for $50,000, which is not small potatoes by anybody's estimation. Seems to me like a way to raise a significant portion of their investment without having to pay back the investors under the guise of Kickstarter rules and regulations, and the veil of questionable legality.

Crowd funding does not work, at least on a large scale and/or in a professional situation. New legislation regarding crowd funding was being tabled and put in place, but the problem is that those doing so are not looking at the future impact. And the future impact is as follows -- the law will be unenforceable, and summarily overturned.

Even if you can make a variant in the process, because of the sheer atypical number of the limited partners, it cannot, in good faith, be reasonably, efficiently, honestly, or legally administrated de facto, by virtue of what was -- up until now -- a structural abnormality (e.g., a plethora of too many, too tiny, etc., atypical investors). Never mind the set-up; based on standard investment practices, when you try to administrate it, a felony will be committed. Bet the farm on that.

Whether or not extant laws allow for its legality for a brief time in history, the prior long-standing laws regarding investment in entertainment projects/incorporation were based veridically in these cases on underlying structural tenets, and therefore will be found equally and rapidly illegal shortly, if not based on the fundraising statutes, then on the next immediately proximate level of statutes which dictate the efficient, legal, efficacious distribution of funds and dividends to limited partners, which is now, by virtue of this inherent structural statute floor, de facto impossible, and impossible for a subject matter expert* to assume in good faith.

* Which is what you become when you're a producer, irregardless of the emendation of a couple of fundraising statutes.

Updated On: 7/22/12 at 05:06 PM

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 5:18pm

As far as I know, and I know several people who have used Kickstarter and Indiegogo, the point is not building a better mousetrap, but building a cheaper, easier mousetrap that works slower but on a different level.

These people are not investing in a show, or becoming producers of a show. Really, what they're doing is a more legally-friendly twist on the Ken Davenport crowd-funding method, without some of the more dubious wrinkles in that project.

People are willingly and knowingly donating, not investing, for these projects. They know that their compensation will be less than that of a standard "investor/angel," but they're okay with that, and they traditionally recieve some project-centric compensation.

It's not cheating anybody, or committing any crimes as far as I can see- it's just trying a new way of doing an old thing, on a smaller scale.

However, I will say this: I don't think "Soul Doctor" will be raising $50,000 and transferring to Broadway. That's not a knock against the show. It's just that if you don't raise all the money, you get NONE of the money, and this funding method is designed for much less expensive, smaller-scale projects. If you needed $10,000 for "Soul Doctor" in Philly or Pittsburgh, I could see that happening. But it seems you may be shooting a bit high this time.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 5:23pm

Well, Greg, does this listing fit that description? Based on what I see, it looks like a fishing expedition, and if so, nefarious purposes can be construed by the desired goal even if none are intended, for which my humble apologies if none are intended. But yeah -- 50 grand. Not gonna happen.

Updated On: 7/22/12 at 05:23 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 5:25pm

In case anyone was curious: No money. Yet.

[binau]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 5:29pm

I gave $1 for the lulz.

[beltingbaritone]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 5:32pm

It looks really interesting. Anyone thinking of donating?

Shoshana Bean's was more interesting. Pass.

[temms]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 5:40pm

This certainly makes me raise my eyebrows a bit.

First off, what is the $50K going for? They say it's for a "Broadway Launch" but what does that mean? It's obviously a fraction of what it would cost to actually produce on Broadway - at a very conservative $5M for a musical that is 1% of the capital. So obviously this is Front Money (early money that is allowed to be used to before the full capitalization is raised to get things going), not money to produce the show on Broadway.

There are specific legal requirements as to how you can obtain and use Front Money, governed by Federal and State laws (and each state is different.) If this moves to a commercial production produced under a Regulation D corporation (as almost all Broadway shows are), I can't imagine how this doesn't open a huge regulatory can of worms.

Second, they seem to imply that the show is being produced by NY Theatre Workshop, which according to the Kickstarter proposal is "a closely watched venue which previously was home to the original New York productions of Rent, Book of Mormon , Once and Peter and the Dreamcatcher."

Let's leave off that the guy asking for $50K to launch a musical doesn't know that's it's "Starcatcher" (and if he makes that kind of easy mistake on a Kickstarter pitch, how can we trust him not make bigger mistakes on much more important things?), but three of those productions mentioned were actually produced by NYTW whereas "Soul Doctor" seems to merely be renting the space as an outside production. A very different scenario, and rather misleading.

Typically, people who invest Front Money in a production participate MORE than usual in the final profits, they don't just get T-Shirts and coffee mugs; the standard deal for Front Money is that you get back the money, you get a piece of the profits equal to the value of your investment, PLUS you get additional points on the producer's side over and above the investment as an incentive for taking an early risk.

So, illegal? Probably not, at this point. Will it cause problems if the production moves on? I don't know for sure, but I'd be curious what an experienced theatrical attorney or General Manager with Broadway credits would think of this plan. Poorly intentioned? I don't think so. Shady? In my opinion, very much so.

(One day I'll write a short post. I swear.)

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/22/12 at 5:47pm

And temms wins the thread. Thank you, good sir, for your input.