Kickstarter for Soul Doctor - a new musical

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!

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

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.

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.

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.)

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...

And it's a damn shame too.

---

"Why do you take such issue with this?"

Why are you so worried about what other people think?

---

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

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

I gave $1 for the lulz.

---

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.)