The Biracy Project

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your response, I appreciate it.

I guess I want to begin by clarifying that the purpose of my blog is to analyse what various filmmakers are doing to fund films and build audience, highlighting innovative ideas, and trying to discern what the ideal future model for indie filmmakers might be. The filmmakers I look at each have their own methodology, usually combinations of a variety of freemium, crowd funding, crowd sourcing, social networking, digital distribution and transmedia techniques. While I am aware that there is no one single ‘right’ model, I do hope that through the process of so much experimentation, and sharing of lessons learned from both successes and failures, in a couple years there will be a few systems that stand out as best chance models.

My comments on Biracy were therefore not intended as criticism, but as a case study for other filmmakers to take inspiration and learn from. As with other innovative filmmakers, there are exciting elements of the Biracy / Sokap model ripe for imitation, while other elements could be bettered (imho).

Before when I used the word “transparency” perhaps I should have used the word “clarity” instead. It seems to me that while you know what the Biracy project is and how it works, the details haven’t been communicated very clearly on the Biracy website to the public. This is what is causing the confusion.

It’s interesting that you mention the project has been largely limited to family and friends so far. My perception was that Biracy was actively trying to gain sign ups, as I’ve seen numerous links in public forums, online news articles, and the website seems geared towards a larger audience (with encouragement for members to refer as many people as possible, which will quickly lead to many stages of separation). I would suggest having some kind of “count down” to launch, so that members signing up at this point know that it is not yet in operation mode, will have a better sense of timelines, and understand where they fit in the process.

I understand the difference between the Sokap platform and the Biracy project. What I see are complications occurring because you’re so focussed on your objectives of testing the Sokap platform while not fully understanding the needs or motivations of potential members investing in Biracy.

Before I signed up, I spent a couple hours on the website reading through the Biracy pitch, Q&A, the T&Cs, and so on. I am not a casual observer – I was studying it with the intent to blog about it, with a Masters degree I am more educated than the average person, and as a freelancer and filmmaker I deal with contracts several times a year. If I could not find the answer to pertinent questions, how would the average moviegoer fare?

For example, you may have decided from “day 1” that it would be a sci-fi film, but this is not communicated on the Biracy website. As I’m not one of your family or friends, and I wasn’t involved with the Biracy facebook group during the poll period, I was not privy to any information about this decision on genre. It wasn’t until I had signed up – after I’d paid my $25 – that I found in the members password protected area that it was a sci-fi project. There is no option that I can see to “opt out” if I don’t like this genre.

Rather than ‘acting as’ the filmmakers for the Biracy trial, I imagine it would be more effective to have partnered with a filmmaker who had a project that met the criteria in need of funding. This is what attracts audience – knowing who the filmmakers are, knowing what the project is, or, in the case of member participation, knowing the participation methods that will work to decide these things according to an established schedule. The crowd who paid money to The Age of Stupid or participated in Star Wreck didn’t do it because they were ‘moviegoers’ or ‘fans of social media’ – they did it because they believed in the specific project.

Of key importance in crowd funding is the need to lower barriers of entry to encourage maximum participation. Newspapers are written so that a 12 year old could understand them, thereby maximising potential readership to welcome even someone with simple literacy skills. However, it should be noted that simplicity of language and communication design doesn’t prevent discussion on all manner of sophisticated issues. A website aimed at a crowd should likewise be designed so that anyone visiting it can quickly understand what it is all about. And a contract, terms and conditions, aimed at a crowd should be written in simple language, not legalese requiring consultation with a lawyer (even if legally you must recommend one).

What does an uninitiated visitor to the Biracy website have communicated to them?
There is no information about the movie they are being asked to invest in. No mention of genre or story options. No schedule of events. No listing of the filmmakers that you’ve named in your response (though some are listed as ‘the management team’ in non filmmaking roles).

Instead, the focus is all on the “system,” going into great detail about the referral system, virtual currencies, and membership levels. Communication is murky about where the line is drawn between the movie the members are actually investing in versus the greater platform that involves multiple films, “We know how great movies get made, so we’re lining up a few for you to choose from.”

An unusually large proportion of communication focuses on how members make money from referrals, skewing this to appear to be a key motivator for membership. I think this is what the Redusers were reacting against: there is nothing in this part of the communication that has to do with making a film. And the mindset of someone joining to ‘make money’ is different to someone joining for belief in a project, especially when the money gained from referrals is arbitrary to the film’s success. While I like the notion of rewarding referrals, I think it should be a body copy ‘bonus’ benefit rather than a headline.

From where I sit, the distribution of proceeds are still not clear.
a) The terms and conditions are laid out in a way that makes reading the detail quite difficult. Can you expect the average person to follow this explanation of proceeds?

b) I understand that from an administrative perspective it could be hell to pay out 1 million people small amounts of profit returns, burning up the profit in the process, and ideologically it makes sense to reinvest in future films instead – you’re certainly within your rights to choose not to give cash returns.

However, I don’t understand why it is legally okay for you to distribute money to people for referrals, but not legally okay to similarly give them a share of film profits in cash. I know that there are ways you could structure returns without putting you “offside” legally, so this is not a reasonable explanation in itself.

From a reader point of view, it’s sends mixed messages to headline “make money” on the front page, say that the majority of profits will go back to members, but then in the finer print reveal that the returns will be as reward points, without much detail on how that will work.

c) Reward points are contentious because members have limited choice in how they spend their returns: it is up to Biracy to decide what is available for “sale,” how much things “cost,” and it exists outside normal marketplace rules. This set up, without a pre established “store” showing options, asks for a huge amount of trust from potential members.

d) It is also not clear how much effort a member will have to make to gain reward points, or how these points are calculated. I had expected that my $25 membership would come with some start up points, but actually, now I see that is not the case. The film could go into profit without the majority of members gaining any points return.

e) That 75% of return (going to members) info is buried deep in the terms and conditions, and doesn’t clearly explain who the other 25% of returns goes to. Where does the extra 25% go?

f) Also buried deep in the T&Cs is a clause stating that 50% of proceeds after “termination date” to go to Binoir, with remaining 50% to a charity at Binoir’s discretion. I’ve spent quite a while scanning the contract, and cannot easily see a definition of when the “termination date” is or what exactly it means.

So, I guess, rather than an issue of ‘transparency, it is perhaps more one of clarity and communication design. Some of the pertinent details should be brought out of the t&cs to be explained up front in easy to understand language. You should also consider what is most important for people to understand at first glance, what will motivate them to become involved, and give that primary focus.

By the way, your own film credentials don’t come up in IMDB. Rather than being offended, I suggest you put yourself in the shoes of a cynic and answer the question in a way that will put their doubts to rest. I have ten years of involvement with the film industry, but recognise that almost all my work has been in development of projects that didn’t come to fruition, and, as such, I wouldn’t expect anyone to consider me ‘experienced’ as I don’t have the credits to back it. If you don’t have obvious credits, expect there to be questions, and find a way to address them that doesn’t sound as defensive as quoting a number of unverified years. It’s not just filmmakers who use IMDB as a source of movie information.

I admire what you’re trying to do in terms of building the Sokap platform, and the referral reward system is a novel idea that I’m sure others will begin copying. However, I’m not sure you’ll be successful gaining 1 million paying members for a ‘social experiment’ in itself. For the Biracy test to work and be relevant, I think you need to take off your Sokap hat, and start presenting the film project to an extent as you would any other film project.

People need to believe in the value of the specific film that they are getting involved with. There is more than one filmmaker trying to crowdfund and/or crowdsouce, why follow Biracy over another? It will most likely come down to the movie they want to see as a moviegoer, or a topic they believe in, or a connection with the filmmakers themselves. And then there is the majority of the public who are hard pressed to understand why they should hand over their hard cash as the beginning, when they could just go see a movie at their local theatre right now.

To invest their money and time, they need clarity on what exactly it will buy them. The Cosmonaught is one example of filmmakers providing clear and comprehensive information about their crowdfund model and the benefits given to investors. The Fandom Experience focuses on selling the ‘experience’ of involvement, with members gaining a dvd and comic book in addition to this experience. As mentioned earlier, The Age of Stupid is a third example. Their explanations of member benefits are simple, unconvoluted, and easy for anyone to understand without having to scrutinise the fine print. That’s not to say they are better models, I just think they have the “clarity” issue under control in a way that Biracy doesn’t yet.

I would add that projects that offer profit returns to members, whether by rewards or money, should in my opinion also outline planned distribution and monetisation of the project. Asking anyone to invest, whether $25 or $25 million, should provide a some type of investor Information Memorandum that outlines recoupment strategies (just as any other business would). If 1 million people invest, they hope they’re not just throwing their money away, they want a proper plan in place to make the film a success, with profits flowing back so they don’t have to keep putting their own money in for each project.

Or at least that’s what I reckon, would be closer to an ‘ideal’ situation.

However, I didn’t previously realise that Biracy was so “early stages”, and this in part explains why things are where they are at. Running a project like Biracy must take a huge amount of time and resources, and until your membership increases significantly you’re running on empty. I don’t envy you!

All the best,
Luci