Summary of Weekly Q&A #1 with Dave Geertz of Biracy

This Question and Answer video session was extremely helpful for me. It is no suprise that as a start up, the Biracy team faces a multitude of priorities clamouring for immediate attention. Using the video format to respond directly to salient questions is a great way of getting the right information out there and clearly indicating that the team are indeed listening to what members and critics are saying. In the video Dave Geertz points out that this is the first such Q&A session, but that it will likely be a regular feature. It seems like a good way to continue to develop the sense of community in the project.

This week's theme? "Is This An Investment?"

Dave answers some really great questions about why crowdfunding IS NOT investing. He covers the legalities of why it isn't, and why it can't be. The questions are coming from filmmakers, publicists and even an indie film festival organizer and their experience and knowledge is well-displayed in their questions. As a 'lay' film fan it helps me get a better idea of how films really get made and where some of the major hurdles lie.

Aside from learning about the ways in which this project is not about investing, but rather about buying a product, a further revelation for me was that the membership structure has evolved further. When I signed up the difference between the membership tiers were as follows:
$25 got you the 'Player': "voting privileges, full access to project materials, exclusive copy of the finished film, 3 levels of referral network."
$50 got you the 'Icon': "voting privileges, full access to project materials, exclusive copy of the finished film, 4 levels of referral network."
$100 got you the 'Mogul': "voting privileges, full access to project materials, exclusive copy of the finished film, 5 levels of referral network."
$200 got you the 'Titan': "voting privileges, full access to project materials, exclusive copy of the finished film, 6 levels of referral network, unique biracy™ ID and more."

So essentially the differences lay in the commission structure returns where the attractiveness of paying more was simply to encourage those keen on the promotional and reward aspect of the project to engage more. However, Dave's response to Ross Pruden's question reveals that the Biracy team have added products to increase the value of each tier. I do hope they add this to their 'Biracy Tour' as I think they're good selling points.
Additions are as follows:
Player: referral income, access to project materials and a copy of the film.
Icon: referral income, access to project materials, the film, and the documentary.
Mogul: referral income, access to project materials, the film, the documentary and and score.
Titan: referral income, access to project materials, the film, the documentary, the score, and the book.

Film industry publicist Sherri Candler's question about how the fans earn money elicits an answer from Dave which shifted my perspective slightly (another reason why I like this format). He refers to the fans (in their promotional role) as 'Sales Agents' who earn commission. Thinking about my role here as a sales agent clear me of any niggling guilt about the referring aspect of the biracy project.
As Dave later goes on to explain, this process; this entire film that will be made is an experiment - a pilot project. Should it succeed it will be the shining example that crowdfunding CAN and DOES work. What I think needs to be made more clear int he whole biracy project advertising is that this is Step One for the founders. They are planning much greater things than making one movie. In fact this pilot project is a test to see if the funding (and fan collaboration) model works. If it does, they'll open the doors on the greater project - SoKap (abbreviated Social Kapitalist) a platform which will allow other filmmakers to list their project with SoKap and run their own crowdfunding promotion to raise the finances and develop the audience. So really, selling this project just got a whole bunch more interesting. Cause if you're interested in alternatives to traditional film funding options, you should be laying down the measly $25 to try and make this work. It's the philanthropic thing to do!

So hooray to the team for offering us this Q&A session. I hope that the next one is equally as enlightening. I also hope that the results are illuminating for the team too, that they get to see where their excellent ideas might be getting lost in the advertising. My suggestion? Make the greater picture (SoKap) more clear!

Over and Out.
JennyAnyDots

PS Ross Pruden (one of the contributors to this week's Q&A) gives an excellent review of the session on his blog here.

The two part Q&A vids are here: