Public radio’s Marketplace program had a segment on yet another social networking and collective action web site that promises to change the way we interact and organize. This one has significant implications for some of the core functions of arts organizations.
The Point seeks to solve a vexing challenge for group action: confirming the critical mass to do something or buy something before you do it or buy it. For example, a social service organization might want to buy a new refrigerator, but wouldn’t want to do so until they’re sure they’ve got the contributions to pay for it. And prospective donors don’t want to give money unless they’re assured the refrigerator will actually get bought. Or, a group would like to threaten a boycott of some company, but has no leverage until they prove that they have lots of consumers on board — there’s no action without a large collective commitment, and there’s no collective without the action.
There are two ways around this classic problem. One is to act through a formal institution, which brings its own budget and staff to float the cost and absorb the risk. The other is to get some binding conditional commitment from enough people to accomplish the goal once the threshold is reached.
The Point works to solve the problem the second way (its name is a reference to the ”Tipping Point”). Anyone can start a campaign (for a boycott, a collective purchase, a fundraiser, and so on), and then individuals can conditionally commit to that campaign: ”if you reach your threshold of people or money, I’m in.”
It may not sound transformative for the professional arts, but it most certainly could be. Consider this: What if you wanted to bring a professional performing artist to town for a show? A year ago, you’d need a performing arts presenter to find them, contract them, commit to paying them, and then drum up the ticket sales and contributions to make it viable. If the presenter falls short, they eat the difference, and hope that another show earns above its budget.
Now consider the entirely different organizing model for touring professional performances offered by The Point. An individual or informal group could propose bringing Ani DiFranco, or Royal Shakespeare Company, or Hubbard Street Dance to town on a certain day in a certain venue, and post the idea as a campaign on-line. Those who would buy a ticket or contribute to the performance could enter their credit card on-line. If enough people signed on with enough money, the contract would close and their cards would be charged. If not, the show wouldn’t come.
It’s a modern-day version of the old Community Concerts model, where a community group would sell season subscriptions, and book the artists after they knew how many tickets they sold. But it happens without the board and staff required of the original model.
Institutions exist, in part, to resolve the complexity of collective action, to bridge the distance between an idea and its completion, and to mediate the many transaction costs and risks along the way. Systems like The Point provide one less reason we need institutions to do the things they do now…arts institutions included.
Also sounds similar to the practice of assembling subscribers prior to the publication of books and music in the 18th century.
Net-savvy youngsters in film and music are using this method on-line to build capital for, well, producing films and albums. See http://www.sellaband.com/ for an example of this.
I looked over the site and even joined a campaign. Then it occurred to me: how do I know that only reputable and bona fide organizations are using The Point to raise money.
I couldn’t tell what kind of safeguards the administrators use to keep out con artists looking for a “savvy” way to fill their pockets. As long as your pitch sounds good, I’m not sure if The Point’s staff investigates the veracity of your campaign.
If a campaign was associated with an established institution with a good reputation, I’d be more willing to join it. I tried to check out the organization that will benefit from the campaign I joined, and I couldn’t find any information outside of the site. I’m still a member because I believe it’s better to have faith in humanity than not, but I’m not inviting my friends to join.
I don’t think The Point will remove another reason for the existence of institution until they’re more rigorous and/or transparent about their campaign-selecting process.
Great point, Tracy,
In fact, ANOTHER purpose for an institution is to be a placeholder for trust and social capital. That’s not to say necessarily that ALL institutions are rigorous and transparent. But rather, constituents can build and adjust their level of trust over time after multiple experiences, or through the recommendations of others. It’s harder to do that without a central and sustained entity such as an institution.
Of course, social networks on the web have found all sorts of ways of providing credentials and building trust, even in a distributed system. eBay uses a seller ratings system. User-driven news sites like SlashDot.org use a ”karma” system to assign points to credible users.
Clearly, if The Point is going to succeed, it will need a clear and seemingly reliable credentialing system, as well.
Hello Tracy,
I believe that I may be your Aunt Janet. I find your comments intriguing but as I have lived abroad for almost twenty years and watched the varied pace of internet development, it seems risky to use it as a means for collecting money. On the other hand, any idea that brings artists and those who appreciate art together is worthy of support. The free nature of the internet’s distribution of information and knowledge although frustrating to the struggling artist remains a Lewis Hyde problem of commodity. Please write to me at my email. I would like to hear from you and your mother!