What next?

Many aeons ago in digital time (about six months) the really hot topic was a new way of giving to the arts: crowdfunding. It was the ‘other’ American model of philanthropy. Not the one that involves dinners, diamonds and the Eastern Seaboard, but rather a combination of social media and online payment. American creators were uploading individual projects on a new website that took small amounts from a lot of people. Here was a whole new way to fundraise and that site that started it all, Kickstarter, was the subject of intense, if foggy, interest.

People talked about it, articles were written, and then came the lull as the UK sector waited for the phenomenon to reach our shores. Six months down the line we are now, quietly, surrounded by crowdfunding sites. WeFund, Sponsume, BuzzBank, IndieGoGo, FundBreak are but a few that the UK can now access. Arts Council England (ACE) has even funded an experimental crowdfunding project. So how does it work and what do arts organisations here need to do to make a go of it?

Let’s deal with how it works first. Artists or organisations upload pictures and a description of a project they are planning, and for which they need money, to a crowdfunding site. It could be a new play, sculpture or building. The site then promotes the project and takes online payments from interested punters. If the project reaches its target funds then the site will take a small fee, usually around 5%. Could it be the future of arts funding? Yes it could, or at least a huge part of it. However, there are many factors that arts organisations, and indeed the whole sector, need to consider to really make it a success.

First and foremost, crowdfunding is driven by social muscle. The real engine of Kickstarter’s success is social media. Its Twitter account has more than 340,000 followers. This means that needy arts projects are fed daily to potential donors, directly into their stream. The way to amplify this is with your own social media. You may struggle to raise much interest with your 120 followers but keep plugging away. Working with a crowdfunding site should grow your social footprint and that in itself is a good reason to be involved.

Secondly, choose your crowdfunding site carefully. With so many about there is a danger of splintering audiences and thus donors. Kickstarter is not available in the UK yet and the UK-based crowdfunding sites will no doubt go through a period of natural selection. If I had to guess which crowdfunding platform to go with I would say WeFund. Why? Because like Kickstarter it is dedicated to arts and culture. This, I think, will be significant to target and build an audience engaged with the arts. Of course there is such a thing as digital selection these days. Will WeFund be social enough, provide embeddable tools, have a slick user experience? Will it be run as a true digital entity the way Kickstarter is? Will it be cool, even? These are all important qualities in the digital age.

Thirdly, remember that crowdfunding is project based. It is not a case of asking for money for the whole organisation. This could change the way art gets made, making creation porous and, god forbid, populist. Instead of pushing out what you think people want, the crowdfunded arts will have to be what people want. This could be hugely exciting. Unprecedented youth engagement, anyone? A chance to hitch the arts to topical interests and movements? It really could herald an era of co-created political art, harnessing the hearts and minds of demographics currently lost to culture. Equally, we could end up with ‘the Hoff does Hamlet’.

Finally what of advice for the sector at large? Crowdfunding could be the tool to democratise philanthropy (or, to put it with less spin, the way to make lots of people give to the arts), but it will also import inequality. Large, world famous organisations already prosper hugely on social media while small galleries struggle to accrue followers. Crowdfunding has an attractive quality of letting the actual project speak for itself: an exciting project will attract money, not the name it is attached to. However the simple fact is if you have 100,000 followers you will do better. The sector might be wise to employ a little bit of digital Marxism, by sharing social resources. ACE is keen on larger organisations sharing resources with smaller organisations of the same artform. Digitally at least, this could be a step forwards.

The Tate already lends its works to smaller galleries around the country. Why not its Twitter account? Go a step further and employ digital community managers, working for a string of organisations, grouped either by artform or locale. This would not only be a cost effective way to aid crowdfunding campaigns, it would help smaller organisations to build a social footprint and thus future-proof the arts audience. That, in the end, is what all the talk of going digital in the arts is about.

To read Dan Baker’s experience of using WeFund, visit http://www.artsprofessional.co.uk