Revisiting Cartoon Brew’s Crowdfunding Policy Revisiting Cartoon Brew’s Crowdfunding Policy

Revisiting Cartoon Brew’s Crowdfunding Policy

Over two years ago, we instituted a strict “no links to crowdfunding” policy. In other words, we will never post links to any fundraising projects on Kickstarter, IndieGogo, or any other number of sites. If it’s a noteworthy project for reasons other than the creator needing money, we may write about it at a later date, but only after the fundraising campaign has ended.

To be clear, we have no issues with artists who use crowdfunding to raise funds for animation projects. We instituted the policy as a response to the growing volume of film funding requests, which threatened to overwhelm our ability to focus on more important topics, like films that have already been finished. Even though we haven’t linked to any crowdfunding projects in over two years, we still receive multiple submissions every single day–imagine the volume if we actually linked to them.

Further, if we linked to projects or artists whose work we personally enjoyed, we could be accused of giving unfair preferential treatment to certain people. Within the tight-knit animation community, we didn’t want to constantly be put in the position of defending ourselves about why we supported one person in their efforts to raise money and not another. The easiest solution was to remove ourselves from the fundraising pool and remain as objective observers of the broader fundraising scene.

In the two years since we’ve instituted the policy, crowdfunding has grown to become an even bigger part of the animation world. Today, mainstream artists like Phil Tippett and Ken Duncan use it to raise funds, and more ambitious projects are being undertaken thanks to this new type of film funding. We thought it would be a good time to revisit the issue and we want to hear what readers think.

Do you think we should treat crowdfunding submissions as we do any other news submission and give them editorial consideration for Cartoon Brew? Should we only focus on projects from established artists who have mainstream credits under their belt? Should we be completely objective and post any crowdfunding submission if they pay a small fee to be listed on Cartoon Brew? Or should we continue with our existing policy and not link to any fundraising efforts? There are any number of ways to handle this and we’re open to your suggestions.

PS – Just to be clear, we are not changing our policy anytime soon so don’t send us crowdfunding links.

  • I think that crowdfunding has reached a level of commonality — if that indeed be a word — within the animation landscape such that CB would be remiss in not covering it in some form or another. In fact, as independent studios and high-profile creators make increasing use of crowdfunding campaigns, not mentioning their efforts becomes more and more a matter of skipping over actual news.

    Simply put, we’re seeing crowdfunding becoming an integral part of the animation business, and as such this blog should cover it.

    With that said, I can’t even begin to imagine the quantity of submissions that opening up that channel would produce. I don’t like the fee-for-listing idea, not because it’s not fair, because it is, but it’s also flat-out advertising, not news. Which I have no problem with in theory — bloggers gots to eat! — except that the deluge would almost immediately begin overshadowing ACTUAL news.

    To this end, CB would do well to establish some logical ground rules for submission in place of or in addition to the fee, specifically:

    1 – BE NEWSWORTHY. Novel concept, high-profile creator, unique methodology, extreme high-quality — at least be worthy of a headline, because that’s why we’re here,


    2 – HAVE FOOTAGE TO SHOW, at least one minute finished.

    And I suppose that’s it… except for all the critical caveats I clearly did not consider while writing this but which will either come to me later, or more likely pointed out in the next reply.

    • The Brewmasters

      NormVonScott – Your thoughtful suggestions are much appreciated. We would have to be careful though about imposing arbitrary rules, like having 1-minute of footage to show. That would disqualify recent fundraising efforts by the likes of Phil Tippett, Ken Duncan and John K, even though all three of them put considerable effort into developing their projects. But we get what you’re saying because many of the submissions we receive aren’t nearly as developed as they should for requesting funds.

      • Yeah, John K.’s campaign occurred to me immediately after writing that. I have remarkable foresight regarding my lack of foresight.

        I suppose Rule Number 2 should be amended to state “Unless otherwise made redundant by Rule Number 1.”

  • Nothanks

    Considering how easy it would be to fill this blog’s whole first page with kickstarters I’m actually glad we are not being bombarded with fundraising ads…and yes, they are ads no matter how you look at it. I prefer the method you’ve been taking and only showing/promoting an artist’s kickstarter that has already hit their goal and are taking on the next step; and thus showcasing something that’s no longer an ad but now a new piece of news or art to look out for. Also if they really want to pay the site to promote their kickstarter, I could see it put on the border or corner of the page where all the other advertisements are and maybe run it for a set period of time…just not a main post that gets bumped down anyways in a few days. Bottom line; please just keep them off the main blog!

    • Christine

      What Nothanks said! Keep your current policy, but if you do decide to have people pay,follow what you are doing with your /biz page and make a new page with a sidebar with current submissions.

      • The Gee

        I agree with what Christine said.

        Though I didn’t thoroughly read what others have written so far (sorry). I don’t mean to be redundant by saying there may always be exceptions where some form of in-progress crowd sourcing is for a good cause. Advocating for something that isn’t exactly a commercial venture is probably worth highlighting for gratis.

        Another thing, not all of these attempts succeed. Not all would succeed just because the are Seen On Cartoon Brew either. So, if you chose to not charge for mentioning a project should that factor into it? It probably shouldn’t.

        And, as for the sidebar, there are a lot of sites which put job postings on the sides of their blogs. So that probably wouldn’t be tacky or bad or not worth considering.

        One last thing, hypothetical, if many sites did charge to post CS projects, would that stunt such projects, would it be a net plus or a bubble waiting to pop or something that reduces the number of good projects that can’t afford to take out ads to promote their projects?

        (hope these things make sense. it is all off the top of my head)

  • Joe Schmoe

    Why not just tuck them all over on a sidebar we can choose to click or ignore. You can boilerplate your legalese at the top so you’re not liable for any scam artists and we can have access to sort it out for ourselves without having to sift through it all while skimming your regular posts.

  • I think that the main issue for reporting on such things is (1) People in crown funding mode get crazy, sleepless and irrational. Ignore that, the jealousy subsides when the campaign is over and (2) people don’t always finish what they think they can finish (check this very site for reports on my one month animated feature that I totally thought I was going to finish all the way up to the end, and look how that worked out. (A combination of broken backup software and stolen computer put the nail in that coffin). But I think if you report on them as news, and not as promotion, that shouldn’t be a problem

    But I think no one not currently involved in a Kickstarter would mind if you reported on important, newsworthy projects in an objective manner, and didn’t report others. And talking about things that actually interest you personally is better than an objective approach.

  • I will have to say, and no disrespect to folks like Phil Tippett, Duncan, and K, that they have their followers and their time in the sun.

    They have paid their dues and are out there for folks to see. At the end of the day they already have the help of their fans and followers. I think you should focus on “no names” and “fresh faces” who are trying to break the water and get their work promoted. Those other dudes are great and all but I would hate to see them get an automatic pass to the front page and promoted.

    Just stay away from standard industry favoritism. You know like the radio stations playing everything “Lady Gaga” puts out but ignoring all the new artists with great songs. But just because she is Lady Gaga she gets first dibs at being on the radio. Let everyone have a crack at it.

    I think you should promote and share projects that seem interesting to you. Just go through the normal process you do with any story.

    Setup a FEW guidelines as mentioned but stay loose. Just treat it like folks on kickstarter do. Ask yourself “is this something I can get behind” Is this something I believe in? Is this something interesting?

    Needing things like 1 minute of animation completed excludes writers who don’t have money to animate and need that money to get some animation done. So no rules like that. Something that creates a catch 22. That is just wrong.

    The advertisment may be good as well. Something “affordable” Remember if they had money they wouldn’t be fund raising. Again no catch 22s. Make it affordable and visible. But only advertise projects you believe in or find interesting.

  • TStevens

    Keep it the way it is… All of the suggestions may sound interesting but they will make your lives more complicated in the end. Crowd funding is just a higher end version of the guy on the street corner with a bucket collecting money for his charity. I suspect that most of the people looking for funding have no idea what the real cost of production will be. Though there probably isn’t any data, I would be curious to know how many of the crowd funded projects actually get completed. Ones like John K’s are a little different in that he has the layouts done, and he has likely bid it out for overseas production (no one in North America will animate on that one) so the odds of him completing it are higher than the average kid who uses free student labor to do the work.

    It also seems like a lot of these productions aren’t even being set up as true business operations so the money, once donated, could potentially go anywhere.

    There are so many undisclosed items in these productions that they rely on the naivete of the masses to donate without thinking. Any person in business asking for a loan has to give reasons why and how things are going to be done – and that is money that has to be paid back. With crowd funding, there doesn’t seem to be much recourse for the backers when the project goes South.

    Again, Cartoon Brew should not get involved in posting what would amount to free advertisements for the solicitation of cash regardless of whether it is for John K. or Joe Schmoe.

    Send your 5 bucks to a real charity that needs it and you can at least get a tax write off.

    • But Cartoonbrew is interested in animation and anything that could help artists create MORE animation would be great.

      Why wouldn’t folks know about what it costs to produce a film, short or animation.

      Crowdfunding has become a viable force and very legitimate way of obtaining funds for many people and many projects have been completed, obviously considering the fact it is becoming so popular even among professionals who want to skip the old guard ways of doing things and own their own creations. It opens many doors that were once closed off except for the status quo type guys.

      Legitimate businesses lose money all the time. People invest in them, they go broke and lose money.

      Again Cartoonbrew may choose to post these Kickstarter type ads if they chose, and getting involved is simply getting involved in helping to create animation.

  • Paul N

    Completely agree with Sam Jackson about established artists vs. newcomers. Newcomers need the exposure far more than established artists do. If memory serves, Tippet’s kickstarter raised orders of magnitude more than their goal, presumably because of his reputation. It’s more important to encourage and support new talent.

  • The Brewmasters

    Thanks for all the feedback everybody. There doesn’t seem to be any clear consensus but we are reading everybody’s thoughts. Some are suggesting for us to keep it as-is and not promote any crowdfunded projects. Others suggest to use the same editorial criteria we have for other news and share projects that we feel are worthy. And others are suggesting to create a sidebar, or separate area of the site (which is a possibility we’ll try to explore in our upcoming site redesign).

    There are indeed many options. For example, Kickstarter allows sites like ours to create Curated Pages. However, we’re not interested in promoting their platform exclusively. They are just one of many growing options in the crowdfunding arena, and we recognize that they are not the ideal solution for every filmmaker, especially those based outside of the US.

    IAmSamJackson suggests that we promote no-names and fresh faces over established artists. One of the problems with that is that there is no accountability in crowdfunding, as TStevens points out. If an artist reaches their goal, they get people’s money without needing to deliver anything first. With established artists, the risk to the artist’s reputation ensures some level of accountability. For example, Tim Schafer collected $3.3 million via Kickstarter to make a computer game. You can be sure he’s going to deliver. But a fresh face that no one has heard of could shrewdly make a few thousand and never be heard from again. We do not want to be in the position of encouraging readers to hand over money to people that we cannot vouch for. We love promoting fresh faces if they have finished animation, but at this moment in time, crowdfunding has proven to serve established artists better than newcomers.

    Please keep your thoughts coming.

    • True there is no accountability but people choose where their money goes. People know what Kickstarter is and if they choose to back something it is still their choice. You simply said “this looks cool.” What people do with that is up to them.

      True Kickstarter type projects do not have accountability but the fact that Kickstarter and others like it are so successful and people are willing to invest in these projects for a small token in return shows that it is not as bad as folks would make it to be. If everyone was losing money or folks are ALWAYS taking money and running then I don’t believe it would be thriving as much as it is today. And I don’t think it would be garnering the same amount of respect as a viable fund raising option. So much so that even the US government now passed the Jobs bill which now allows people to start similar fundraising sites but actually have investors who share in profit ventures together.

      It is great to promote someone like Tim Schafer but apparently he doesn’t need it given the 3.3 million dollars. He has a fan base. So any promotion to someone like that would simply be helping those who really don’t need the help thus making this whole endeavor pointless.

      It’s like saying “hey this guy has a million dollars because he’s so great, let us give him another million, sorry struggling guy, we can’t help you no matter how great your project looks”

      Struggling guy says, “I worked really hard on this project. I have storyboards, cost analysis, shot for shot budget, voice actors, recordings all I need is some animators to hire for this amount of time.”

      Powers that be say “Yeah it looks really good, actually great. I love the concept”

      Struggling guy “So you’ll help just tell folks about it, maybe just a little blurb”

      Powers that be say, “nope, oh hey Tim, I heard you are 2,000% funded. Can we plug your project?”

      Tim says “sure, I mean the project is closed but what the heck, couldn’t hurt”

      What is interesting folks like that only needed say 100,000 got 3.3 million. Who is to say he will not simply pocket 3.2 million when he completes the project of course?

      So if not promoting fresh faces I’d say simply forget about it. It is pointless at that point.

      The established do not need the promotion. It would be simply playing the 100th Lady Gaga song while ignoring the 99 new and struggling bands who want to simply be heard.

      I would still dig a cheap, viable advertisement or list on the side. That would help some folks get funded and maybe provide you good folks at Cartoonbrew with a little bit of side cash.

      Whatever you decide, thanks for keeping this site cool.

      • Over-funding, especially by amounts of millions, is a problem surely in need of discussion, but I think that’s a discussion of crowdfunding in general, and a matter of each platform’s own rules on how to deal with it.

        But I agree that promoting such a project seems to be highly unfair to everybody else. I don’t know a solution, because a journalist can’t just ignore something just because it’s successful. CB’s decision to report after crowdfunding is done looks adequate.

      • Yeah I always wondered what they get to do when overfunded. I mean 100,000 needed but a million given. That is a nice chunk but again usually that is only the established who do that.

        I don’t think CB should ignore the successful projects. I just don’t think they should promote those successful already who have had their day.

        I would not want to see someone like Tim Schaffer’s kickstarter on this site. He needs no help in that endeavor. And so would be pointless to share, however news such as Tim Schaffer’s game is released or Tim has broken the record for funding is news and would be great to share.

  • I see the fix you’re in! Being one who might announce some crowdfunding myself (somewhere in the next 5 years, don’t hold your breath), I’d say this:

    So far, I’ve only seen articles about single projects by animators pop up here and there. Musicians and life action filmmakers seem to get more attention by journalists, I remember having seen several articles trying to cover the whole field, complete with statistics and numbers. CB could do something similar: collect and count all animation efforts on all platforms, observe over time, and report about success rates. But when I say “CB could” I know how big a task that would be, especially for a 2-writers-team. Still, any kind of overview would be highly appreciated.

    The idea of having a kind of “crowdfunding classified” section appeals to me, especially if it can be easily skipped – like CB Biz. I think it’s OK to charge animators for running an ad there – it just has to be a real small amount, like 2$ for a month of listing? I’m just estimating here, it will be just a link in a list of hundreds of entries, so maybe even 2$ is too much.

    This is mostly a database job: set up the base, set up an interface animators can use themselves, feed the results into the CB CMS. But once set up, this would allow for the kind of coverage I’d like to see. Maybe a report twice a year? Any kind of overview is highly welcomed, the crowdfunding page could even list links to all platforms, complete with some kind of hand-out for newbies. It would be especially helpful to read some success (or failure) stories, so others could identify the weak spots of their own efforts.

    And I’d still like to see the brewmaster’s own pick of projects. It’s all about personal taste, so please stick to it and present me with something I haven’t seen before, something which isn’t backed by a big studio, something from all corners of the world.

  • Larry

    Just put the crowd funding stuff in the Cartoon Brew Biz section, isn’t that what it’s for? The more commercial stuff?

  • I think you have an interesting problem that more and more blogs will have to deal with. I think covering them once they have funded will be of interest to the public but if you start listing every single project submitted to you, it seems as if it will take you away from the original goals of this blog. People did not start reading your blog to hear about crowd funding projects and many of them are getting the same links sent to them about the exact same project.

    Keep the Main thing the main thing!
    Dr. Letitia Wright
    Crowd Funding Strategist

  • Would making a “five projects we found interesting this past month” work? No need to report on them weekly. One post a month to cover fun or innovative projects should be enough.

    To that end, the Brew would use it’s traditional criteria for filtering which items to highlight. Furthermore, I’d recommend only highlighting projects after the funding period has closed (or after they’ve been fully funded). That should take some of the sting out of the barbs over favoritism.

    I’m not particularly partial to a sidebar in the biz section… I’m sure some will find it interesting, but others may force themselves to gloss over it every day… like the news ticker on CNN that nobody really pays attention to unless they’ve muted the TV because the phone’s ringing.

    • I agree. A once a month showcase.

      Call it
      “5 Animations you hope exist”
      “brew of the month”

      I don’t know it would be nice to have some promotion and then see hard work going into promoting.

      I mean I’m sure you can spot a gem when you see one. 1 article and 5 featured would be great and include all but especially fresh faces.

      If they are already funded “Do not share it” Just share the finished project as normal news or WIP as normal news if it has some merit to it.

    • Ted

      Once a month could be problematic because of the short term of funding times…

  • Zac

    Speaking as an individual who has been trying to self fund an animation project of my own, I still wouldn’t want to read fundraising plugs here on the Brew. This is a place for relevant news, not “hey this guy might finish an animated short one day” plugs.

  • gingersoll

    Long time reader, usual lurker, I have to say that I like CB’s focus on things like news and interviews, cartoon history, and the occasional shorts and music videos that are noteworthy. It’s a good mix.

    I think crowd funding is a huge part of the animation world now, and it is often the only way many unique projects will ever see the light of day. CB should not ignore this part of the animation world.

    However, the editors at CB should use the same level of discernment when posting funding pages as they do when posting any other news item. If it is genuinely interesting or exciting, tell me about it. Maybe only pick a few per month and give them their own column, similar to the music video round up.

    Posting an item simply notifies me of its existence. I may look at the project and enjoy reading about it without funding it (as with Tippet’s film) or I may donate a few bucks. In either case that is my choice as a reader and I see no reason CB should feel an obligation to guarantee the pedigree of a project other than to point to it and say: How interesting! After all, “Interesting” is the reason I read CB in the first place.

    • Took the words out of my mouth. :) I really can’t see the good in hilighting a project after readers wouldn’t be able to contribute. Isn’t that the whole point of such campaigns? To only acknowledge them after their funding date has passed seems a disservice to the readers as much as to them – I can easily see myself being frustrated over such posts if there was something hilighted that I would have wanted to contribute to, had I known of it. As said by Gingersoll, that’s up to the reader.

      Because of the time-sensitivity aspect, my initial thought was every week or two to make a “roundup” post similar to the “music video roundups” (as said above). I can see the problem of this becoming repetitive or annoying to some people, though. But, unlike many of the above commenters, I really would not mind seeing a “Crowdfunding roundup” post regularly – I trust that you would only pick projects worth looking at. :) I think it’s important to help artists who have the guts to ask for it (notwithstanding promise-breakers – it’s not a perfect world), and I can definitely see this being a good place to find out about some of the noteworthy ones.

      I see no problem with letting artists post limited-time ads for such projects as well, with the other ads on the site, or in their own area. A specific “Crowdfunded animation projects” page sounds promising too; I’m not picky about that side of the argument. But I DO think that, as said by others before, crowdfunded animation projects are a fast-growing aspect of the industry, and as such should definitely be acknowledged in posts here.

  • Keep your current policy and don’t promote any of the Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaigns. There are too many of them and it wouldn’t be fair to have some and not others.

  • Christy

    Looking at how some other groups handle it – Fleen posts links to web comic kickstarters as an analysis to the success or non-success of that method. You could take that analytical approach to it if you choose to go that way.

    Alternatively, you could choose one day a week or month to highlight crowd-sourcing campaigns in just one post. I think, personally, that your blog could be more of an analytical tool for sourcing how well they are working, rather than promoting it.

  • Hard to say. I understand every reason why it shouldn’t be a thing on CB, yet at the same time, I funded Tim Schafer’s project and a few other video games because I heard about them and I’m already glad I did. I had not heard of any animated film crowdfunding before reading the comments here! I guess I could simply browse Kickstarter, Indiegogo or something like that, but I know I won’t do it.

  • You should absolutely support crowdfunding.

  • Geneva

    I think having a small limited number of projects talked about per month could solve some things– try to limit it to high-profile creators, projects that could change the way things are done in animation, etc. Maybe have only one post per month with a few select campaigns to feature.

    Crowdfunding is what’s going on right now and it’s important to cartoonists/animators at the moment! I understand it’s a hard thing to dance around, though, and not be accused of miscellaneous misdeeds.

  • Definately support crowd-funding.

    Keep the same criteria you use in your stories, make sure it is a appealing and interesting and try to do an article like once a month.

    Like top 10 projects to keep an eye on.

  • I’d suggest, only post about it if it’s something you’d report about anyway, even if it weren’t being crowd-sourced. So in other words, only if it looks really interesting or the animator doing it has an existing reputation.

    Refusing to cover them at all feels sort of arbitrary (even though I know that it’s not) and over-doing it. You might miss out on some interesting events and discussions, like if you were to decide to not post any trailers for upcoming movies/shorts that were financed traditionally.

    The focus should be “here’s something cool that we can look forward to,” the same as when you post a trailer to an upcoming film, rather than “this person needs your money!”

  • esteban

    You shouldn’t report on any animation projects to guarantee impartiality ;)

    • It is like with any of the other animation stories. I mean they probably get 100s of links a day but only a few get mentioned, so it would be the same thing.

      So that doesn’t matter much.

    • Haha! It’s true though – you both already post about things that are interesting to you, notable projects others have told you about, and other events that you are able to personally attend/will attend. You’re in a position where you find out about a lot of things and can rifle through and post the best of. I see the crowdfunded projects as no different than the other news/interesting tidbits posted. It seems a general consensus that it would be remiss to not acknowledge it in SOME way.

  • All it takes is one bad campaign, one failed project with lost money and the damage to Cartoon Brew’s reputation could be potentially fatal.

    Trust is hard-earned but easily squandered.

    A man’s greatest asset is his good name; a website is no different.

    I say keep the crowd-funding to others.

    • I disagree – the authors here can’t be held responsible for other’s actions. They have no more control over a crowdfund project than they do over any of the other things they post about. It’s not their fault if a bad apple got into their bunch – and it’s just as easy for a post to be amended “Turns out that (insert name) is a scammer! STAY AWAY!”

      Not to mention, running a successful fundraising campaign of any type is a lot of work. I don’t know the numbers, but I’d wager the number of scams to actual projects is very low.

      If anyone does know the stats on this, I’d definitely be interested to know if my trust is justified.

  • Robert Reynolds

    Run your site they way YOU want to run your site. The two of you are the only ones who know what you want Cartoon Brew to be about. So far as I can tell, you’ve been successful. You must know what you’re doing.

    You clearly and definitively stated your reasons for instituting your policy. So long as those reasons and that policy work for you, that’s what matters.

    I’ll still come here as long as what you do interests me. Since I visit daily, clearly I enjoy the site.

  • To me, Cartoon Brew is about promoting the best in animation (past and present) and about celebrating new and innovative projects that are deemed worthy by the Brewmasters. Further-more, because of this websites place in the animation world, it has the potential to offer an outlet to struggling up and coming animation talents as well as helping give a boost to established animation professionals who have great ideas without an outlet to present their work. Networks often green light projects, not based off of merit or creative potential, but simply because the project fits a current trend or involves a personality with a track record. It’s a crummy way to greenlight anything but that’s the biz. That’s why we get such lousy animated product gumming up the airwaves.
    This is why I believe Cartoon Brew is simply in a unique position to help revolutionize the animation business.
    Like networks who pick and choose the projects they want to produce, Cartoon Brew can do the same in which Crowdfunding projects they want to endorse. Pick five or ten projects a month to feature on your site. Create some criteria such as a completed animatic with soundtrack along with a brief synopsis describing the project with a short resume of the artist. Make it mandatory that any project chosen to be featured on the Brew has it’s finished film presented on CB for a limited run. What’s even better is the news coverage you’ll be able to feature/track as these projects get close to the finish line in terms of funding; kind of like a horse race.
    I can’t see how this would hurt Cartoon Brew; I think it’s a great site right now. But I think the potential is a whole lot bigger once these projects start seeing the light of day. We simply can’t expect the studios and networks to do it. Cartoon Brew and its’ fan base has the ability to make a real difference here; to really help influence the animation world.

    • Bravo! Well-said, and I agree. This is a great place to find out about great animation, whether it got picked up by a network or not. Many crowdfunded projects fall under that category.

  • A Long Time Observer (of CB)

    Haven’t read all the posts, but if it hasn’t been said already I say just report it as news and not endorsements. There were posts in the past about animation that happened AFTER the fact of crowdfunding or were controversial because of crowdfunding. Direct links may be used as examples of what is good use and BAD use of websites such as Kickstarter, though that may make people mad. I think it’s an important subject however you cover it.

    On a related note, how about animators in trouble in need of money such as Miss Paley? She had extensive coverage on this site when she needed funds for licensed music for her movie, with a direct link I believe. Would that be considered a special case?

    • Nina Paley is special (for more than one reason) because she started her film long before any crowdfunding platform existed, and because she openly and publicly criticized and discussed a lot of problems with existing rules of copyright. Besides that, it’s a damn fine film she made.

    • The Brewmasters

      A Long Time Observer (of CB) – As we wrote in the post, we’ve had the “no crowdfunding” policy in place for over two years now. Prior to that, we did link to a handful of crowdfunded projects, including Nina’s, which was four years ago.

  • The Brewmasters

    Thanks for all the comments everybody. We will discuss and see what we come up with. The idea of a semi-regular wrap-up could be a good middle-ground solution. It wouldn’t overwhelm the rest of the site’s content, and would allow us to promote a variety of projects.

    • Go to hear. A middle ground solution sounds best.
      Keep the site cool and free of unnecessary fluff but also play a part in creating more animation while keeping us abreast on the news.

    • Sounds great! Can’t wait to see what you decide to post about!

  • Ikas

    I am from the east of the world and visit your site occasionally to get to see the variety in animation around the world.
    I would certainly not wish to see a post “hey this famous guy is starting a crowdfunding” nor “that nobody is doing a kickstarter” ….
    News about crowfunding is not required. But then if that artist has some art that you think is interesting enough to be shown, whether its being put up for crowdfunding or not,, then by all means please do that.

    Keep this site to showcase the art and the artist, not his/her crowdfunding campaign.

  • I think you need to make up your own mind, but for my two cents’ worth …

    If the artist has already appeared more than say, three times on Cartoon Brew before – then they’ve already proved their credibility and it is therefore newsworthy that they’re aiming at something bigger and looking to raise funds.

    I’d be more concerned about people that are shooting for their first Cartoon Brew appearance to be a fund-raising post.

    Heck – I WANT to give money to artists I love to help them make their stuff.

    Applying the “if you haven’t already been featured at least N times on Cartoon Brew” without raising funds also cuts out the amount of spam from scammers and try-hards.

    What do you think?

  • This may have already been suggested, but…

    One option might be to have a scrolling sidebar of links. Each entry could consist of a thumbnail image, the filmmaker(s)’ name(s), the name of the project – and possibly the end date of the campaign. Readers can browse the list and support (or not) as they wish. Maybe you label it ‘Crowdfunding’.

    Periodically (once a week? a month?) CB could post an brief blog entry and/or tweet about how many projects you’ve received word about in that amount of time. That might encourage browsing (and funding) without concerns of favoritism.

    I realize that’s still a lot of work, so it may not be practical. But to me, adding this info would be a good thing to do (if it’s possible). I think the animation community is an enthusiastic audience, and helping to connect independent productions to that audience would be a valid component of CB’s coverage.

  • Taco Wiz

    I have an idea. What if Cartoon Brew did a monthly post called “This Month in Crowd-Funding”? That way the front page wouldn’t be clogged up with posts about some guy’s Kickstarter, but the people who want to hear about said Kickstarters will still get their chance to donate.

  • Perhaps the gaming blog rockpapershotgun’s “Kickstarter katchup” format would work. Don’t post about everything, just do a weekly update on the progress of promising projects and letting us know about the announcement of anything notable. The current “no crowdfunding” rule is at odds with the realities of how important this new business model is to our industr