Surrounding Game asking for more money?

[owari]

Today I got an email from the people making The Surrounding Game movie (about go) saying they need another $30000 to finish it. This project was originally on Kickstarter last year with a goal of $15000.

They raised more than $25000 after promising to make a better movie if they reached that goal. I supported their original fund raising campaign (along with 400+ other go players) and thought it was great when they were funded. I've really been looking forward to seeing the movie.

The original Kickstarter page seemed to imply that they would finish the movie for that amount, but now it seems that's not the case? I guess I'm just worried about what's going on. Does anyone know what happened to the original money and why this additional money wasn't budgeted for to begin with? What will happen if they can't raise another $30000? Will they still make the movie? I read Kickstarter's policy about this but it seemed vague about what would happen.

I thought someone here might know more about this and could set me straight please?

[tj86430]

This is the first time heard of this project, so I have no knowledge.

I looked at their website, and it says:

Making a professional-quality documentary is expensive! Our Kickstarter campaign raised enough for the filming and early production, but to see this project through completion, we need to raise enough to hire a full-time editor and to pay for post-production expenses. Thank you so much for your support.

I wouldn't touch that project with a long pole, but that's only my personal opinion.

[Kirby]

I would assume that some costs must be associated with travel. I don't know where they all live, but it can be a couple of thousand dollars to pay for a round-trip plane ticket to Asia in some parts of the world. If they have, say 5 people, that's $10,000 for one round-trip. Maybe if they're staying in a hotel, maybe it could cost a couple of thousand dollars per person, depending on how long they stay. That comes to $20,000 if each person gets their own room.

If they need $55,000 in total (the $25,000 obtained from before plus the $30,000 now requested), I guess that means that it might be another $35,000 they need for movie expenses.

That may or may not be unreasonable. Maybe someone with experience in making movies knows.

[Loons]

Tj's quote says they're spending it on proffessional editting and post production. I have the armchair opinion that production value matters a lot, probably moreso if you're not an existing go fanatic.

If they don't get it, they'll do it cheaply/themselves (this is also known as 'badly'.)

[Kirby]

Tj's quote says they're spending it on proffessional editting and post production. I have the armchair opinion that production value matters a lot, probably moreso if you're not an existing go fanatic.

If they don't get it, they'll do it cheaply/themselves (this is also known as 'badly'.)

That could be. I think part of the confusion here is that the descriptions on the website are somewhat vague, and money is not precisely and publicly accounted for. People have different philosophies on the matter, but my personal opinion is that, when you are spending other people's money, it's important to be detailed about how their money is being spent, even to the cent.

This isn't unique to fundraisers like this:

• Money spent on business trips, for example, is accounted for with expense reports.
• Volunteer organizations such as Hopelink (an organization for homeless and low income people), for example, must precisely indicate what money is being spent and how. This is essential for the life of the organization.

Being truthful and detailed about how money is spent benefits those that are running the fundraiser, because it extinguishes all doubt about how money is being spent. Everyone can clearly and openly see how their money is being used. The only sentiment left to give, then, is positive, because everyone supporting the fundraiser not only supports the cause, but also knows exactly how their money was spent, and how they made a contribution to the effort.

When you have vague phrases like "everything in between" from the website:

Every dollar you give goes to professional editing, sound mastering, digital storage for over 400 hours of footage, and everything in between.

it leaves room for doubt, which may not even be founded. It's perfectly plausible that every cent spent on this project was needed for the cause, and that it is necessary for more money to be obtained. But this cannot be verified without a precise account of how the money was spent and what additional money and services are needed. For example, it's unlikely that precisely $25,000 has been spent to date, and a detailed report would indicate how much was spent and on what.

Some may argue that it's not the responsibility of the project owner to specify how they spend the money. I disagree. The money that is being spent only exists because of the contributors, and I feel the contributors should have the right to know exactly what was purchased and from whom.

It's excellent that these guys are putting together a go documentary. I think it's a commendable effort. I think that any doubt about the project could totally be cleared out by having a clear and detailed description of how the money of contributors is being spent.

[Mef]

The original Kickstarter page seemed to imply that they would finish the movie for that amount, but now it seems that's not the case?

If I had to guess, I would say the simplest explanation is "Some people who were making their first feature length documentary underestimated the costs by a factor of 2". Lots of large projects have costs people aren't anticipating, or have the scope expand prior to completion...It's not uncommon in project management to pad a budget up front with a fudge factor to account for this. Of course if you're pitching your project to a crowd-sourced grassroots funding website, instead of adding an extra 40% for unknown costs that will inevitably arise, you probably aim low to make sure you have a project at all in the first place.

We could go back and forth, and discuss what production costs should have been, what they have been, what has been done, what could have been done, what should have been done, ad nauseum...but at the end of the day it is going to boil down to two questions: "Do you think this project is worth it?" and "Do you really trust these guys?". Beyond that our other discussions will be largely academic.

Personally, I think the AGA pro system has a chance to be an important event in Western go history. If it's going to be documented, this is our shot at doing it. If it's going to be documented and completed, I'd like to see it done well, up to and including hiring film making professionals to help polish the project. In the long term this project has the potential to pay dividends for the go community if it has mass appeal and can bring in a new flux of players.

Likewise, for me personally, even being fairly inactive in the AGA last year (I think I made it to one AGA tournament? maybe 5 club meetings?) I managed to see them filming events twice. They've been traveling far and wide both in North America and East Asia, and if you believe their website they have 400 hours of film. They now have to figure out how to throw away 99.5%...I could understand if that was an unexpectedly large task, and can further understand why there might be some anticipated costs here. I don't think it's some people who have been active in the AGA trying to cash in on their years of trust building in some kind of hustle.

If I have to answer the questions: "Do I think this project is worth it?" and "Do I really trust these guys?" my answers are going to be "Yes" and "Yes". It's going to be up to everyone else to figure out their own answers, but I've made my choice.

[hyperpape]

I think they should be clearer about what they do and don't need, whether they ran over their budget, or are expanding their goals, etc. But I'm also with Mef that my gut reaction is to trust these guys, that they're giving every reason to believe that they're doing a lot of work (21 updates that I've received as someone who gave money in the initial Kickstarter drive).

[SmoothOper]

Maybe you could ask for some percentage of ownership. IE you own X% of whatever it is they produce forever subsequently are entitled to royalties. It is the old Angel investor trick. Angel investors are usually more than willing to add additional funds under those terms. Some people call them Angels, others call them Sharks take your pick.

[Joaz Banbeck]

Does anybody know these guys? Does/did kickstarter mention names? How long a history do they have with the AGA?

[zslane]

The general public has no clue how expensive and unpredictable film production is. If they knew how movies/documentaries were produced, they would stand in sheer shock at the absurdity of it. I have a good friend who is in the middle of post-production on a documentary about the Rubik design studio and the obstacles being encountered are insane and typical.

I understand the naive notion that Kickstarter "investors" should have access to detailed accounting data, but if the project is a professional-calibre feature film or documentary that is simply never going to happen. Transparency in film production does not exist, and probably never will. This is true regardless of how it is funded.

From my perspective, this is an amusing intersection between grass roots crowd sourcing and (commercial) film production, two worlds with virtually no philosophical or ethical common ground. And I don't say that to disparage these particular filmmakers or their (undoubtedly) good and honest intentions. I'm sure they are learning these cold hard realities right along with their Kickstarter supporters.

[Kirby]

...
We could go back and forth, and discuss what production costs should have been, what they have been, what has been done, what could have been done, what should have been done, ad nauseum...but at the end of the day it is going to boil down to two questions: "Do you think this project is worth it?" and "Do you really trust these guys?". Beyond that our other discussions will be largely academic.
...

Mef, while I agree that the issue of trust is important, I disagree that discussions of transparency are academic (in the non-practical sense of the word), and to do so would be to brush off a very important aspect of community supported activities.

For the long-term success of fundraising for go, it's essential that those willing to support the cause know clearly what they are actually paying for. I'm *not* saying that those that support such activities necessarily have any decision making power once they have agreed to give their money.

But the very fact that someone has supported this cause and is now questioning their actions (as evidenced by this thread) indicates that the individual may, at the very least, feel more hesitant to support a fundraiser related to go in the future. This is very sad. It's not that the OP did not trust those making the documentary - if he did not trust them, he would not have paid them money to begin with. To say that his doubt, which caused him to start this thread, was because of a "lack of trust" would be belittling of his original contribution.

Coming back to the examples I provided earlier, companies don't require expense reports of their employees because they inherently do not trust them. The fact that the company provides money to the employee for business activities is evidence that they have faith in those employees. They simply want to know how their money is being spent - something which requires very little effort in comparison with the money being provided. Likewise, non-profit organizations like Hopelink are able to continue to exist because they provide transparency in all of the transactions they make. If they did not, their supporters would cease to support them. It's not an issue of trust - it's just that letting the supporter know what you are spending money on reinforces the supporter's belief in the cause they decided to pay for.

It would sadden me if a group of people that have raised so much money from people that love go would cause for the community to doubt their intentions, when it could all be easily fixed by simply providing clear and detailed communication of what the money is being spent on.

If community-sponsored go activities are ever to become widespread, the community needs to really feel like they are a part of what is being produced. This can't happen when you take the community's money and close doors to the details of what's happening.

Doing this not only promotes trust, but it allows for trust to be strengthened and reinforced as people experience the joy of watching the project unfold. It would be a large mistake to shove such an opportunity under the rug as "largely academic."

[Kirby]

...
I understand the naive notion that Kickstarter "investors" should have access to detailed accounting data, but if the project is a professional-calibre feature film or documentary that is simply never going to happen. Transparency in film production does not exist, and probably never will. This is true regardless of how it is funded.
...

As may be evidenced by my other posts on this topic, I am someone who holds this "naive notion." I very much agree that film production can be expensive, which is exactly why providing detailed accounting data could be very informative to the public!

I am not experienced with film production, but I know for a fact that a number of sponsored organizations do provide transparency in this information, which allows for supporters to really know that they are a real part of what is being produced. Forgive my ignorance, but why can't this happen in film production? What differentiates film production such that they are unable to act as some other community-supported organizations that are able to provide such information?

And as a second question, can you see the difficulty that might arise in the long term when a community-funded organization refuses to provide this type of transparency?

[hyperpape]

Yes, Joaz. The Kickstarter website lists five people, several of whom have been organized various things.

[GoRo]

I am also one of the naive supporters and I received a T-Shirt and a Go stone and postcards and enthusiastic reports. That made me happy.
If I trust the team that means: I trust their intentions und I'd never blame them for being naive themselves.

This project is going to become a great success regarding the spreading of Go in the western world. I am sure of this. And I consider putting in some more money - but first I have to convince my wife

Cheers,
Rainer
(GoChild GoRo with 1658856 points)

[billywoods]

at the end of the day it is going to boil down to two questions: "Do you think this project is worth it?" and "Do you really trust these guys?"

Ultimately, here's my gut instinct. High contributors got expensive rewards like go boards paid for, signed and shipped to them for free; special cameras and equipment were bought; they've gone or are going to several tournaments in the USA, Canada, China and Korea; this is all on their kickstarter page, so they knew this was going to happen before they even started. They promised a film if we turned up $15k, but paid for expensive trips to China and Korea before asking whether they'd have enough left over to produce it. They got almost double what they wanted, and now they "need" to double it again, or else the project doesn't get completed. Everyone here seems so trusting, but I can't trust anyone who asks for $15k, gets $25k and works as if they have $55k. What am I missing?

To Mef's questions: (a) do I think it's worth what? $15k? Yes. $55k? No. It's worth exactly what it takes to produce and nothing more. (b) Do I trust them to do what? Genuinely want to make a film, and not run away with contributors' money? Yes. Ask the go community for help or advice, or consult them for ideas on how to use their money? No. Be responsible with their money, use it efficiently, be honest about how much they need and where it goes? No.

I hope it turns out to be worth it, and no contributors feel ripped off.