A brief introduction to the ideas behind the funding mechanism of Crowdculture
Fabel is based in Stockholm, Sweden. Contact us at + 46-(0)8-410 224 30 or email@example.com
Fabel works with different forms of media to create processes of change. About 70% of our time we work as consultants and 30% of thime is dedicated to own innovations and concepts.
Lots of info… Top left ) The member increase is growing over the test and by the end of the test there are 30 new persons enrolling each week. Top right) About 40% of the members seam to have a long term commitment. 42% are curious, which indicates a potential long term commitment Bottom left) Not everyone is a young media-tech savvy digital native and many have a strong preference for quality. Bottom right) The dynamics of the counter finance strategy. We see that over time that the members take a greater responsibility over the funding. Our estimate is a turn over of €90 000 of “new money” to the culutal sector per year in Stockholm alone. (The amount is equivalent to that of one of the bigger public funds for free culture in Stockholm)
When trust from the crowd make ideas happen www.crowdculture.se || firstname.lastname@example.org
We asked ourselves: How would the system of cultural financing be structured if created today?
Updated reality Change is needed but structure remain - Experts not able to see ”the whole picture” New demographics - Difficulty with reaching the unestablished Most funding structures don’t support collaboration more than in words
Building a community for realization of cultural projects Hybridizing the public/private funding A complement to the existing palette of cultural finance models Deliberation to reach a strategic dialogue Sustainable business model for the public domain Empowerment of the crowd
Discount, VIP, etc A B C Organisational member Memeber Resurser space etc Give back Project idea Counter financing If we should try to explain it a bit more structured… F(x)
Results from b eta-test in Stockholm Oct 2010 – Jan 2011 Average age was 42 years 64% of participants based funding decision on quality 100% of project owners saw application as part of profession
Is this a democratization of cultural politics? Or is it a democratic threat?
Four field model showing the opportunities and risks by introducing dialogue based democracy.
Criteria of quality The civil servant transform from expert to coach (empowerment) Learning system & transparency Supporting long term relationships Social movement for achieving change in cultural practice What does change?