Kuro5hin launches pledge drive

June 19th, 2002 | by aobaoill |

For some time now (read several years) I’ve been saying that community based web sites should experiment with the sort of fundraising drive already used by public radio in the USA. An early example I thought might be suited to this was Slashdot, before they sold out to VA, or Andover, or whoever it was at the time.

So its interesting to see someone finally try out the model. Kuro5hin, known to aficienados as K5, has just launched a drive to raise the $70,000 needed to run the site for the next year. As I thought, the model seems to be quite successful – with $26,387.22 raised as I write this. However, I have a number of reservations about how the process is developing (you can track it through this article, this one and various others currently on the front page).

First, I should say what I like about the current approach:

  • Fundraising from members of the community, rather than using a commercial-advertising model, means, as Rusty, K5’s owner/admin notes, that the site is not treating viewers as product to be sold to advertisers.
  • Rusty has decided to make K5 a non-profit entity.
  • Rusty’s wife plans to focus her MA thesis on the development of K5, which will add to the scholarship in the field.

    So far, so good. To move to the flaws, though, I should first reference Michael Albert’s important essay “What makes alternative media alternative“. While some may not agree fully with the implications of some of Albert’s specific goals, the core principles underlying them deserve support.

    In essence, Albert argues that alternative media must have organisational structures which are participatory and democratic. This is something with which I am in total agreement – it was, after all, the focus of my own MA thesis.

    To return to the case of Kuro5hin, there are some obvious problems with the development process in place.

  • First, you’ll note I used the term ‘owner’ above. K5 is currently encorporated as a private profit-making company, owned by the site founder, Rusty. It is understandable why things developed in this manner, and as I mention above, Rusty has now committed to moving the company to non-profit status. However, the order in which this move has arisen for consideration – after an appeal for funds, and responses from site-users – indicates that it was not a core concern of Rusty, and may be a ‘means to an end’, in order to encourage donations.
  • No details have been given as to the future structure of the non-profit entity. This could vary wildly – from merely not having dividends, to having an elected and accountable governance structure – it is important that these details be clarified. Of course, as the idea of going non-profit is relatively new, it is likely that no attention has yet been given to these questions.
  • The fund-raising drive is being described as trying “to raise our operating budget for the next year”. However, examining the detail of the stories reveals that the figure is mainly for Rusty’s wage, along with ‘miscellaneous’ expenses, such as book-keeping and ‘the occasional SCSI drive’. The bandwidth and hardware costs of the site are already being sponsored.

    While Rusty has not made any attempt to hide this fact, the lack of transparency in the development of a budget gives cause for concern. Of course, the earlier point about the structure of the entity running the site applies here again, as appropriate structures to deal with this question do not yet exist.

    Also, and I apologise if this appears inappropriate to anyone, Rusty notes in one comment that his wage “is easily still in the “reasonable wage” category, in this country for a job requiring the skills this one does”. Now, while while the wage (about $58k) may be the market rate in a commercial organisation, that does not mean that it is the rate that a non-profit community should be paying.

    There are two prongs to this argument. Firstly, it may be (and Albert’s arguments would be in concurrence) that an alternative media outlet should concentrate on paying a fair wage (by which I mean one which provides a fair standard of living, judged obviously by the society within which one operates) rather than an average market wage. Second, the nature of the role within an alternative media outlet provides non-monetary benefits which don’t exist in an ordinary job in industry (for example, power of self-direction, feelings of satisfaction). On this basis, there may not be a need for financial compensation at the same rate as in industry.

    Good governance would dictate that decisions on the wage/employment contract, and the budget be made openly and fairly. While the moves towards non-profit status are welcome, they must be part of an overall strategy that has as its core community based decision making, rather than having such concerns ‘tacked on’.

    Having criticised, in part, the current situation, I can understand how it came about – K5 grew from being a small personal project, to being a larger site, in a possibly unpredictable manner. Setting up complicated structures would have been unwieldy early on, and there was a presumption that Rusty could be trusted to take decisions in a spirit of consensus and in the best interest of the site – a form of benevolent dictator if you will. I know too, myself, the stress inherent in divesting yourself of power over what was your own creation. However, I do believe that if proper structures are not put in place, it will seriously harm the long-term development of K5 as a community.

    • Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.