Crowdfunding For The [Seemingly] Wrong Reasons

I have found kickstarting and crowdfunding campaigns to be rather successful in this day and age.  It gives artists and bands a chance to showcase what they have to offer the world.  This is also a very fast way to see if you got what it takes to put yourself out there for judgement.  I have seen campaigns gone viral and make money withing hours/days.  I have also seen the ugly side of that funding where nothing was attained.  Overall, its's a great way to see your music come alive without the reliance of a record label.

So another side of this kickstarting happens to be sourcing of funds to keep artists AWAY from certain cities.  The latest one I encountered was Nickelback in London, UK.

Dubbed as the "Don't Let Nickel Back" (and keep in mind a very small gathering so far), a group of people have the notion that if they have donations to send a message to the band to not play in a city of 13,000,000+ people.  Despite the fact the kickstarter claims to have all donations given to charity, it seems a like a moot point when the $50 donations reads as follows:

"Your donation will result in an email to Nickelback with an attached mp3 of Nickelback's music.  This way, the band will hear their own music, and likely retire immediately, thereby ensuring the success of our campaign.  You also get the added bonus of not seeing Nickelback.  And perhaps helping ensure no one ever does again."

So this really got me thinking on ways people troll and create negative emotions (or invoke them for that matter) towards a band they don't care for.  We all get it.  Nickelback are larger than some people seem to understand.  They have catchy riffs, they play to the masses, they have sold over 50+ million albums to date, received 32+ awards (nominated for 75+) and other notable recognition.

(Photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

So it makes sense that some people aren't into what Nickelback is selling.  But does it enrage you to the point of creating a refusal kickstarter campaign?  What I find more amusing than the creator of the page is the fact people are supporting it (I have counted 22 backers thus far).  So let's say you even get 1,000 people to donate and sign the petition, do you speak for the other 12,999,000+ people in the greater London area?  Do you think ticket sales will decrease for this?  So many questions I would like to know about this campaign.  And to close it off, the "All proceeds will go to charity" doesn't necessarily make people feel warm and fuzzy about the donations.  While good intentions (creating negative emotions) may be the driving force behind this campaign I don't think there is a trust factor with how your money will be 'donated'.

Anyways, just a thought as I sift through the weekend's headlines.  Do you think that kickstarting/crowdfunding should be allowed to halt other people from reasonable enjoyment?

I think one person's comments made quite a bit of sense...

"This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Why would you need funding to do something people could do on their own? Wouldn't a drive to have people write their own emails/letters be just as effective? Not to mention the fact that Nickelback probably receives hundreds, if not thousands, of angry emails every day that they don't read already, so what makes you so special? Anyone who is gullible enough to send money is just as ignorant as Nickelbacks music." -John Montgomery