Ransom/Pamphlet model
Seth M. Drebitko:
Ok I think I see where the confusion is I am not looking to re-coup my initial investment just cover the next project. So the process will be from the writing perspective:
Finish up the first product art and all with my money ransom it, along with the “premium” copies sold.
The money made from the ransom (and premium booklet sales) will then be used to pay for the creation of the next project and so on and so.
The idea is less to re-coup (though that would be nice) and more to keep myself from having to invest more than the initial investment.
Callan S.:
I'm still confused? Are you going to pay for that art with your own money? Why aren't you waiting for the ransom to be forfilled then use that money/not your own money?
And why doesn't the second project get ransomed independently? I think your applying typical sales practice to the ransom model, and it doesn't add up. In typical sales practice, you've invested some of your own cashola and you want to recoup that cashola AND make money for the next project (and a little extra for hookers and booze). That makes alot of sense! But it doesn't make sense to apply it to the ransom model/is entirely unnecessary to do so. Your risking nada/zilch/zip a roo (unless you've bought staplers or art, etc, already, then see above) - all those gamers out there who for some reason forfil ransoms are carrying the risk for you. I think your applying risk management where there is no risk to manage*, and it's complicating everything. That or I'm completely not grasping something.
* Barring blow outs in art costs or stapler costs (say it breaks and the warranty wont replace it) and such, as the ransom is a fixed amount. Though given how zany the ransom model already is, simply asking for more ransom given any blow outs seems like it'd cover that anyway. If you've already asked for X amount and people have handed it over, you could always ask for Y amount.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page