Criticism of these Innovations
Most of those who have such experiences respond with enthusiasm in the initial phases, and remain positive about them, because they met expectations which were fixed in time. But forms of discontent also become visible.
Firstly, constant involvement in the valorization process requires skills far removed from those required to launch the project. This demands time, energy and above all the possession or construction of a ‘community’ to support the project. Our research shows that, while people are initially very willing to use these platforms to fund their projects, those who have done so once are often hesitant to renew their project. While 83% of project creators state that they would like to use these platforms for funding, only 33% would do so for a second time.
The second concern involves the way the platforms work. MyMajorCompany and Indiegogo, for instance, have been attacked both by project creators and funders, who complain that their financial management and editorial decisions were opaque. Given the business models used, it may be that the argument that such platforms provide an alternative to the cultural industries is invalid. More recently, Patreon received heavy criticism for abruptly revising its methods for charging fees and transferring money. This is the same sort of asymmetric relationship imposed by the Big Five. It is a class relationship which favours the owners of the means of communication: the terms of service can be modified without consultation overnight.
There is also criticism of the platforms’ lack of interest in providing assistance, or in ofering help when litigation arises. The terms of service state clearly that these platforms are not liable in such disputes. Project creators alone are responsible. These disputes are much more frequent for technology projects. Unlike cultural projects, which are often funded by family members, technology projects attract a wider audience, without ofering any guarantee of success. If a project is funded but is not completed then, regardless of the misfortunes encountered during production, the project creator will have to deal with a complaint—and do so without any hope of support from the platform.
Participation in the digital era is described as opening up a wider field of possibilities. But the tensions and contradictions noted so far raise questions about the weaknesses of such evangelism. The first of these questions is about actual citizen participation, which is often more fantasy than reality. Such participation is far from homogeneous. As with Wikipedia (Levrel 2006) or information production (Rebillard 2007), online participation is very uneven, and often follows the 1–10–100 rule: for each person active full-time, ten work only sporadically, and a further hundred merely consult what has been done by those eleven. Referring to this rule, Dominique Cardon (2010) argues that participation establishes a hierarchy between those who are very active, those who are occasionally active, and the vast majority who consult the services or content produced. Financial participation through crowdfunding follows a similar logic. Beyond a few very active funders, who the platforms emphasize and who are even recognized by the ministry of culture as ‘cultural donors’, financial involvement varies greatly, and is not related solely to projects.
General Conclusion
101