Talk:Threshold pledge system

Earlier discussion

I'm not an expert and I might be slightly wrong, but haven't some of the most highly regarded works of art been sold in a way very similar to the SPP in 18th and 19th century? Mozart and Beethoven, among other composers, used subcriptions to premiere concerts and/or first print editions of their works. This meant (unlike in today's meaning of subscription) that a fixed number of people had to sign up and pay some amount before the concert could take place / the printing press started. Right now I don't have a reference handy and can only offer a quote from this (result of a quick google) to clarify what I'm talking about:

these three (piano) concertos K413-415 (...) formed an important milestone in his career, being the first in the series of great concertos that he wrote for Vienna, and the first to be published in a printed edition. Initially, however, he followed the usual practice of making them available in manuscript copies. Mozart advertised for subscribers in January 1783: "These three concertos, which can be performed with full orchestra including wind instruments, or only a quattro, that is with 2 violins, 1 viola and violoncello, will be available at the beginning of April to those who have subscribed for them (beautifully copied, and supervised by the composer himself)." Six months later, Mozart complained that it was taking a long time to secure enough subscribers. This was despite the fact that he had meanwhile scored a great success on two fronts:....

I think this fact merits a mention in the History of the Street Performer Protocol section. regards, High on a tree 23:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

or see this example, a record label in the 1930s: ...before manufacturing, they showed title lists in the store and ask clients who were interested to sign an order. Only after a certain amount of signatures (maybe 200), the record was pressed and delivered. (doesn't explain if one had to pay when signing or later, though.) I'll edit the history section some day to include description of such examples, which are important for showing that schemes similar to the spp have worked historically. regards, High on a tree 14:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This historical stuff should definiately be included. It may do it myself in the next few days. matturn 14:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'll second that. I'm also pro merging the page on Ransom publishing model into this page. Better make one quality article than several hangers. --MortenB 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mrm, I'm not so sure. There are important differences between these systems. I don't think understanding is well-served by merging them together as if they were variants on the same thing; they're not, really. --Karl Fogel 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of important differences between the traditional subscription model and fund-and-release, though. The most important difference is the "release" part -- the subscribers would be among the first to get access, and would do so with the understanding that the work would likely always be a "rare" good; thus there was some status in owning a copy, as well as in having supported the work's creation. With fund-and-release, you're paying solely to cause the work to exist (and perhaps for the prestige of having been one of the patrons -- the artist may well mention you in the credits); the expectation is that there will be an infinite number of copies, i.e., as many as needed. Another difference is that the subscriptions were usually at a set price (though some wealthy subscribers may have sometimes given more, in order to be a patron), whereas with fund-and-release, each funder chooses how much they want to pay. So while I think it makes sense for these articles to link to each other, they shouldn't be merged: they're distinct systems. --Karl Fogel 02:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The merger proposal seems to be linked backwards. I assume that the very stubby Fund and release would be merged into the more robust and fully developed Street Performer Protocol article. Essentially F&R sounds like a variation on the much older theme of SPP, thus it would make a good section within SPP under the section called Variations. I see that Ransom publishing model was already changed into a redirect to this article. If that's truly distinct from SPP, then it should be broken out into another sub-section under Variations. Rational Street Performer Protocol and the Wall Street Performer Protocol could also be expanded rather than just linking off-site. In short, it seems that the article with the greatest length, the most history, and the one from which all the other variations on a theme should be the surviving article. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) [edited 06:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)]

Move to Threshold pledge system?

Street Performer Protocol → threshold pledge — Completing malformed request by User:Classicalecon--Aervanath (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Street Performer Protocol → Threshold pledge system — Threshold pledge is a broader term which SPP falls under, not the other way around. — Shadowmage13 (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was Fund and Release redirected to Threshold Pledge? The terms are completely synonymous; I'm just unable to tell from the above sequence why the redirection is being done that way instead of the other way. --Karl Fogel 00:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

micropledge.com

I've removed this site because I know from a personal communication that it is shut down and works as a demo. --Beroal (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

History of the idea

"Street Performer Protocol is the origin of the threshold pledge system." This is false. It was discussed in experimental economics literature in the late eighties at the very least (do a Google books search for "provision point mechanism"). Alex Tabarrok's innovation, the "Dominant assurance contract", is also not original, it appears in these very same papers.

This idea has been reinvented many, many times. As far as I can see, John Pratt (the founder of fundable.org, the first website offering a Threshold Pledge system) and Perry Chen (founder of Kickstarter) were also unaware of each other, or any previous incarnation of their idea.

I'd correct it, but I'm not going to get into another wikipedia dispute over "original research". I'll just post this here and leave it to someone willing to engage this dysfunctional community ;) 176.75.193.29 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this in any way different from crowdfunding?

If there is a difference between a threshold pledge system and conditional crowdfunding, perhaps that should be more clearly stated in the article. I understand it's older, yes, but it's not very clear if there is any other difference.Brinerustle (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)