Hi All:

Thanks very much to everyone who has responded thus far.

Instead of replying to each message separately, I'm going to try to combine
my responses into one message. Some of you heavy posters might want to
consider this approach… ;-)

At 10:52 PM 10/24/2002 -0400, t.whid wrote:
>You MUST fix the bugs on the web site before the fee is instituted. It's
>extremely buggy on anything other than IE/Win. I volunteer to rewrite the
>front-end in clean, contemporary xhtml/css.

As you know, Tim, fixing browser compatibility bugs is high on our priority
list. Thanks for volunteering to help–we'll be in touch!

>what about all the people who are happily syndicating Net Art News? do
>they keep it for free (as it functions sorta like an ad for rhiz)?

I was thinking that you'd just have to be a paying member to access the
syndication module. Not a perfect solution, but easy to implement.

At 12:42 AM 10/25/2002 -0400, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

>Why not. But I don't think $5.00 a year will really do it. Do you?

$5 might work if it were the low-end of a sliding scale, assuming the
average gift would be higher. If we set the threshold too low, we risk
losing money on the smallest transactions, because it takes us time and
thus costs money to process each transaction (we're actually working on
automating this, but it's pretty complicated as it involves both e-commerce
and database applications). If we set the threshold too high, we risk
excluding people. The survey we're running on the web site this week should
help us figure out the right level.

At 03:44 AM 10/25/2002 -0400, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

>Concerning charging for raw, I think charging for raw is a reasonable
>idea, and for the sake of reaching out and being idealistic, what if we
>waived fees for Raw for those who donate intellectual capital? For
>example, if you make a piece and it is donated to the artbase, or if you
>print something that the superusers deem as publishable, etc, etc, it
>could earn you credits towards using services at rhizome. Or if you are a
>super user. It has to be a small portion of the overall subscriber base.
>Not to mention that at this point, if those people didn't donate money
>then there is something bad happening.

I've definitely considered this, but it would be difficult to implement and
manage. More important, I'm not sure it's a good idea. We contribute our
work because we want to communicate, because we want access to an audience,
because we want to participate in a community. When we post texts to Raw,
contribute art projects to the ArtBase or do work as SuperUsers, we are
donating intellectual property but we are also getting something in return.
What I'm getting at is that value is gained on both ends of the system.
Members who contribute content are among the most devoted members of the
community and are likely to be among the most willing to pay a fee because,
although they contribute the most value, they also gain the most value.


At 11:47 AM 10/25/2002 +0100, Jess Loseby wrote:
>What worries me is what seems to happen is a small
>number of people end up doing all the work to keep the thing running
>but then, the rest enjoy the continued presence and remain uninvolved
>(while the few burn out - and for no money). Also would possible
>funders increase/continue future funding when it has been 'proved' that
>rhizome can 'work' with a reduced remit and volunteer-based set-up? It
>seems more likely that funders would see a membership fee as a
>positive sign that rhizome is seeking to become self-supporting and
>their money would be used to fund new initiatives, work and writing
>rather than (the badly needed but funding un-friendly) office supplies
>and pay-rolls…

Yes, that's exactly right. The more we support ourselves, the more fundable
we become.

>Perhaps, what the users of rhizome really need (and what would make
>rhizomes packages 'different') is a package targeted specifically for
>net. artworks/projects… a 'bottom-rung' package That is a one off
>payment including 1-2 yr domain
>registration and setup and $0 monthly hosting and (typically) 20 -40
>MB space. No frills no service

Great suggestion. I'm looking into it.

>second thought
>I would pay a 'ticket' fee to hear some of the guys on this list
>talk in a live webcast/chat on say, flash design, java, streaming media
>etc Or really get inside some of the 'named' artists work, with debate
>and questions alongside….

Nice idea, but riskier than one might at first think. My concern is that it
would be time-consuming to organize and might not attract enough users to
do much more than cover the costs. One of the keys to our success has been
that everything we do is member-driven, scalable and efficient. Our earned
income programs need to leverage our existing strengths in ways that allow
us to continue to focus on the core program. That's why we developed our
web hosting and online education programs through partnerships. We just
can't afford to invest significant resources in unproven ideas or to
reinvent the wheel.

>last thought (promise)
>Personally I think rhizome needs some more promoting (from my own
>experience) in the uk. There are particular channels that artist go
>through here locating resources, opportunities etc and rhizome just
>isn't there.

Great idea! I think you just volunteered to promote Rhizome.org in these
channels… ;-)

Seriously, if you send me your address I'll send you a stack of post cards
and a few press kits.

At 08:05 AM 10/25/2002 -0700, Pall Thayer wrote:
>An annual fee is fine. I would be willing to pay up to say $15. But what
>about access to the Artbase? I think that should remain free. I think some
>of us who have work in the Artbase look at it as sort of a venue for our
>work. I for one get lot's of hits on my site from Rhizome and am concerned
>about what might happen if only paying members were allowed access to the
>Artbase.

Allowing new members to try Rhizome.org for a week before they have to pay
a membership fee would solve that problem, no? I'd appreciate feedback on
this from others who voiced the opinion that the ArtBase should remain free.

At 12:45 PM 10/25/2002 -0400, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>i'll pay. although i think the sliding scale should be based on where one
>lives. americans and west europeans should pay more while folks from less
>affluent regions should pay less (or free).

But how would we implement this? Sniff IP addresses and look them up in a
global location database? Honor system? I don't think this makes sense. As
long as we set the low-end of the sliding scale low enough, it should work
itself out.

At 03:12 PM 10/25/2002 -0400, Liza Sabater-Napier wrote:
>Rhizome can choose to go the Salon.com way of having certain content for
>free and then make juicier parts available for a fee. I'm not sure that
>making RAW free would be such a great idea because it is probably the
>single most used service offered by Rhizome.

Actually, Raw is one of our least-used services. While usage of every other
list and feature has grown exponentially, Raw has hovered around 450
subscribers for over a year. By comparison, Net Art News grew from 1,200 to
3,700 subscribers in the same period. Yes, Raw gets lots of posts. But
that's partly because everything anybody posts goes to Raw, even if the
poster doesn't subscribe to Raw.

At 09:10 PM 10/25/2002 +0100, Jess Loseby wrote:
>What resources (in all fairness I've not spoken to Mark about this so I
>may be jumping the gun)?? I know a stack of colleges (and I'm sure many
>artists wanting to learn more about rhizome/net art, 'meet' the people
>etc) that would jump at getting their art/media students involved in
>a 'virtual internship' working for rhizome doing just that..for no money
>but the cv credit and experience. Our local galleries and arts
>organisation have almost half their admistration/publicity run in this
>way, with 1 -3 month student 'work placements' with a specified agenda.
>The resources we would need are a well structured 'brief' (eg basic
>outline could be to identify media/art/digital agencies, contact and
>promote rhizome) and someone to co-ordinate the 'interns' over email. I
>still think rhizome just isn't thinking global enough, ironically consider
>how much influence it has on global artists.

We do have a virtual internship program and invite international students
to apply, but you underestimate the time involved in selecting, training
and managing interns effectively.

At 10:07 PM 10/25/2002 -0400, Lee Wells wrote:
>What was the founding mission statement in the business plan?
>Has Rhizome expanded its mission from that original statement?

Yes, we have expanded our mission. Originally, it was focused on
discussion, which we described as "the exchange information and ideas
related to new media art." Our current mission statement now reads thus:

Rhizome.org is an online platform for the global new media art community.
Our programs support the creation, presentation, discussion and
preservation of conrtemprary art that uses new technologies in significant
ways."

>Raw, Calendar, and Opportunity listings for the most part can run themselves
>through the software that has already been designed. Big thumbs up by the
>way the new architecture is impressive. But now that the software is in
>place. Does Rhizome need to continue developing the site, very expensive
>right?

Not so expensive if we do it gradually. Francis Hwang is our Director of
Technology and he does everything himself (with helf from interns and
volunteers). It is important to keep fixing bugs, refining and improving
features, updating interfaces and static pages as the organization and our
programs evolve, and undertaking major renovations every few years.

>Rare should go although it probably doesn't cost much to operate
>Digest of course stays

Actually, in my hibernation scenario Digest would go but Rare would stay
because Rare is filtered by volunteer SuperUsers but Digest is edited by
Rachel (would be hard to get a volunteer to do this in a really consistent
and reliable way).

>Net Art News: I'm sure with a little hunting Rhizome can find a primary
>corporate sponsor. I'm sure providing this content service for Rhizome is
>very costly.

Yes, it is relatively expensive. We have had little luck with corporate
sponsors. To be honest, I'm almost glad. Corporate sponsorship almost
always comes with strings attached. And I do feel it creates a compramised
atmosphere for art. This is not to say that I'd turn a sponsor down. Just
that we aren't actively seeking corporate sponsorship right now.

>Put all commissions on hold.

That would be a real shame. The money is there. If we discontinue our
commissioning program, the funders of our commissioning program would
likely support other media. There are already so few sources of funding and
professional recognition for new media artists. To lose this opportunity
would be a real loss for the community.

>Do not do any events without complete sponsorship to cover all costs.

We've taken it one step further: we only do events in partnership with
organizations that cover all costs and do all the work. Our role is to help
conceptualize, contextualize and promote the event. This is how Rhizome.LA
works.

>Does Rhizome have to offer so many programs?
>Maybe its time for all of us to take a survey defining how we use Rhizome.

We started a strategic planning process a year an a half ago by doing a
community survey. In the survey, we asked our members which programs they
value most and asked them to evaluate some new program ideas. Based on this
survey and a bunch of individual interviews, we defined a set of core
programs. We then evaluated these programs in the context of three key
strategic objectives: community growth, community-based revenue and
scalable efficiency, and selected the programs that best meet these
objectives. These are the programs we offer now. From my perspective, they
are all either essential or of key strategic value.

The recent site redesign, and the addition of new features (such as the
calendar) and new programs (such as the commissions) are a direct result of
the strategic planing process. Since we've made these changes, traffic and
membership have grown more rapidly than ever before. So I think it's
working. The key is to get the community to cover a significant share of
the cost. Even if we trim back our programs and thus our costs, we still
need the community revenue. So the key is to strike the right balance.

>Out of the 19,000 members how many people actually could be considered
>active viewer/users vs. Passive viewers vs. someone who checked it out and
>signed up and forgot about it.

Hard to say. We don't track usage by user. But we do know that the web site
is now used by over 50,000 different people (unique users) per month, and
receives over 115,000 visits per month. That means that the average user
visits the site 2.1 times per month.

>As for me, I primarily only use Raw and very rarely goto the website.

You are the exception.

>Bring back the splash art and have artists donate their work again.

Splash art was not listed as a priority in the survey.

At 11:08 PM 10/25/2002 -0400, Lee Wells wrote:
>Ok. I'm down.
>Mark, what do you think?
>If Rhizome wants my assistance I'll help.

Go for it, but it would be best if you all did it indepently.

At 11:22 AM 10/25/2002 -0400, joy garnett wrote:
>Rhizome is certainly not alone these days as a non-profit art org in
>search of funding. Just about everyone in NY, including the older
>established non-profits, seems to be scrambling. There always seems to be
>a combo of benefit dinners, silent auctions, foundation grants, corporate
>sponsorships, private gifts, that have to be achieved year after year, in
>order to survive. Of that list, what fundraising process has Rhizome yet
>to approach?

We've done or tried all except an auction. Auctions work well for
organizations whose members or friends make art that people want to buy.
Unfortunately, there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that
people want to buy new media art, which is what our members and friends
tend to make. So I don't think an auction would make sense for us. Last
year, we did a party-style benefit. This year, we're doing a sit-down
dinner. More on that in a few weeks. We have done well with foundations
(better than any other new media art nonprofit that I know of). We haven't
done so well with corporate sponsors, partly because they seem to prefer
older, more established organizations. The fact that we are mostly online
(no wall to write their name on) seems to inhibit them as well. But as I
said earlier, not having corporate sponsors could also be seen as a mixed
blessing. We've done our best to attract private gifts from major
donors–last year we got about $7,000. I guess we don't have enough rich
friends… ;-)

>I'm no expert on fundraising, but there are definitely experts nearby, in
>New York. People who've been doing this for a while. Why not call upon the
>directors of arts organizations that have managed to hang in there over
>the years (decades) such as White Columns and Artists Space? I'm sure they
>would be happy to share their expertise. Call them up, buy them lunch,
>pick their brains (if you haven't already). What about pooling
>resources/knowlege? That would be rather rhizomatic…

I have done that with more comparable organizations such as Franklin
Furnace, and have also sought advice from various funders (mostly program
officers who have themselves run media arts organizations and understand
funding from both sides of the equation) and a terrific consultant by the
name of Greg Kandel (he helped us with our strategic plan).Lauren Nuzzi,
our Development Director, has over 10 years' experience. Our board is
another valuable resource. I don't want to sound defensive, but I do think
we know what we're doing when it comes to fundraising. We wouldn't have
survived this long–almost seven years–if we didn't.

>As for charging fees from Rhizomers, it would definitely change the nature
>and demographics of Rhizome, for better or worse. For every one person who
>pays, how many would just leave?

That's what we're trying to find out with our online survey… ;-)

>And would Rhizome suffer or benefit from their absense?

I think Rhizome would suffer for the loss of members, both in terms of
critical mass and in terms of diversity. The more the merrier, as far as
I'm concerned!

-Mark