IAWTV: The Case For Open Enrollment
As a member of the Membership Committee, and as its most vocal proponent for this issue, I was asked by the committee to write up my case for Open Enrollment to present to the IAWTV Board of Directors. I was also asked by the committee to share this letter here, so it can be read by both the members of the IAWTV and the web series community as a whole.
If you're at all interested in this issue, I ask that you read, share, and comment.
Thanks.
Jack
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,
The Membership Committee convened this year to recommend changes to the IAWTV’s membership eligibility criteria and enrollment policy. After much deliberation, we would like to strongly recommend to the Board that we change our policy to Open Enrollment.
This letter aims to explain our position and how we came to it.
Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter.
THE CASE FOR OPEN ENROLLMENT
When I initially proposed Open Enrollment to the IAWTV Membership Committee, it was met with resistance. The biggest argument against it was this:
We don’t want non-professionals, or people who have little to no interest in our industry, to join the IAWTV.
To which I argued:
They won’t.
Why would they? Would you pay $90 a year to join a professional organization for an industry you have no interest in?
IFP AND THE $90 SPEED BUMP
The $90 annual membership fee isn’t a roadblock, but it is a speed bump. It’s just enough money to make someone pause before joining, to ask him/herself the question, “is this really worth it for me?”
To provide some context, it's helpful to look at a similar organization: IFP.
In many ways, IFP is very similar to the IAWTV. It’s a professional organization (for independent filmmakers). It is the voting body for an influential industry awards ceremony (the Independent Spirit Awards). And it costs roughly the same amount of money to be a member ($100/year).
So how does one join IFP? You fill out the application, pay the $100, and... that’s it. You’re in.
Some have argued that Open Enrollment will ruin the IAWTV. It’ll corrupt the awards show voting! Yet IFP has had Open Enrollment from the beginning, and it hasn’t ruined their organization. It certainly hasn’t corrupted the Independent Spirit Awards.
The reason is because, for the most part, non-filmmakers simply don’t join IFP. Sure, they could, and it’s likely some have, but I’ve been a member of IFP for years, and I’ve never heard anyone complain. The actual filmmakers within IFP outnumber the non-filmmakers by such a margin that their involvement could never disturb the foundation of the organization.
IFP has actually grown in significance over the years. It’s done this in spite of its Open Enrollment policy. I would argue that it has done this because of its Open Enrollment policy. A policy that is, at its core, inclusive, not exclusive.
FILM AND TV ARE EXCLUSIVE, THE WEB IS INCLUSIVE
In order to join the Television Academy or the Motion Picture Academy, you must prove that you’ve been working within the industry for a number of years, on significant projects with wide exposure. Then, you must be sponsored by two current members, then be voted in by the Board of Directors.
These academies are much like the industries they represent. They’re designed to keep the general public out.
A side effect is that, by-and-large, within the organization, fresh blood (and the change that represents) is feared, not embraced. So every year, the median age of their membership continues to rise. And as a result, their relevance continues to be called into question (usually right around the time the “Best Picture” winner is selected).
The web, on the other hand, is open. It’s designed to let the public in. Anyone can create a web series, upload it, and gain worldwide exposure. It’s inclusive, not exclusive.
If the IAWTV intends to represent those who work in this medium, then it must be as inclusive as the medium itself.
THE PLEDGE
Rather than requiring IAWTV applicants to prove that they are “professionals,” why not give them the benefit of the doubt, by asking them to take a pledge, instead? We could make it part of the online application. Sort of like a Terms of Service Agreement.
“I certify that I am a professional working in the web series industry, and I agree to promote and further the cause of the IAWTV.”
Or something to that effect...
OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM
Moving forward, the biggest issue the IAWTV will face will be attracting new members (and retaining current ones). That is, getting (and keeping) people in, not keeping them out.
From my conversations within the community, I’ve found that, unfortunately, interest in our organization is waning. I already know many current members who aren't even considering re-upping their membership at the end of this year.
Much of this chagrin can be attributed to the negative attention the IAWTV received post-Streamy Awards. Like it or not, the IAWTV is perceived by many in the web series community as being too elitist, too opaque, and too cut off from the needs of the everyday members of the community.
I believe that how we handle this critical period will determine whether or not the IAWTV survives as a functioning organization.
Already, we are running far below our minimum membership count in order to cover our meager administrative costs. We cannot afford to lose a significant portion of our membership now.
The best way to combat these perceptions, and to attract and retain our members, is to open our enrollment policy.
IN SHORT
If people are passionate enough about our industry that they would take the time to apply to the IAWTV, pay $90 a year, and sign our pledge, they should be allowed in.
I say, we let them.
Thank You.
Jack Ferry
IAWTV Membership Committee, 2010
COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.
Comments
Nice to see such an open discussion.
It is time that the IAWTV opened up this discussion to public debate and this thread is a good beginning.
What about non web series creators who are still very much involved in the web series world? Tom Konkle decries the possibility of fan involvement, yet I submit, there are 'fans' who know more and have been involved in web series longer than most if not all of the people involved in the IAWTV.
You are probably right there are certainly fans who know more and have been involved in watching series longer than the business people and creators and distributors. Point taken
If you are involved then there is a criteria you meet. My postman however is in AFTRA and though he has not acted in 25 years and has no plans to again, he pays his dues and stays because there is no criteria and votes against our mergers, policies and even the new media contracts because its "fun" to be involved though there are no consequences. If the goal here is to create funding through large groups of monied enough to join people who will be voting members of an organization without actually doing what the organization does then sure welcome to the next AFTRA like mess.
If you are doing web series then YES you should be in. Those rejected who do series should be invited in.
If my mom likes the movie Beaches should she be a voting member of the Motion Picture Academy if she has the money? Should my uncle by allowed to be a member of the Foreign Press Association if he doesn't write or report, but does like to drink ;-)?
I hope I am wrong and opening membership builds a money war chest and the only people who join who are not web content/distribution people do happen to be somehow superfans who create a safe place for us to talk about technical concerns in the industry, projects in development,
Um ... What Jeff said. :-D
Fully open membership is preferable to the closed off system as it stands, obviously. (Because the people currently left out ... stating that they've been rejected twice ... it's a long list of great, qualified people!) Just a note of caution that what you decide now, though it may solve your current issues, may create implications for new issues in the future. So ... perhaps tier is not the right word, maybe "type" is.
It's all very new... And you're likely right, Jack, that it will turn out as you envision. But it is an "all in" and you're betting the farm on it. Okay. Too small to call it a farm. But you're betting the whole backyard garden, and not just the peas. It's a good bet though, with a good probability of paying off.
Best of luck!
XO
VR
Agree with Arevalo, increase the speed bump a bit. Anyone who is taking not only the craft seriously, but, as importantly, the business, will pony up. However, further agree with another comment that benefits need to be more clearly outlined. As a paying member of IFP, I can speak to the direct and indirect value of their organization. And they very clearly delineate [and promote] these benefits. This must be done. And if it is, talented, serious professionals will pony up and open enrollment will weed out the casual observers enabling the IAWTV to focus meaningful resources and services on a passionate, professional membership base.
It doesn't seem, according to IAWTV's website, that there is much of a reason TO join. That has been a complaint of mine for over a year. What's the purpose of this IAWTV? There has to be more to offer a member or prospective member than just a opportunity to vote on an awards show. What does one get for their $90? Have the benefits expanded since over the summer's reorganization? I agree with Tom Konkle and say no to a "pledge" type of enrollment. instead, how about an open referral/nomination system where new members can join, but only by the referral of a current member. Don't apply online and then put someone's name you know in the industry as a reference. The problem with the current system is the reference will be blind sided or the IAWTV will turn you down without explanation...and never contact you as to why. A current member's reputation is riding on it and if they want to bring you into the organization, then great. They will have done the vetting process already, supported your work, know your values and what you can bring to the organization. it's not elitist, it's how a lot of organizations are formed and built up. Your local Tupperware party is set up the same way...not that I've been to one. If there are 100 members today and everyone brings one new quality prospective member next month, then it has doubled to 200. The next month is repeated and now the membership is 400. Within six months the membership can grow substantial. If monthly is too fast, then accept new members every quarter. Call it MLM if you want. The point is when there are personal reputations on the line then the community knows their members are helping shape the industry. Of course the prospective member has to somehow be in the industry. You don't need to know nominees face to face either. This is the web, we make friends on Twitter, email, and FB. We know their creative contributions even if they are in Omaha or London. A membership system that's open to whomever has the $90 cheapens the IAWTV. Or you could just scrap the whole IAWTV if there isn't a purpose. Again, what are they doing? Are they lobbying city, state, fed legislatures? Is there a job bank where members can hire other members? Are they defining a system of standards for the web series industry? Are they working with schools or other non-profits to help create new media? Have they forged relationships with major studios allowing opportunities for it's members to learn from, perhaps pitch, to them for future projects? The IAWTV, in spirit, has so much to offer and now's the time to redefine a purpose and a plan to implement that purpose. Start with nurturing the creative and community development and end it with an awards show to recognize the achievements OF the IAWTV, not the other way around.
Patrick Bardwell, founder of Slebisodes Web Series Guide
Thanks for your comment.
I agree that, at the moment, the reasons to join the IAWTV seem sparse. But I can assure you that the question of, "What do I get for my $90?" is one that will be answered in a much more satisfying way very soon. Many of your suggestions have already been raised. (Although, I think it's unlikely that we'll be lobbying Washington anytime soon. That kind of thing requires some major capital; we're still figuring out just how to keep this baby running.) But that is a topic for another day.
Re: the "referral" system. My fear is that this will continue to perpetuate an organization which is far too insular. If people out there are making a cool web series in the middle of Iowa, or Ireland, or Timbuktu, then I want them to join! Bring their insights, their diversity. But they might not have ANY industry connections. By required them to be sponsored by current members, we'd lose those voices.
That isn't the web. The web is open. You don't need a referral to start a YouTube channel. You don't (anymore) need industry connections to make a riveting new series.
Getting into the IAWTV shouldn't be about "who you know."
As a content creator and producer of a web series looking into IAWTV from the way outside (Michigan to be exact), here's my situation:
I want to join IAWTV
-I'm fully willing to pay $90 a year.
-I want to participate in the discussions and momentum on the future of what the union represents, even if I rarely, or aren't able, to actually see them face to face.
-I want to help connect with 'headquarters' while at the same time helping spread the potential and possibilities of the IAWTV to content creators in a new area (relative to the 'capital' of IAWTV now).
-I want to take part in evolving the medium and taking it to new heights for everyone involved, too.
Here's what I'm getting:
-I see painfully vague statements about 'proof' we're 'professional'. What's constitutes that designation? How are you defining it?
-I see that I have to have industry professionals that will vouch for me, waving off the doorman with "No, it's okay. He's cool."
-I also have to have an IAWTV member vouch for me. So potentially three people waving the doorman off.
-You have a box asking for info on Streamy Nominations in the past, because this is how you get 'on the list'.
-When rejected, you're never told why.
I've created and produced a web series, am releasing it now, and doing it with cast and crew that aren't in California, and a city that isn't LA or it's surrounding entertainment industry.
Right now, from my Point of View, I'm immediately seeing in *just the application process*, without filing out one line, that I immediately am not 'cool enough' to be allowed in. Because in my location, I have to reinvent the infrastructure that's taken for granted near HQ.
It's very easy to say "We don't want scrubs, we want to prove we're professional" the closer you are the epicenter surrounded by a larger concentration of said 'professionals'.
But right now, I'm being shown that even having created, written, cast, shot, edited, produced and released a 13+ episode season of a web series on my own without any of the benefits or connections of IAWTV or its members being in my circle of connections, the very fact I didn't:
-Do it near or with people the IAWTV finds acceptable to vouch for me as a creator
-Didn't get enough views,
or press coverage,
or a Streamy nomination,
or get a guest star that's 'big enough' in the industry, (aka 'professional' by your definition, I'm guessing)
or an actor that's 'big enough', (aka 'professional')
or a producer who's 'big enough', (aka 'professional')
-Shot it near Headquarters
-Fulfill any number of completely unknowable factors since rejections are never given with reasons.
...that I'm just not allowed to participate and help IAWTV evolve the very thing we all want to take part in, and I'm not 'good enough' to be able to have any of the benefits. That's what it seriously looks like out here.
My work isn't The Bannen Way shiny, or Compulsions badass, or Guildtastic, and not for lack of effort. I'm proud to say this was my first effort and I'm learning and trying to build the laboratory out here and make my craft better in a place where the infrastructure doesn't exist. I think I could both learn valuable things from being able to communicate and participate in IAWTV discussions and community. I also believe I would be able to provide the community with good insight on where we can go, and what we can do, having the perspective of, literally in the case of the current make-up of IAWTV, an outside perspective and the benefit of being in a different demographic area where the entertainment form could be spread.
However, my $90 won't be accepted, I'm not allowed in, and I'm apparently not 'acceptable' because of not being acceptably noticeable with someone 'cool enough' to wave the doorman off, and I'm not located near HQ to be seen and talked to.
I see from this that there are people who *are* near HQ, work in the right circles, do major work and share expertise for 'the bigs', have the people to wave the doorman off and *still* don't get in. Which only makes me see it's even more impossible for someone doing the work from out here to be allowed to look in the window.
At least they can still fill out the form completely.
Thanks so much for your input, James. From my perspective, you sound exactly like the kind of person we would want in the IAWTV.
And you brought up a really good point about the current criteria -- having to get current members to vouch for you. That policy is the perfect way to create an insular organization with no diversity.
The "I" in IAWTV stands for "International." We NEED web series creators in Michigan to join the IAWTV. We need creators from everywhere.
If we open our enrollment policy, I really hope that you will join us.
Thanks for your comment.
Well, from my POV, I created and released a web series where I was able to get a guy from Norway for our title theme, a guy from the UK to make custom craeture veneers for our star, and David Welch and Freddie Wong to appear as special guests in an episode.
But I can't get standing room in The Academy, and just looking at the line right now shows me I won't ever get in.
If you open up membership in a meaningful way, and try to evolve the process so people in my position aren't then stuck in some 'junior member' limbo because we're not near HQ or don't fulfill more vague concepts that are never explained when used against someone, I'll be the first one in line!
This has the opportunity to be something really great for a LOT of creators, artists and technicians in this medium, and start to make the power of the internet something more than a stepping stone into traditional media. I would only ask that the IAWTV recognize that the size of the landscape is as much advantage as disadvantage, and in the young stage The Academy is in, the advantages need to be the focus because of their sheer number.
For the fear of Fanboy #343523 joining just to sit next to Felicia Day and drool on themselves while offering nothing on the process, there's also a creator over in Michigan (and other places we don't even realize yet) with hope he can participate, learn from, and help evolve what's possible. Unfortunately, I don't have Kim Evey and Bernie Su on speed dial to vouch for me.
But if I did get in, don't worry:
I'll happily sit next to Tom Konkle. If he leaves his Britney stuff at home.
I hesitated to comment, because I feel that I'm too new to the community to weigh in. Then, upon consideration, I think that's exactly why I should weigh in. Before I got to know Jeff Koenig, my impression of the IAWTV was not a good one. As someone new to the community, I got the impression that IAWTV was exclusive, and difficult to get into. I was also told by several people that the only reason to join was to be considered for the Streamys. Not a good enough reason for me. I now know, through Jeff (he's an excellent ambassador by the way) that IAWTV is meant to be much more than that. As an objective outsider, I see and understand both sides of this argument. However, much of what I love about the web community is how much it is NOT Hollywood. Hollywood is a huge race to be on the A list. The web community is a huge race to create the best entertainment in the newest medium. Our world is about the WORK. It's about passion. And as far as I have experienced, every single person from the top down has been open, kind and helpful. I am brand new to this community. I have no idea what IAWTV is actually like. But if it wants to represent its community, I feel it should be as open and welcoming as the individuals it represents. I understand the fear of letting i just anyone. We need a respected professional organization representing us. I do feel the two or three tiered system is an excellent compromise.
Aww, shucks. *blush*
As someone who has been on the periphery of the IAWTV activities, and is (hopefully) about to become a bona fide member (pesky business of the show being made, but, you know...details), I find this discussion very interesting.
I think that open membership and collaboration with other organizations LIKE IFP, WGA, SAG/AFTRA, DGA, AFI... would really help increase the profile of the organization. So many people, some of whom have actually created or worked on webseries have no idea that the IAWTV exists. If you want a strong membership, you need to get people active and engaged.
That only happens through open membership.
Jack, I think you've convinced me. I've been a proponent of exclusivity (even though I nearly did not get in), but I'm among those who has been confused by other people who've worked hard and contributed a great deal to multiple shows who have been rejected (many of who have not resubmitted after that initial rejection - why should they?). The membership committee has been working tirelessly to correct oversights and put together strong membership standards, but the work is difficult, to say the least, and all involved are volunteers.
Over the summer, I've also seen various other committees I'm on struggle to get basic things done - our membership is so small, the organization is cash-poor, and we are all so busy with our own projects (here I am 100% guilty). it is hard to get even basic things done on "volunteer time," much less offer the additional benefits and services Matt asked about, especially when there are so few of us, and the community is so large. It's not for lack of trying or passion or commitment that the IAWTV is struggling to define itself and to create value for its members. It's a by-product of being such a young organization with a small membership and a flat hierarchy in a time when those very members are used to near-immediate satisfaction to any and every issue, thanks to the pervasiveness of the internet.
I also struggle with the idea that opening membership changes dramatically the Streamys. I think that concern is misplaced. We're still trying to figure out how and what to reward with an IAWTV award show - how can a thing so in transition be corrupted or diminished? At the very least, the inclusion of a wider community increases a sense of legitimacy - that can only be good. I'm not advocating a worldwide, no restrictions popularity contest. But members who care enough to scrape their pennies together to join will take the responsibility of voting seriously, I have no doubt.
Whether we open membership or not, growing the IAWTV into something useful to all of us will take time. I marvel at the assertion the IAWTV is already obsolete - it hasn't even had the chance to become significant yet. Let's not take the opening weekend mentality that has corrupted the traditional entertainment industry - let the IAWTV blossom. If you don't want to join, or want to create your own organization, that's fine. But let's not kill this thing (this well-intentioned group) in its infancy. Many good people are working extremely hard to create something of lasting value, especially the committee chairs and board members with whom I've had the pleasure of working.
Finally, again, Jack, you've changed my mind. I think we should open enrollment (tho I think, as Matt stated, the dues should be upped slightly - the organization simply needs more funds to be effective). Let creators and contributors to this new world self-identify. Maybe it won't always stay open - maybe at some point a large, robust, active membership decides it must return to a curated membership. But for now I agree with Jack - I think we're best served by opening it up and bringing on more passionate, energized people.
Agreed, open it up. $90 is enough to weed out the random yahoos. BUT I realize people will still be paranoid and worry that crazy idiots are signing up. So maybe Jeff's idea would be a good compromise. Just check for one credit on a web series.
Jack,
Spot-on assessment of the situation. My understanding is that our current membership is actually not all that International. If gaining membership was as easy as filling out a form (pledge included) and paying a fee (ostensibly online), my guess is that there would be complete veracity in the name of our organization. Also, I have some question around how we choose to define webseries (episodic scripted narrative delivered online? does mobile count? what about our talking head friends? how about online programming that is delivered in a single episode? what about online entertainment or other video initiatives that defy these definitions...and perhaps have not been conceived of just yet?).
I like the idea that we are building an organization full of professionals. But, qualifying someone as such in such a young industry seems a difficult, if not downright nepotistic task. If you're involved in the entertainment side of this business, someone doesn't like your content. So, what counts? Views? Awards? Artistry? Style? Duration of effort? Peripheral contributions? What?
Perhaps the job of the membership committee in a world of open enrollment is to inspire membership to aspire to greatness. May we all rise together and learn from our shared successes and mistakes. Instead of working to determine who is and isn't, perhaps we forge ahead helping people become; if we do so, things we never imagined will become commonplace and the pallette of our opportunity wil be tremendously broadened. Pie in the sky? Dunno.
Are we ready for the teenagers who in five years or so will already have more experience than we do now and will have grown up with online video as part of their lexicon of human interaction? They will change the world of online video, webseries, and entertainment in ways we can't imagine. Why keep them out of the organization or the ongoing conversation about what this industry will become?
Jack, thank you for sharing your well thought out perspective and your openness to an unknown future!
Strongly disagree with open enrollment. It like any other group its effectiveness is diluted the more you add people who are not invested in it anymore than paying and maybe doing something one day as a show or worse paying to sit near someone from a show they like. I am SURE as it grows it would be like Joe Blow super fan who pays money at convention would EASILY pay 90 to sit next to a star or creator of a show they like in meetings and parties and they can offer nothing.
Trust me its human nature. Do you want the comic con web groupee crowd to have access to biz meeting and us in our business and have them have voting powers just because they have 90 bucks? We love our fans but that's the dynamic. Business that creates for fans... fans who have their own lives, jobs and work who enjoy it.
My postman votes on my AFTRA contract and healthcare because 20 years ago he was in a PSA and never did anything since but he pays the dues. He has no vested interest or consequences to his voting in something that feeds my family and provides healthcare. He is covered by his other job. Thats open membership at work.
If the woman off the street can buy her way into the organization with no experience or stake biz wise into an organization what are we? What are we part of exactly?
If someone who meets no criteria is an equal member then what is this we are in?
I drive a car, should I sit among on the automotive designers, executives and union boards?...probably not even if I had the 90 bucks.
We don't have them add to our creative business decisions within our organization nor do we invite them to internal gatherings. They are still important to our business. Just not setting the bylaws, tech specs and standards internally.
If we are to be like the other academy's there has to be SOME sort of criteria....
Thanks for your thoughts, Tom. This was a very common concern in our Membership Committee meetings.
Ultimately, though, I disagree that the IAWTV will suddenly become overrun with casual fans. There's so many other, better ways for them to get access to the stars and show creators that they love. Internal IAWTV business will, I think, be far too boring for most of them. And I believe the $90 will be a much stronger deterrent than you feel.
Besides, in this community, fans can be very active, and are way more engaged in our shows, than fans in most other mediums. Part of this is the due to openness and accessability that the web facilitates. I would encourage engaged fans of web series to join the IAWTV. They are huge part of what makes this medium so thrilling. Look at how many series encourage, and then thrive, on audience participation.
As for your postman, obviously I can't know for sure, but I think that he probably stays active in AFTRA in case his acting career moves forward again and might need to re-apply for those health benefits. In which case, he sounds like an engaged member of the organization, who has paid his dues to support that organization. Maybe his acting career isn't very impressive, but should he be denied the right to vote, after diligently paying his dues for 20 years?
That issue aside, I understand the why a union like AFTRA does not have an open enrollment policy. But our organization is not a union. And our membership will likely not be voting on issues that directly affect your ability to care for your family.
Thanks for commenting. Dissenting opinions are essential to this discussion.
On the issue of the $90 "deterrent" factor. Someone paid $1500 for Brittney's bra (yes its worth it trust me) at a convention, but the point is we would NOT want this person as a voting member of our production even though they had the pay and the enthusiasm.
The $90 would also be a tax write off as a membership dues item so not really much of a hit.
Second thought, I have some fishnet stockings and naughty underthings she has worn that she and I could sell and kickstart a new MGM.
Nevermind. See you at the movies!
Good points. We are somewhere in the middle.
He stays in for the free screeners and the voting on issues he has no stake in actually
And he voted against the merger which I nearly killed him for, he doesnt care the outcome as he is a state employee doing an unrelated job but as he said "What the heck" but staying in an organization makes him feel important in order to make decisions that affect other peoples lives except his own. Like opening all my mail or delivering it to a registered sex offender. :-)
Cheers
I think using the IFP model makes a lot of sense. Jack's point that the web is inclusive not exclusive is exactly right. VeniceRiley's suggestion of a two-tiered membership may also work, as long as the entire body can vote on relevant issues. As far as opening the vote to all goes, as most union members know, most members don't end up voting, even though they have the right. Only the ones who care will vote and contribute, but you will have a democratic body. I personally have not applied for membership as of yet but as far as I understand, one of the major frustrations within the community is the chaos and lack of clarity in why someone is accepted and why someone is not. Several key members of the web series community were denied membership, I presume by error. This will iron that out. Daryn Strauss Digital Chick TV
Jack,
Speaking as someone who is not involved with the IAWTV and just sort of stumbled onto this whole other world of webseries I agree with you. When my colleagues and I went about to making our series we had no idea of the vast resources that were available to us. We thought it was us against the world. Had we known of the various organizations earlier in our path to creating original content for the web I'm sure we would not have made the same mistakes.
There are many creators out there many of whom I've met and struck a friendship wherein the only reason we found each other is because of the common factor in that we didn't know where else to go or didn't know what else was out there or what was available to us. We basically just sort of did everything blindly with just a road map to our destination without the knowledge of the pit stops along the way.
Open enrollment would be beneficial for those of us out here at LEAST in the fact that we have a choice to join, which I believe many would jump at the chance. I do agree with Jeff (who has been very beneficial to the community on the outside with advice and resources) in that it shouldn't just be a "FREE FOOD COME ON BY" kind of openess but a "We're Open" sign hanging in the front.
- Rodney E. Reyes
@rodneyreyes
I do agree with Jeff, that it would be great to have that web series connection, even if you just wrote about watching one once, but that is also covered in the author's argument that anyone that doesn't probably won't join, or will do so in numbers that won't make much of a difference. I think the biggest problem now is that people don't know what does actually qualify you to be a member. People that I consider web series professionals have been denied membership, and with no reason given it's hard to tell if it's even worth it to try to join. Either way a clearer definition on what you need to do to be a member is needed.
Now my only question is, what would be the benefits of joining besides paying $90 to vote for the Streamy's? I haven't really heard a peep out of IAWTV on anything since after the awards show.
I completely agree with Matt, to the point of Why. Why would I want to spend money, that I barely make a living on, on something that I don't even know the benefit to.
To other people's points about non-professionals joining: let them join. If they're willing to pay the money to support something they believe in but are a farmer in Paraguay, let them have a vote. We are far too young of a community to be picky where our money comes from (kickstarter, indiegogo, etc.). Why should we be picky about the money that's helping fund an organization meant to grow this community more?
To the point of raising the cost. Raise it too much, I think $150 is too much, and you risk alienating the people who sincerely want to join, but would rather feed their family, but I don't believe raising it $10 will make that difference, but would make people think more about joining. There is psycological things that happen when people see a 3 digit price over a 2 digit price. It does make a difference.
Great points here, Jack. Especially the point about money. It's a subject that few enjoy talking about, but it is necessary that this practical point be made. (And I would add... IAWTV needs a grantwriter immediately if not sooner.)
Your point about the IFP is well made. And I would add, in addition to your point about finances, the concept of reaching a critical mass of members is crucial for the relevance and health of IAWTV.
Perhaps a two tier system would be doable, if total open enrollment is not adopted. I can understand the feeling of the membership wanting to belong to a professional organization. A two (or even three) teired system consisting of different priviledges (ie: rights to vote on policy, serve on committies, vote on awards, run for board seats, etc) could work.
I'm typing this on my blackberry. So I'Ll shut up now and email you or something... Or post more latert from a full keyboard once I've gathered my thoughts.
As for quitters ... HOW DISAPPOINTING! Wow. They screamed for control, got it, changed the whole board substantially, got the committees up and running, then bail when it's all just starting???!!! I am appalled and Well, I have no words.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
To be fair, I think that the "quitters" are NOT the same people that called for change and voted in the new board members. Rather, these are the people who felt, much like commentor Patrick Bardwell above, that, well... "What exactly did I get for my $90 last year?" (As I said above, that's an issue for another day, but one we are actively tackling.)
Re: A "Tiered" membership system. I am VERY opposed to this idea. And it has been brought up numerous times in the Membership Committee. I'm against it for two main reasons:
1: NO SECOND CLASS CITIZENS
This has already gotten our organization into hot water (remember how all the craft nominees felt at this year's Streamy Awards?).
Imagine this exchange:
"Are you a member of the IAWTV?"
"Yes. I'm a junior member."
"Oh, I'm sorry, sir. This event/show/ballot/benefit is for FULL members, only."
The subtext of that is... only REAL members are allowed.
You want to join the IAWTV? Then join. Or don't. In or Out. No half memberships. Or as Yoda says, "Join. Or do not. There are no Adjuct Memberships in the IAWTV."
2: LET'S NOT COMPLICATE MATTERS
We're a young organization with extremely limited resources. Let's make the admission process simpler. Our Membership Committee is full of extremely busy volunteers. We have no staff. We can't pore over all these applications, asking ourselves whether or not someone should be a full member or an adjunct member.
If we grow to a point where we can afford to hire a staff, and then begin to buckle under the weight of our own membership, then I'd entertain the idea of multiple tiers of membership (MAYBE).
But for now? It would be laughable to offer adjunct memberships when the benefits of membership are still so sparse.
I knew I should have commented earlier and now you've beaten me to the punch. I think a three-tiered system would be a great idea. Even if I thought I could currently get membership, I'd hesitate to do so since I wouldn't be able to take advantage of a lot of the benefits. For many folks who are involved in the industry but aren't in a position to go to events (or spend $90+ on membership), a cheaper membership consisting only of online benefits like Streamy voting and online forum access would be ideal. There could even be a non-voting "supporter" level membership for non-professionals who still want to help support web entertainment. Perhaps it could be an entry level way of getting the next round of content creators involved and giving them some guidance. Obviously, the number of tiers, member benefits, etc. could use some tweaking by someone with more knowledge of the current status and future plans of the organization, but I think it would help get more people actively involved in promoting and caring for the industry.
If that didn't make things clear, I'm supportive of open enrollment.
I to am torn on the issue, but support open enrollment. I've been turned down for membership twice, regardless of having worked on, in key positions, the Guild, Legend of Neil and others, as well as creating & directing a few short run shows. Honestly right now the IAWTV comes off as an elitist, holier than though organization who do not even attempt to value the thought/opinion or even want to acknowledge that there are other worthy candidates whom are not show writers or creators. Im speaking of the Cinematographers , the Gaffers, the Sound Guys, the Production teams. basically the people who break their back making a product for someone else to look good and getting little or no recognition. There is a distinct lack of "crew" representation the way it stands.
-jared hoy
www.jaredhoy.com || www.hcqproductions.com
Yeah, to echo what Jeff said, I am ABSOLUTELY in favor of more crew members in the IAWTV.
In addition to being a series creator, I, myself, am also a DP, editor, writer, sometimes actor (often under duress), producer, and boom op (ok, once) on a variety of web series. I've been nominated for 2 Streamy Awards, and both were in the craft categories, so you know I have a dog in this fight.
The marginalization of crew members in the IAWTV has been something I've railed about from the get go. I find it embarrassing that you've been denied admission. Twice (UGH).
I agree with you. Without question, we need more crew member representation within the IAWTV.
Jared,
As I've learned through numerous conversations we've had, I can tell you Jack is most definitely a supporter of increased representation - even in a limited/closed membership scenario - of crew members in the IAWTV, especially those in key positions.
On this point we wholeheartedly agree.
I agree with the author - the IAWTV runs the risk of becoming obselete. They need a broad base to legitimize the organization. After I applied for membership and was rejected (although I am involved in the web series world, and wrote and produced a web series which was well-received), I lost all interest in the IAWTV. Sour grapes, perhaps - but my enthusiasm was real.
Open enrollment will counteract this problem. There is a chance that those who currently run the organization will lose control, but the question is, how important is it that those who currenly run the organization remain in control?
I suspect open enrollment will not significantly alter the composition of the membership. And perhaps it will help correct the perception that the Streamys are an inside job.
Good luck to you guys!
Dear Jack,
I cannot express how much I agree with you on this. The IAWTV has this opportunity to show it is fit to lead and be lead by the community it is set up to serve.
We shouldn't be emulating jaded and broken systems. If the IAWTV doesn't embrace the whole community then some other organisation will, and the community with be split to the detriment of all.
I hope for all our sakes the IAWTV listens to your well-reasoned and heartfelt arguments.
Thank you for your work on this.
I must admit, I'm personally torn on this issue, but far more a proponent of open enrollment than exclusiveness. It remains my belief that this industry is far too young for *any* sense of elitism, and that, for all that we have done - when compared to the massive future in front of us - none of us has really done anything to be elite about yet. Will we? Yes. But in the meantime, we have to be inclusive and welcoming to new ideas and fresh perspectives that may influence the growth of the industry in a positive fashion.
That said, I do believe that IAWTV membership should require you to be a part of the web series community in some manner - creator, actor, crew, journalist, entrepreneur, agent, what have you - and that being involved with web series is somehow part of your job (even if it's not a job you get paid for). And maybe Jack is right, maybe without that you have no reason to apply and/or pay the membership fee, and my worries about Joe McRandom who has no real interest in the space are unfounded.
I guess I can summarize by saying while I'm not sure the door should be left wide open where the flies can get in, it should definitely be unlocked with a big ass "Welcome" mat for anyone who wants to come on over.
-Jeff Koenig
Well put Jeff
I think this is a very well thought out and compelling case. I would, however, recommend an increase to $125 or $150 for dues at this stage to help both continue to cover costs and provide a slightly larger speed bump.