NOT REALLY, BUT IT IS AN INTERESTING, ALTHOUGH MANY TIMES, FRUSTRATING INTERVIEW WITH GARY GROTH OVER AT THE COMICS REPORTER. FRUSTRATING FOR REPEATED QUESTIONING ABOUT WHY (AND WHEN) FANTAGRAPHICS NEEDS THE $150,000 AMOUNT THEY KICKSTARTED FOR AND GARY'S NEED TO HAVE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND, 2) THE ON-GOING CRITICISM TOWARDS CROWDFUNDING, SPECIFICALLY HERE IN THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, " One indictment of crowd-funding campaigns is that it pulls the campaigner away from a strategy of executing their core business in order to raise money in favor of doing things that that stand apart from that business... ...How do you respond to the argument that Fantagraphics' time may be better spent selling 20 more EC books than it is making 20 Fantagraphics fund-raising t-shirts? "
MY FAVORITE QUOTE FROM THE PIECE IS GARY'S ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION:
" The "indictment" of crowdfunding as you put it -- an accurate description of the criticism I've read -- and the general skepticism vented here and there, seems to be based on the premise that there is some Harvard Business School-approved platonic model of the free market that we are violating. I reject this premise entirely. As if telling people straightforwardly what you're raising money for -- in the crassest terms, manufacturing a "product" -- is somehow less legitimate than concocting a slick, manipulative advertising campaign to sell people garbage they don't need and never wanted. The latter is not only accepted but widely admired and embraced whereas the former is seen as suspect, as if we're just not playing by the rules -- rules presumably established by corporations, media conglomerates, and banks to enhance their own revenue and keep out those who can't afford to play the game. (And, yes, I am aware that Amazon is involved in Kickstarter.) So, no, I see it as a legitimate tool to raise needed revenue."
IT'S DEFINITELY WORTH READING, NONETHELESS... GO HERE: thecomicsreporter