PARTNERS - Offering

PARTNERS - Offering

What brands can do as Sponsors on the artists’ network:

Maybe this should be visualised in the partner slide!

  • Partners don’t need to maintain or pay for a company account
  • Partners* benefit from acting as any other user does (down with the kidz)
  • Partners* can sponsor parts or whole of projects using their marketing budget
  • Partners* can stipulate what is required and the artist takes it or leaves it 
  • - Do not close their requirement node until it’s fulfilled (project can’t be released, money not paid)
  •  - Requirements from brand remain private
  •  - Brand can use partner network to generate content for their own needs e.g. Youtube video. SR gets viral outboard exposure too perhaps?
  • Partners don’t appear on the network viz as they are a ‘funder’
  • Their name appears, as high up as the % contribution to the project dictates
  • Partners can perform a search (on popularity/topic/art-form/bespoke search term) 
  •  - They can pay x amount to multiple projects, (removing any that, for example, contain swear words in the titles)
  • Partners share the exact same functionality with the user* so they can get cosy with the user (chat in context of positive collaboration etc – showing they’re human and indeed helpful and experienced)
  • * The above refers to brand as ‘contributor’. The whole brand can’t start a project because it is ‘advertising’ but their artists/directors/employees of course can, and the brand then gets a logo etc according to how they set up their project (i.e. these kinds of projects would maximise brand exposure to the highest degree permitted on the Artists network.

What brands can do as partners on the Advanced network** (UK partners network first, to avoid cost of making this international, much harder)...:

  • Brands can sign up for the paid (/qualified) partner network, which sponsors more long-term engagements with artists with bespoke terms.
  • Set up fund raising projects B2B, including with bands who are businesses to fund large ventures with equity/other commercial terms.
  • Head-hunt artists from the artists network to become businesses (Artists are automatically invited to ‘pivot’ to that network, and end-game is they can sign up as companies there and then)
  • It is still permission-based, so they don’t have to pivot upwards to the partners platform. But brands can keep ‘wooing’ them by using the sponsorship model on the Artists platform.
  • A future development is for big brands to pay for a White Label solution in addition/instead of partner status, to administrate their internal physical releases, organise HR/company structure in an real-time integrated visualised way.  These solutions can't be integrated with the Artist network (but maybe can with the Partner network?)


  • CREDIT is gained on Artists network when a contribution is made in cash or in-kind.  If a person funds a bass-part, the person gets spent credit, and bassist gets live credit.  This live credit can either be used to cash money out, or used on digital content (funding other contributors).  When the live credit is cashed out or spent, it becomes spent credit.  The 10% that is paid in transaction fees is bonus credit that can't be cashed out, but that allows the holder to get finished content for free (e.g. downloads).  (Other artists need to agree to this in T&Cs or a tick-box).  This way we could claim '100% back to the artist!', given that joe hipster probably spends more than 10% of their spare cash on music...
  • SPENT CREDIT is recognised on both networks, and in the partners network it comes to represent ‘equity’****. Those on the Advanced network will already own shares in SR the company when the 5 year crowd equity transfer happens.  All other members of the network are able to pay to convert their credit into equity.  This softly incentivises them to try to become partner network, if they're ambitious, as they won't need to pay for equity.

** This begins as a ‘normal’ business rather than networked, and just like the Artists platform, it’s developed with the buy-in and influence of those earliest involved.

*** WHAT CAN'T BE DONE IS FOR EQUITY TO BE BOUGHT WITHOUT CREDIT BEING EARNED THROUGH WORK.  This is a Rubicon, as it really incentivises use of the platform.  The only equity deals happening without creative work/requirements contributions is that which the SR board does physically off-network to raise funds for the platform.

**** The metadata contains the % of the transaction that is due to all those who contributed to.  When Spent Credit becomes Equity this % also determines the equity.  While the default on Artists network is Creative Commons licence, one part to one person, the Advanced settings allow different ownership (strength of licence and breakdown) to be set against the same deliverable.  This managed within the Artists Network as an 'Advanced' settings UI.  Each individual can credit the equipment used, and the mixing engineer/studio for example, if this is different from the overall engineer, and these become part of the metadata as well as notes against the deliverable.  When pivoting into the Partners network, the project/band etc is asked to revise all existing projects via 'Advanced settings', and this is enforceable by law.

2 comments (Add your own)

1. Mr W M Howell wrote:
'Those on the Advanced network will already own shares in SR the company when the 5 year crowd equity transfer happens.' - need to make sure we're clear on the mechanism here. Let's assume our investors invest GBP 1m and own 33 p/c of SR Ltd in 2016. We then fulfill our business plan and for arguments sake SR Ltd is valued at 60m in 2021 In order for our seed investors to generate the returns we have promised them today, we must find investors willing to buy them out at the 60m valuation. That 33p/c is now worth 20m. We need to be clear when talking about credits / equity etc - I need to reread your post with fresh eyes, but bottom line we have to make sure that we have 20m in cash from the network - from individuals / strategic partners to exit seed investors after 5 yrs (ie they have made a 20 x return..)

Thu, July 28, 2016 @ 10:59 PM

2. Ed Stack wrote:
Hey Will, agreed, I have it down to revisit this model. Probably time for an updated explainer slide.

Mon, August 1, 2016 @ 6:02 PM

Add a New Comment


Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.