As Usual, It Begins With Spam (Sigh)
About a week ago I received an Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE or spam) that was a little unusual. Rather than hawking the standard spam fare (drugs, sunglasses, handbags and dubious “SEO” services) it was an “invitation” to participate in an “Artists Showcase” here in Boston. In my experience, most of these invitations are really offers to take your money. That fact that it arrived in the form of a spam email raised my mental warning flags even higher. A little web searching (at the end of this post you’ll find links to the most helpful pages I could find) confirmed my suspicions.
Having a busy week, I ignored the spam rather than reporting it. Then I received a second spam this morning. So I decided a blog post was warranted.
Here’s the Pitch
It’s called “RAW Artists” (or “RAW: Natural Born Artists”). They hold a big party with bands performing and artists of all stripes (including you, perhaps!) showing their work. People pay to come and party. And while they’re there they’ll see your art and you’ll make money. So — Big party. Fun. Music. Art. What’s not to like?
Pay to Play
Here’s how the scheme works: You, the artist being invited to show your work (or band invited to play), have to agree to sell a certain number tickets to the RAW Artists event. If you fall short of the required number you have to pay the difference out of your own pocket. (Of course, as a participant being “honored” with an invitation to the event you naturally get a discount on tickets, right? Of course not, you poor, naive artist! How foolish of you to think such a thing! And if you sell extra tickets, beyond what’s required, you get a cut, right? Dream on.) It has similarities to a telemarketing technique used by some sleazy charities: Rather than ask you directly for money, they just want to send donation materials for you to pass out to friends and neighbors. The idea is that you are much more likely to go along if you aren’t being asked for money yourself and your neighbors are much more likely to give money to someone they know than to a stranger on the phone.
With RAW Artists the main trouble is that the friends you cajole into buying tickets aren’t going to buy your art at this event — they’d have done so already if they wanted any of your work. What about other people? They’re or course attending at the behest of their artist friends. Ask yourself if your friends attending the event are likely to be likely to be buying art from the other artists there. No? Then is there any reason to think that the friends of other participants are going to buy your stuff? This BBB complaint seems to bear out the notion that the only people at these events are the artists and their friends. Participants have commented afterwards that it seems that the artists are there to support the event when it should be the other way around. Quite.
“The business model is more like Herbalife than an arts organization”
—
Tucson WeeklyWhat’s telling is that nowhere in this scheme is there even any incentive for the organizers to insure the participating artists benefit: Their profit is dependent entirely on the number of people who show up, not how much (if anything) the artists make.
Need another (huge) red flag? According to LA Weekly, there’s no written contract between you, the participant, and RAW organizers. Wow.
The Bottom Line
The bottom line is that people attending a party come to, well, party. Not to buy art. So basically you end up working for Exposure. The RAW Artists organization, it goes without saying, makes money.
Think about it: If there were really a significant amount of art sold for these events RAW Artists wouldn’t have to force participants into this ticket-selling scam, they’d be able to pay people to participate (if only a nominal fee) and make their money by collecting commissions on the pieces sold.
Save your money. And keep your friends.
Further reading:
Despite all the negative press, RAW Artists seems to continue unabated and even gets a 4-star (out of 5) rating on Yelp. In addition to the common tendency of scam victims to rationalize after the fact that they really got a good deal after all, cynics have speculated that there may be other forces at work here. I have no evidence other than my own experiences but I’d trust independent, objective resources like LA Weekly, Tucson Weekly and City Beat over easily-gamed, crowdsourced “review” sites like Yelp in this case.
Standard Disclaimer: Can it be a “scam” if it’s legal?
The answer is Yes, in my opinion… And in the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. 1st Circuit Court.
Here’s a good example of a legal scam:
It’s the “free” home alarm system. Often targeted at the elderly and particularly in neighborhoods where there’s been a break-in, however minor, recently. The target (customer) is first regaled with horror stories from newspapers (all true) of break-ins and “home invasions”. Then they’re offered an alarm system for free, including installation. What’s not free, of course, is the mandatory monthly monitoring fee, which is usually much higher than the going rate. And the length of the agreement is likely to be longer than usual. Often with a heavy penalty for early termination. There may also be a hefty fee for removal of the alarm system upon discontinuing service (part of the reason the system and installation were free in the first place is because the alarm company retains ownership of the hardware). But that’s all in the fine print and if the customer is frightened enough they won’t notice it.
All perfectly legal, but no reasonable person would not call it a scam. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission explicitly uses the word “scam” to describe the above scenario.
The U.S. 1st Circuit court has found that the word “scam” does not necessarily imply anything illegal:
Beginning with the statement itself, we observe that the word “scam” does not have a precise meaning. As the district judge said in his bench ruling, “it means different things to different people … and there is not a single usage in common phraseology. While some connotations of the word may encompass criminal behavior, others do not.”
— McCabe vs Rattiner
ADDENDUM: This video on music scams describes a scheme uncannily similar to the Raw Artists business model.
The “RAW Artists” Scam Hits Boston
As Usual, It Begins With Spam (Sigh)
About a week ago I received an Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE or spam) that was a little unusual. Rather than hawking the standard spam fare (drugs, sunglasses, handbags and dubious “SEO” services) it was an “invitation” to participate in an “Artists Showcase” here in Boston. In my experience, most of these invitations are really offers to take your money. That fact that it arrived in the form of a spam email raised my mental warning flags even higher. A little web searching (at the end of this post you’ll find links to the most helpful pages I could find) confirmed my suspicions.
Having a busy week, I ignored the spam rather than reporting it. Then I received a second spam this morning. So I decided a blog post was warranted.
Here’s the Pitch
It’s called “RAW Artists” (or “RAW: Natural Born Artists”). They hold a big party with bands performing and artists of all stripes (including you, perhaps!) showing their work. People pay to come and party. And while they’re there they’ll see your art and you’ll make money. So — Big party. Fun. Music. Art. What’s not to like?
Pay to Play
Here’s how the scheme works: You, the artist being invited to show your work (or band invited to play), have to agree to sell a certain number tickets to the RAW Artists event. If you fall short of the required number you have to pay the difference out of your own pocket. (Of course, as a participant being “honored” with an invitation to the event you naturally get a discount on tickets, right? Of course not, you poor, naive artist! How foolish of you to think such a thing! And if you sell extra tickets, beyond what’s required, you get a cut, right? Dream on.) It has similarities to a telemarketing technique used by some sleazy charities: Rather than ask you directly for money, they just want to send donation materials for you to pass out to friends and neighbors. The idea is that you are much more likely to go along if you aren’t being asked for money yourself and your neighbors are much more likely to give money to someone they know than to a stranger on the phone.
With RAW Artists the main trouble is that the friends you cajole into buying tickets aren’t going to buy your art at this event — they’d have done so already if they wanted any of your work. What about other people? They’re or course attending at the behest of their artist friends. Ask yourself if your friends attending the event are likely to be likely to be buying art from the other artists there. No? Then is there any reason to think that the friends of other participants are going to buy your stuff? This BBB complaint seems to bear out the notion that the only people at these events are the artists and their friends. Participants have commented afterwards that it seems that the artists are there to support the event when it should be the other way around. Quite.
—Tucson Weekly
What’s telling is that nowhere in this scheme is there even any incentive for the organizers to insure the participating artists benefit: Their profit is dependent entirely on the number of people who show up, not how much (if anything) the artists make.
Need another (huge) red flag? According to LA Weekly, there’s no written contract between you, the participant, and RAW organizers. Wow.
The Bottom Line
The bottom line is that people attending a party come to, well, party. Not to buy art. So basically you end up working for Exposure. The RAW Artists organization, it goes without saying, makes money.
Think about it: If there were really a significant amount of art sold for these events RAW Artists wouldn’t have to force participants into this ticket-selling scam, they’d be able to pay people to participate (if only a nominal fee) and make their money by collecting commissions on the pieces sold.
Save your money. And keep your friends.
Further reading:
Despite all the negative press, RAW Artists seems to continue unabated and even gets a 4-star (out of 5) rating on Yelp. In addition to the common tendency of scam victims to rationalize after the fact that they really got a good deal after all, cynics have speculated that there may be other forces at work here. I have no evidence other than my own experiences but I’d trust independent, objective resources like LA Weekly, Tucson Weekly and City Beat over easily-gamed, crowdsourced “review” sites like Yelp in this case.
Standard Disclaimer: Can it be a “scam” if it’s legal?
Here’s a good example of a legal scam:
It’s the “free” home alarm system. Often targeted at the elderly and particularly in neighborhoods where there’s been a break-in, however minor, recently. The target (customer) is first regaled with horror stories from newspapers (all true) of break-ins and “home invasions”. Then they’re offered an alarm system for free, including installation. What’s not free, of course, is the mandatory monthly monitoring fee, which is usually much higher than the going rate. And the length of the agreement is likely to be longer than usual. Often with a heavy penalty for early termination. There may also be a hefty fee for removal of the alarm system upon discontinuing service (part of the reason the system and installation were free in the first place is because the alarm company retains ownership of the hardware). But that’s all in the fine print and if the customer is frightened enough they won’t notice it.
All perfectly legal, but no reasonable person would not call it a scam. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission explicitly uses the word “scam” to describe the above scenario.
The U.S. 1st Circuit court has found that the word “scam” does not necessarily imply anything illegal:
Beginning with the statement itself, we observe that the word “scam” does not have a precise meaning. As the district judge said in his bench ruling, “it means different things to different people … and there is not a single usage in common phraseology. While some connotations of the word may encompass criminal behavior, others do not.”
— McCabe vs Rattiner
ADDENDUM: This video on music scams describes a scheme uncannily similar to the Raw Artists business model.