given that a lot of these campaigns pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who can't deliver the kind of strategic work of a Joe Anthony.

Seriously, I am soOoOoOoooo disappointed on the Obama team. These people ... they ought to know better!

But it goes with my quarterly rants about campaign directors and online communications manager and their ilk hitting ... nay ... demanding from bloggers like me ACTIONS! ALERTS! CONTIBUTIONS!

I have gotten emails from people demanding why the hell I didn't post this or that as if I were in some invisible payroll. I was even insulted by one because I didn't blog at a certain time of the day (like other bloggers) about his pet issue --as if by saying, "JUMP", the whole blogosphere needs to follow.

Nuh-uh.

Oh, and just to clarify. This is not exclusive from political online marketing teams. I get the same crap from entertainment industry marketers as well.

Liza Sabater, Publisher
www.culturekitchen.com
www.dailygotham.com

Any marketing effort needs to look at the cost of acquisition for new customers - in this case, MySpace friends. $39,000 to acquire 150,000 supporters isn't bad. Granted, these same people would probably have found their way to Team Obama through some other way. However, four bucks per name probably isn't too far off a normal pay per click acquisition for good, qualified names. The Obama campaign should have given him the scratch a) in exchange for turning it over or b) offered him a job on the Obama team payroll.

Paying $39,000 to acquire a list 160,000 names of volunteers and donors is very reasonable. Paying that same amount for a profile page with 160,000 MySpace friends is completely ridiculous, and kudos to the Obama tech team for recognizing that.

Requesting to be someone's friend on MySpace takes about 4-6 seconds. It's a self-selecting process, meaning Anthony didn't go out and "acquire" these friends, but rather these MySpace users asked to be friends with a profile which appeared to be the real Barack Obama.

Secondly, the campaign would have no real good way to actually contact those 160,000 friends. They don't even know their real names (or if they're real people)! They could send a mass message via MySpace to all those people, and ask that they join My.BarackObama, but the response rate to that would be about 0.5%, or 800 people. They could do some donation asks, which would generate some money as well, but nowhere near the $39,000 they paid.

Joe has every right to his opinions and clearly the right to support whomever he likes. He had worked very hard to support someone he believed in. Joe's efforts were a huge factor in developing Obama's online following.

Joe clearly stated that he was asked by the Obama team to propose a number to allow them to take over what Joe had worked so hard to build. Now correct me if I am wrong but he did not propose the idea they should buy the domain. He was seemingly content to continue freely working the site. If they wanted to control it and Joe felt that he had in good faith added value and they were willing to pay him for his great work, he did what a reasonable man would, he more than fairly evalauted his contribution and presented them with a proposal. Like it or not folks - people change and in the process I think Joe was beginning to see that he was being pushed out of the picture and was also beginning to see a different side of the man he supported. Come on people - If someone wants to buy something you own - who sets the price? If you had worked 2 years on something and they told you they wanted you out - tell me you would not be a bit hurt and willing to take some compensation for all your effort. This is a huge mistake for Obama. I feel for Joe and I think if the rest of you were not so full of BS you would see how wrong Obama was not to deal fairly with Joe.

This issue reminds me of questions that we had to deal with all the time on the Dean campaign. We called people like Joe A's "centers of gravity"-- people who had built up their own Dean communities. We wanted centers of gravity as close to campaign as possible without imploding.

At first, it was very perplexing, and our tiny team debated options, but we ran into an odd clarifier--the law. Because of legal concerns of coordination, we were told early on by our lawyers that we had two choices: to have a manager/agent relationship with grassroots supporters, or to not direct grassroots supporters actions at all. In February and March, Dean Nation was blogging, and New York for Dean and others were creating posters and strategies of their own--some of them were clamoring for direction.

The question answered itself. We simply couldn't have a manager/agent relationship and still have all this flowering of intelligent political energy, so we chose to be hands off, talking with people but not telling them what to do. As part of this, we had to train the press--when Georgia for Dean sends out a press release, it is not a Howard Dean press release, it is a Georgia for Dean press release. The training of the press took awhile, but they learned. Teaching people who'd worked in politics for a while that "no, we will not vet that flier you are going to pass out to 1,000 people" also took awhile, but led to what I think is the most important thing in a democracy: people taking responsibility. Local groups, centers of gravity like Joe Anthony, took responsibility because they knew we wouldn't. Some got exhausted after a few months of intense work, others did not--and not all relationships were handled well, as we fumbled for solutions for the hardworking volunteers. The issues got more difficult when paid staffers, on the ground, would be working with unpaid supporters who had done far more extraordinary, creative, and difficult work for months--we found that grassroots growth often slowed in states once we put in a paid staffer (I have alot of theories about this, but not for this comment).

There were hundreds of mistakes. Here are two. In March 2003, we signaled that we were going to give a group an "official" status and then changed our position. Our first impulse was to provide the group what they wanted, but after realizing that the "official" group was far more bottlenecked than the unofficial ones, we reneged. We admitted we made a mistake, but people were understandably angry. The second was much later--the fall of 2003. A group started in order to help Dean develop policy positions, or at least do collective research. We effectively shut the door on them--I think we weren't ready to open up that much, and didn't know how to do collective policy, and the founders were annoyed, because I (and others) had initially been very excited. Of course they continued on their own, but without the active enthusiasm of our group.

But we also had some real successes. The most obvious is that Trippi--rage as he would over a few things Aziz might mischievously post--did not try to control the Dean Nation blog. The Friendster pages set up for Dean (yes, there were a handful) were one of our top referrers, and we had rare, but nice, interactions with the founders. The vast majority of our centers of gravity we communicated with, but did not try to control.

There were a few big exceptions. Students for Dean, an amazing group with 20,000 members by the time we started working with them, was created by three college students. It was clear it couldn't keep up their site (which had many features ours didn't) without some financial support--two of the founders were getting hired away by field staff (poached by our own campaign!) and the other couldn't afford not to work for the summer. So we offered him jobs and brought them in, giving them more autonomy than most staffers because that is what they needed to be persuaded to work for the campaign. Of course nothing is that simple--as the campaign stiffened towards the end, Students for Dean lost the staff and autonomy they'd been promised--but the general approach really worked, and the on-site blending of Students for Dean and Dean Students (into Generation Dean, a name created by two South Carolina students--who we asked for permission to use). If Students for Dean had turned us down (which they almost did), then we would have continued to link to them, and gone forward.

I think a similar approach could have worked with the Obama campaign's approach to Joe A.--figure out if they could give Joe what he wanted--and it sounds like they started down that path and then, inexplicably, stopped. If it is true that they asked him for an offer (and Joe Rospars' blog post doesn't contradict this), then why didn't they counter offer?

If they did, I don't care how much Joe A. asked for--the new media team probably didn't have $40,000, but they should have counter-offered what they could. If he'd asked for $200,000 and they had $500 they should have returned with the $500 offer. Its difficult to figure out an amount in any bargaining circumstances, and money in politics is downright bizarre--whether or not the figure was too high, it should be generous with people trying to figure out how to interact with the campaign. I was happy to see that Rospars did not accuse Joe A. of over-asking. Relatedly an itemized list is presumably an effort to appear professional--an effort to show the campaign that you are not bilking them. My heart goes out to someone staying up all night, asking friends' advice, trying to work out the key to the vague promised thing. How much should I ask for?

The mistake of the campaign, may be, perversely, a result of too much success--the brilliant social networking site and tools created a dependency on keeping a loose leash on the conversations, or on "having the conversation on our ship" as Matt Gross might say, so that it lulled the campaign into a habit of being able to make decisions about what could and couldn't be said, and made them think it was possible to have mass support and and vetted statements about Obama. Its not. Rospars post about the success of the Obama web tools suggests that there is a desire (so understandable, if impossible!) for the web strategy of the campaign to live and breathe on the site, on the grounds, in the gardens built by the web team.

Joe Rospars is a friend of mine, and, as Micah said, a straight shooter, and I'm generally sympathetic with the open fumbling of campaigns towards making hard decisions. I wish his post was a little more open, but I know how hard that can be on a campaign with many vetters.

One thing his post reveals is that the Obama campaign had chosen a different general strategic approach than the Dean campaign did--one that would have our lawyers, among others, quaking in their boots. They had decided to create management/agent relationships with this particular center of gravity--the campaign had login access and control over content (at least for a while) and it basically, if gently, perceived itself as the agent finally responsible for the content.

Our lawyers advice was based on fear of FEC problems, but it turned out to be generally sound for grassroots relationships in general: for each relationship, choose whether it is one of absolute control, or no control. THAT won't confuse the press and people writing--at first, perhaps, but they will learn. When in doubt, no control is better, just as it is in friendships--your friends will do everything they can to represent you well and be your supporter, until you start telling them what to say about you.

I hope this episode is a lesson for the Obama campaign, but also others - a reminder that having grassroots support means autonomous individuals who do not just work, but speak.

well, I can't possibly come across as anywhere near Zephyr's level of articulation, but I think I have something to contribute to this conversation.

It's rare for there to be real "bad guys" in the world, regardless of what our instincts and reflexes say. Generally, different people with different points of view do what they think is best, under the circumstances, and don't do a great job of explaining themselves. In the meantime, they'll deal with other people who also have problems explaining themselves, emotions get in the way, and everyone just assumes the worst of everyone else.

It's perfectly legitimate to criticize bad results, but usually, they didn't happen because of bad faith, only a lack of good communication and/or other mistakes. These are flaws that are exceedingly hard to outgrow, and only a minute minority of people ever come close.

Looking at things from the Obama campaign staff's perspective, before they started badmouthing Joe, I think they were trying to reach an amicable solution but were nervous that Joe might be the equivalent of a cyber squatter. They didn't handle the situation well...it would have been a hell of a lot better for them to send out a handwritten letter from Obama in thanks for Joe's good work, than to offer a lump sum payment. I think that would have been welcomed by him, though I can't speak for him, either.

When he asked for $49k, while he still had control over the page and was able to do whatever he liked until an agreement was reached, I think they panicked because they jumped to the conclusion that that number showed he had done this for the money, and that he had the potential to do their campaign a lot of damage in a relatively short amount of time, by misrepresenting Obama either on the page or through e-mails with his contacts. In their panic, they may have asked MySpace to help with potential damage control. After the url had been seized, though, as a precautionary measure, they could still have offered Joe what they saw as fair compensation.

The truth is, the law is on the side of the campaign, but public opinion matters just as much. At this point, either because they believe it or because it seems like the quick fix, they're accusing Joe of trying to profit unfairly. Joe's feelings are clearly and understandably hurt.

Joe, honestly I think this was just a bout of panic and C.Y.A.. I know that emotions are running high but try to reserve judgment just a little, leaving room for reconciliation. All of the people involved are probably good and well-intentioned, and it's just been a problem of communication.

Colorblind, thanks for your comments. You have alot to contribute to conversation!

Brief excerpts, and links, from the New York Times, TechPresident, Washington Post and Huffington Post.
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/obama-myspace-joe-anthony-day-2-l...

Alex Hammer
Politics 2.0

What may have been true in 2004 under the law is no longer true in 2007. The rulemaking process which the FEC completed in 2006 to clarify campaign finance law's reach to the Internet explicitly states, in 11 CFR 100.94 and 100.155, that individual and group volunteer activity online, whether acting independently or in coordination with any candidate, does not count as an expenditure or contribution.

Moreover, that definition of exempt "internet activities" is expansive -- "includes, but is not limited to: Sending or forwarding electronic messages; providing a hyperlink or other direct access to another person's Web site; blogging; creating, maintaining or hosting a Web site; paying a nominal fee for the use of another person's Web site; and any other form of communication distributed over the Internet."

The meaning I was suggesting, to be clear was that while we were open, some of the best things that happened were accidental: the policy towards volunteers was a response to the constraints of the law, not our own inate geniuses. Many good decisions--like bad ones--are almost accidental.

I think what is interesting, and lost in all of the focus on Joe Anthony and Obama for America, is the role MySpace played in this whole kerfluffle. Not so much the taking of the url and giving it to Obama, which is a situation we can understand (even if we don't think it was handled correctly).

But MySpace has built an entire industry around fake myspace profiles, around fictional characters, around all sorts of things like that. Does this mean it's only a matter of time before we see something similar, only with a copyrighted property?

For instance, will we see MySpace seize an unofficial "Entourage" or "The Office" character page from a fan because the owner of the rights to the (fictional) character property wants to control it? Who controls that?

We're on a collision course of this sooner then you think.

I think this guy made a fan site.. to support his favorite candidate. . or someone he admired, along with the THOUSANDS (or more) other "fake" or fan sites on myspace and the web, he should NOT be demanding anything. .besides maybe a thank you.

My example for the day: A Fan of Taylor Hicks (last years American Idol Winner) made a fan site. . under the name of graycharles.com Taylor when he won, signed a contract with GC to have that as the official forum / fan site. .for one year. . they came to terms. . NO money was demanded.. a fan did it out of love for the idol, and was rewarded for it.

My whole point is this: Don't make a fan post: forum: site: or anything like that to try to extort / bribe / earn a living or any sort of payback: If you do something out of love, admiration and you TRULY do it from that place, you will get yours in return, without even asking.

I feel this is a shame: and a bad example for fans out there.. of how to suppport a fan: I hope Obama can be thankful for his fans, that don't want anything in return besides, a Great Man as their Presidential Candidate.

Detour:Jazz -- Got Soul? www.detourjazz.com

Joe started the page as a volunteer effort to support Obama, then he changed the password, blocked out the Campaign managers and demanded money. I don't see Obama's campaign managers being at fault in any way shape or form.

Myspace is free, and there's a certain audacity on Joe's part to try and extort money from the campaign over something he started on a volunteer basis.

Big deal over nothing....

need i remind the obama campaigners of the myspace page creators intellectual rights for being its creator and the fact that due to the fact that this one person did create the page and it is his intellectual work and time as well as his creative work, they have just caused a major fubar situation if this heads to the courts, the page creator is entitled to compensation for his intellectual or creative works and to be compensated for his time on those works, if not i am sure there are many artists that will find that if anyone took any of their works away and stated that the works they did were connected to a political campaign the artists would sue and win, and being i am in art school for culinary arts i would have a raging fit is anyone took any of my work pertaining to recipies and or concepts that i clearly worked on as their own,i would drag them into the legal system and show proof of my hand in all of the disputed works, so in effect the obama people did not think in terms of a really big picture and the disaterous consequences that can come forth from this type of incident.

the facts from what i have read:

1: the person who created the page created the page

2: the pages content is not the property of the obama campaign regardless of the fact that this person volunteered without the campaigns permission, yet he volunteered.

3:any works done in the likeness of, or as a fansite, can be and are a creative effort of the person who created or creates the fansite, not the person that the fansite is based upon, thus if an artist creates a statue of brad pitt, brad pitt can not have the statue seized merely because the statue looks like his image or likeness.

4: the obama campaigners broke the law by seizing the url without paying for it, as a creative or intellectual property. Thus in effect having commited a crime.

5: and finally the most important aspect of this entire situation, the fact that the obama staffers, and campaign personel, are showing the same callous disregard that they state they are trying to end in washington, this all smacks of hypocrisy and of typical washington politics, yet if senator obama is really trying to make real change he needs to do the real honourable thing and ensure this person is properly compensated for his work, anything less and obama is nothing more than the atypical facists of washington politics all dressed up in a new suit and telling more of the lies we as americans are all far too tired of.

I have been on the friend lists of both Joe's, and the "official" Obama site, since it went up a couple of weeks ago - I've not commented on either since I joined them, just enjoyed watching the process of grassroots and non-grassroots take place side by side. Today though, I decided that this current situation really has been an eye-opening moment for Obama supporters, or, people like me, those who WANT to support Obama, but just aren't sure yet if we should. After I read up on the situation here, I wrote in response the following to the Obama myspace page today, and posted it in their comments (as if they'd actually approve it! lol) and thought I'd post it here as well, as a way of having my opinion heard (if you don't mind)...

Subject line: It's not what he says he's done, or will do,

Body:

It's what he's done

Let me tell you my story.

I was really excited when I added this page a couple of weeks ago, because I knew then I could support both Obama's "official" page, AND the one I was already a member of that had been working to further his message years before anyone in the official Obama camp bothered to use myspace as a campaigning platform. I liked having both, I loved the idea that just ordinary people were working together in the political process, because that, to me is democracy, that's a celebration of free-will and freedom and a beautiful example of being engaged - plugged in, and ACTING, instead of the opposite.

But now I'm faced with this bizarre and disappointing (but not very surprising, sadly) reality where the political figure who's supposed to represent change, represent reason, the individual, and the freedoms we know we've had stolen from us since Bush came into power, has either, A. allowed his advisors and campaign to crush the efforts of the individual, and refused to compensate him for the work and "property," they stole, or, B. directly decided to do so himself. Wow. Either scenario is unacceptable for a candidate who's being so sold as the Everyman advocate.

So here's a news flash, Obama camp: I'm what you'd call an "on the fencer." I've been saying since I was fifteen years old that as soon as I could, I'd vote for a minority or a woman, if indeed either ever got a fair chance at running for presidency in the white-male dominated, absurdly patriarchal (considering what we say we stand for) society of ours. This year though, I have the ability to vote for one or the other, in the same primary..so I've been torn. I spent a great deal of time self-searching, and discussing, with friends, with my family, with my boyfriend, who's a libertarian-leaning Texan with a PhD in Physics (despite our total agreement on environmental issues, we still have a lot of debates) trying to make a decision either way, trying to see both the good and bad in either choice, to weigh it out properly. Being a "feminist," - and I use this term lightly, due to all the various negative and misleading connotations attached to it - I found myself stubbornly leaning, just a smidge, towards Clinton, but I was secretly hoping that Barak would come out shining and sway me towards him simply because I really am so sick of "business as usual." And we all know that the Clintons, as much as I love Bill, are the penultimate example of, "business as usual." Now though, thanks to the events of the last few days, I know I really CAN vote for Hillary, no guilt, no regrets, because it's become clear that she and Obama are not all that different after all.

I am truly saddened by this whole affair, because it proves, once again, that, in the end, it's the individual who's completely unvalued by the powerful in this beautiful, but totally corrupt, country of ours. So, yes, remember the "On the Fencers", the "Undecideds." They're the ones elections always come down to anyway.

Thank you,
Los Angeles, California.

The Super(Liberal) Girl

...it seems clear that there's no intent of extortion going on, just people (including the campaign folks) who seem pretty quick to jump to conclusions about Joe's intentions.

Politicians ask for money all the time. Joe did nothing wrong by asking for recompense, and it sounds like the New Media Team asked for a quote initially anyway. I work in new media, and $49K ain't no thang. Certainly the ability to reach 160K folks and have a pre-built, preloaded, predisposed home on MySpace is worth that.

$0.02.

the obama campaigners broke the law by seizing the url without paying for it, as a creative or intellectual property. Thus in effect having commited a crime.

MySpace owns MySpace.com, and all the usernames therein. MySpace decided, as a policy matter, that famous people get their own names. That's undoubtedly a proper thing for them to do for a variety of reasons.

What's a "facist"?

I do commercial Internet videos for local businesses partly for fun and partly for spending money. I'm also fairly well-known in my "day job" for my prowess in building large-scale online communities. (Yes, I'm the "Roblimo" who's Editor in Chief for Slashdot's parent company, OSTG.)

Someone I know in Washington, D.C. -- someone surely known to Micah and Zephyr, too -- asked me if I would like to do video work for his political consulting company, mostly making local TV spots and Web-delivered video for their clients around the country. "There's a ****pot of money in this," he said. "We can really make out."

I told him no thanks, I make more than enough money between my job and my side business; that if I was going to do political campaign work I'd choose the candidates I helped based on my judgment of their fitness to hold office, not based on their financial ability to hire consultants. I also said that the only way I'd be comfortable charging local candidates for my services was if I taught them how to script, produce, and deliver their own videos so that their campaigns could do their own work "on the cheap" instead of paying to fly me in and put me up every time they wanted to do a new shoot.

Now I'm starting to wonder. Was I wrong to turn down an opportunity to make "a ****pot of money" doing political videos?

From my perspective, what happened to Joe Anthony was that he did great work as a volunteer, but once his work started to become noticeably successful Obama's professionals wanted to step in and take over: "Great work, kid, but this is too big for an amateur. We'll handle it now."

You'd think, based on the message he's putting out, that Obama would be the one current presidential candidate who would understand that the value of a loyal *and successful* volunteer is greater than the value of of a paid consultant; that not paying a continuing fee to that volunteer instead of putting his work into another paid consultant's hands was like a slap in the face to anyone who volunteers in a big way.

It's not that volunteers necessarily expect to be paid, but that they should - must - always be given first crack at paid jobs as an expression of gratitude for what they have already done.

In this case, a short-term job offer in Chicago was meaningless, especially since Internet work can be done from anywhere. (Case in point: I live in Florida but I work for a California-based company.)

The right thing to do would have been to offer Joe a reasonable monthly stipend to keep on building his Obama MySpace page.

Many comments I've read on Obama's official site and elsewhere seem to dismiss Joe Anthony as "just a volunteer" or express outrage at the idea of a volunteer expecting to be paid for his work instead of having that work taken over by a professional. And many seem upset at the idea of Joe wanting compensation for his previous efforts in return for getting kicked to the curb.

Political campaigning has become a business and apparently only those who treat it as a business get any respect. In this kind of poisonous atmosphere there is *no way* I am going to give away skills for which I otherwise get $80 - $120 per hour -- especially to Barack Obama.

Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
Bradenton, Florida

Joe Anthony, you owe me a huge apology. I signed on to YOUR FAKE official looking Barak Obama site, believing it to be the official sanctioned site. Instead? I get a "player" who wants his name to be bigger than his candidates and accolades for his work.

I feel taken in by some fraud artist masquerading as "the real deal." And you want to be paid for that?!

How about I get a class action against you for misrepresenting what site I was signing-up to and therefore preventing me from seeking out THE OFFICIAL site which would have provided me with Official and well vetted information from the candidate and his staffers instead of someone who believed in the campaign only long enough to feel HE has the right to litigate.

Joe, your principles are only smaller than the headline font size you desire.

Prairie Waif

I can't see how any real contender for the Democratic ticket could claim that $39k is too much. I'm SURE they'll spend 100x that on obnoxious TV ads before the elections, and this is (well was) the kind of promotion that Obama will never be able to buy with TV or radio ads. If they're claiming they can't come up with the money for the kind of promotion that Joe was doing for them then they're flat out lying as far as I'm concerned.

They should have hired the guy at $50k/year salary to make the site official, laid down some rules about what is appropriate and what it not, and let the guy continue to do what he is obviously so willing and able to do. Imagine the boost the fans (and the site) could have had by posting "we've gone legit!". Imagine the free publicity for the campaign.

Instead they have their "train wreck". Good going guys. And good luck getting any more support from people like Joe. I certainly wouldn't want to be contributing my time to the Obama campaign after this.

prairie waif. come on. the myspace page said explicitly that it is not connected officially with the obama campaign. everyone who feels duped or says he was a squatter is dumb because he put it right there in front that he was UNofficial. but whatever, i bet most people just added it as a friend and didnt look at anything. showing how UNimportant myspace friends really are...

Joe Anthony decided he wanted to make a Barack Obama site.
No one asked him to do it, and therefore it was free work because he chose to make it so.

Thusly, he shouldn't have demanded any kind of payment for something that couldn't have taken more than an hour to set up. It's myspace, for god's sake. It doesn't take hours or days of 'hard work'. You sit on a chair, type a little, and bam, there's a myspace.

This whole thing is being blown out of proportion.
Joe Anthony did a stupid thing.
Maybe Barack Obama's managers did handle it wrong, but they shouldn't have had to handle it in the first place.
This all goes back to Joe Anthony, and centers around him.

Just because some guy made a fake myspace profile, and it was seized from him, doesn't mean people shouldn't go on supporting Obama.

He's a great guy, and the only candidate I have heard anything about thats even slightly sparked my interest in voting for him.

People are making this way too big of a deal.

Since when did myspace have an affect on politics?
Politics are about making good decisions for the country, not some stupid myspace site.

basketball80 sums up this non-issue nicely:

"Joe started the page as a volunteer effort to support Obama, then he changed the password, blocked out the Campaign managers and demanded money." - (from Big Deal Over Nothing)

In the meantime, I guess I'll have to search elsewhere for real news on candidates and technology:

"Obama wants Creative Commons licensed Presidential debates"

www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003763.shtml

Matt Cowherd
Brooklyn, NY

Wow, this is so off base, it's amazing.

A whole series of allegations all to get around the simple proposition that if you open an account under somebody else's name, that person might just come and claim it back.

Most people have no problem understanding that.

Move on, nothing to see here.

Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

150,000 supporters at $1 a supporter would be $150k.

Even at $49k (with ad revenue stuff) it comes out to be like $0.32 per supporter. Quite a deal.