Skip

Want to party with Nathan Fillion? Zach Levi? You can...sort of?
March 20, 2014 4:38 AM   Subscribe

Of course, you have to help PAY for the party. "Something seems broken here. Asking people for money to put on an event they may not even be able to participate in? How is there no level that gives you an all-access badge? How does throwing a million dollar party to raise a quarter of a million dollars for charity make sense? I'm not begrudging people the good times they have at Nerd HQ, and more power to everyone who felt included and part of a fun event. But this seems like a huge misuse of crowdfunding to me, the kind of situation that sours people on the very concept. Zach Levi wants to throw a party and for you to pay for it... and maybe you can get in, if you wait around long enough in line."
posted by Kitteh (59 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite

 
Nerd HQ brings you twenty-five plus hours of "Conversation for a Cause" content, live-streamed to everyone, FOR FREE, no matter where you are in the world (some restrictions may apply based on country.)

So if you can't afford to go to SDCC (very expensive now, I understand) or can't get tickets (very difficult now, I understand) and don't want to go to Nerd HQ itself to stand around and hope that you can get into something, then you can sit at the same computer you sit at the rest of the year and participate vicariously. I'll just put this in the overstuffed drawer marked "stuff I'd never heard of until now and am neither surprised nor particularly caring that it exists."
posted by Halloween Jack at 4:53 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]


I can only conclude that there are a surprising amount of people out there with a signficant amount of money that they don't know what to do with. Personally, I'm buying bread and salad to make my son's sandwiches for school.
posted by Jimbob at 4:54 AM on March 20 [7 favorites]


It's clever of them to put it on indiegogo instead of kickstarter because they get the money raised even if they don't meet their funding goal. The campaign seems pretty pathetic, but I guess people know what the incentives are when they decide to donate.
posted by missmerrymack at 4:57 AM on March 20 [3 favorites]


The 1:4 ratio of donations:cost bugged me a lot. then I remembered that the ratio of margin:cost that used to be regarded as 'good' on direct mail contribution campaigns was something like 1:9.

I'm still bugged. I suppose that margin feeds someone's family, but even more than that it feeds the idea that you need a cause-marketing machine to save the world, which even if it's true is both pernicious and almost certainly not as true as the cause-marketers would have us believe.
posted by lodurr at 4:57 AM on March 20 [2 favorites]


Hey Zach Levi...My friends need a paycheck, not an empty promise.
posted by NervousVarun at 4:58 AM on March 20 [16 favorites]


When I lived in Atlanta for a decade and had my crappy retail job, I scrimped and saved to attend Dragon*Con as many days as I could--which, admittedly, mostly totalled one because going to a con does not count as an excuse to get days off at your job--and maybe buy some food/drinks/stuff while I was there. I understand that a lot of folks who attend that con and others (especially SDCC) probably do the same, saving up their pennies for a rare fun event, but to ask the community that buys your shows/movies on DVD, watches those same shows/DVDs, etc for money to throw a party you probably won't get to attend, or if you do, you will be cordoned off from all your idols, just watching them drink and eat from afar?

That sounds royally fucked up to me.
posted by Kitteh at 5:07 AM on March 20 [7 favorites]


The comments there are gold.
posted by bukvich at 5:07 AM on March 20 [3 favorites]


I think it is weird that the only objection to this thing is that he is being honest about what the money is going towards - if he offered exactly the same thing with some shitty t-shirts and expensive "premium" event passes then the implication seems to be that no-one would raise eyebrows. This seems like a natural outgrowth of fandom/geekdom with its tendency toward the celebration of the consciously vacuous over any attempt at authenticity.
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 5:13 AM on March 20 [6 favorites]


I don't see what the big deal is. It is all for the fans. The entire event is a perk.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:17 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]


I can only conclude that there are a surprising amount of people out there with a signficant amount of money that they don't know what to do with. Personally, I'm buying bread and salad to make my son's sandwiches for school.

Says the guy with the one million dollar sandwiches.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 5:20 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]


Asking people for money to put on an event they may not even be able to participate in?

It's funny, because I don't disagree with the dismay, but this is how I feel about much of Comic-Con. People shell out a crap-ton of money just to get to be in rooms with famous people, and depending on how long they do or don't want to stand in line, they may not even be able to do that. I'm not saying don't be offended by this, but for me, Comic-Con is already, for some people, about shelling out a ton of cash to go and be marketed to. It's already got a pretty grody underbelly, exploitation-of-fans-wise.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 5:26 AM on March 20 [24 favorites]


Yeah, I don't see a problem here. Levi is being very upfront about what the money is going for. And it's wrong to think of Nerd HQ as primarily a fundraising event. It's a fun thing for fans that also raises a lot of money for charity. The people I know who went to Nerd HQ last year said they had fun. Why shouldn't Levi do this?

Why should all crowdfunding have a benefit other than making sure something cool exists at the end of the campaign?
posted by inturnaround at 5:32 AM on March 20


[One comment deleted; hey, you can go ahead and contact us if you have questions about guidelines, but linking to an article that is a criticism of a specific fundraising endeavor is not the same as linking to a fundraiser.]
posted by taz at 6:10 AM on March 20


I don't see what the big deal is. It is all for the fans. The entire event is a perk.

The big thing is, that not even that long ago, fandom was a place where you didn't have this sort of douchey party and sharp distinction between fan and pro, with parties taking place at some guy's hotel room and there wasn't such a thing as "famous nerd people", just cartoonists and readers.
posted by MartinWisse at 6:19 AM on March 20 [6 favorites]


I'd love to know the actual numbers involved, but from the outside crowdfunding looks like it is increasingly meaning group funding of things like this or Amanda Palmer, while becoming less about the funding of some ordinary person's crazy idea.

And honestly, that makes a lot of sense to me. Celebrities and fandom exist because huge masses of people identify with and care deeply about those things and are already willing to spend money on them (e.g. ticket sales, etc). Giving people a way to both spend some money and feel a more intimate connection -- "I didn't just buy the album, I helped get it produced!" -- is a natural and very smart offshoot of this and if I existed in that world I'd be trying to tap into crowdfunding both for the cash and for the deeper connection.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:20 AM on March 20


Personally, I'm buying bread and salad to make my son's sandwiches for school.

Ah, the salad sandwich. The Baltic Avenue of the elementary school cafeteria monopoly board.
posted by Naberius at 6:20 AM on March 20 [24 favorites]


Fandom will eat itself.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:23 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]


I mean, I wouldn't even know how spend $1 million on throwing a party. I'm sure it's doable; I just wouldn't know how. But there's no false advertising here; folks know what they are (and aren't) getting. (Though I gotta wonder: was it really necessary to break things into all these different "reward tiers" each with the exact same [lack of] rewards? Couldn't you have just had one $5+ reward category, or is it built-in to indiegogo that you need to have at least 9 different donation/reward levels?)

I do idly wonder if/how many of the quite wealthy celebrities that will presumably be there are going to kick money into this campaign, though. You're showing off pictures of Tom Hiddleston, Joss Whedon, Vin Diesel on your campaign page, it's hard for me not to think that any of those guys could probably just straight up give you a million dollars. I guess they're not fans?
posted by mstokes650 at 6:28 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]


...bread and salad ...

Ah, the salad sandwich. The Baltic Avenue of the elementary school cafeteria monopoly board.

from the 'while i was asleep' department: when did "salad" become commonplace for sandwich spreads in NoAm? ("Elementary school" is a north american term, yes?)
posted by lodurr at 6:33 AM on March 20


I mean, I wouldn't even know how spend $1 million on throwing a party.

TREASUREBATH!
posted by griphus at 6:35 AM on March 20 [2 favorites]


"crowdfunding looks like it is increasingly meaning group funding of things like this or Amanda Palmer, while becoming less about the funding of some ordinary person's crazy idea."

That's another way of saying the initial concept of a meritocractic funding platform which bypassed the existing gatekeepers to surface and fund artistic endeavors which might not otherwise have seen the light of day has been coopted by established power channels to support and reinforce the status quo. That is definitely not a good thing. NerdHQ, Amanda Palmer et al don't need to use crowdfunding, but they do it because it gives those who donate the illusion that they are part of the process in some material way that transcends mere dollars. This is, these days, categorically not the case, especially and particularly with sites like Indiegogo.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:39 AM on March 20 [11 favorites]


Levi is being very upfront about what the money is going for. And it's wrong to think of Nerd HQ as primarily a fundraising event. It's a fun thing for fans that also raises a lot of money for charity.

But it says specifically in the fundraiser that none of the money raised for this party is going to charity. None. The authors of the article encourage you to send actual money to the fundraiser usually flogged by Zach Levi and company so that way it actually goes to charity.

I have some strong feelings about this. Mostly if this were a fundraiser being done by hardcore fans that wanted to throw a massive off-site party and the best way to do it was do this Indie-A-Go-Go thing that way it would guarantee the presence of some of those celebrities, probably yes--like a reward or something--but no, it's actual celebrities asking for your money to pay for a party. I'm not saying Zach Levi is Scrooge McDucking it, but I bet he can afford to put up a lot more of the cost than you or I can.

On preview: what mstokes650 said there.
posted by Kitteh at 6:39 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]


If I help fund this, will Zach Levi email me every day? There's a Rob Thomas shaped hole in my spamfilter.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:44 AM on March 20 [8 favorites]


I was joking RE: the comments on the other article. This fundraiser is bad and they should feel bad.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:44 AM on March 20


Though I gotta wonder: was it really necessary to break things into all these different "reward tiers" each with the exact same [lack of] rewards? Couldn't you have just had one $5+ reward category, or is it built-in to indiegogo that you need to have at least 9 different donation/reward levels?

That's Fundraising 101. People are suggestible. If you give people the idea that $5 is the right number to donate, for the most part, you will get $5 donations. If you give people the idea that $1000 is a reasonable number to donate but that you also accept $10 donations, your donations will be a lot higher.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:45 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]


You're showing off pictures of Tom Hiddleston, Joss Whedon, Vin Diesel on your campaign page, it's hard for me not to think that any of those guys could probably just straight up give you a million dollars.

There's a reason they have that much to spend: they don't give it away so that other people can have parties to which they are not invited.
posted by tyllwin at 6:46 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]


But let me ask this: would it be less gross if people were paying money to attend a party with celebrities who are going to walk up, stand next to them for a picture, and once they've made the rounds, go off to the real party?

This is all just ... it's part of asking fans to pay for things because they're fans of things. Devin's a smart dude, but he knows that no "all-access badge" has ever been all-access. The whole thing is this illusion of personal contact and personal attention that you're selling to fans, and it's all somewhat oily. I'm not sure this is all that different, given that to some degree, people give money in crowdfunding campaigns just to be part of the club that gave money. Who's to say you can't give five bucks to have Zachary Levi thank you rather than $1000 to have Zachary Levi shake your hand? It's all about paying to get closer to famous people than other people can, and beyond that, it kind of is what it is.

This is why I like Fillion; he at least tries his hardest, I think, to give people who participate in this weird economy the best possible story to tell, since that's what they're paying for.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 6:51 AM on March 20 [4 favorites]


Is there some kind of weird egalitarianism that keeps them from actually giving VIP access in exchange for higher levels of contribution? Everyone appreciates that purchased VIP access has inherent limitations, but that doesn't mean it isn't valuable for some people. I couldn't care less about meeting media celebrities myself, but I do sure like to skip lines and have a nice reserved stand-up table with waiter service...
posted by MattD at 7:04 AM on March 20


That requires all sorts of extra control, for one thing. I think they're gambling on the fact that whether or not they do that, they'll still get the funding. So why spend money to make money when you can spend no money and make money?

Considering they've made >$150K in a little over a week, that gamble may very well pay off.
posted by griphus at 7:07 AM on March 20



Some people seemto be referring to this like it's a one off party being talked about. It's not a party. It's a multi event, event that has it's own venue area. Yeah there is a party, looks like more then one including some dance thing that regular people attended last year. There's also talks, demos and if info from last year that I looked up things like movie screenings. I saw a pic of a Serenity screening on a screen in a big field. Kinda like a movie in the park sort of thing.

Yeah the crowdfunding thing is interesting but it's not just about paying for a celebrity blowout. Looks like you do have to stand in line and/or get tickets for specific parts of the program but that's no different then the rest of the Con.
posted by Jalliah at 7:09 AM on March 20


But let me ask this: would it be less gross if people were paying money to attend a party with celebrities who are going to walk up, stand next to them for a picture, and once they've made the rounds, go off to the real party?

I think so. I mean, I wouldn't spend my money that way, and I still think it's a little sad, but yeah, I think it is less gross. I feel like the fan is getting something in the latter case. Not much, but at least a nod. A fig leaf. I don't know if it more matters to me that the fan/mark gets something concrete, even if not very tangible; or if it more matters that even a brief photo op is at least a non-automated acknowledgement of their existence as another human.
posted by tyllwin at 7:10 AM on March 20


Today's "fan" must be high on energy drinks. The only thing I want to do after a full day at a con and a nice dinner is go to sleeeeep. Now I supposedly want to go to another con-like event in the same day?
posted by Brocktoon at 7:49 AM on March 20


The whole thing is pretty weird and I'm not going to contribute but the bulk of the event is not a party, at least from what I could tell based on past years. It's mostly tons and tons of panels.

Considering they've made >$150K in a little over a week, that gamble may very well pay off.

I'm not so sure about that. From my understanding most big crowdfunding efforts get the bulk of their pledges near the very beginning and then there's a smaller push near the end.
posted by kmz at 8:11 AM on March 20


Linda, could you expand on what Fillion does that's different, and how frequently he does it? I'm fascinated by the mini-economies that surround celebrities (I'm thinking specifically of James Marsters and the cast of General Hospital) that extend past cons.
posted by armacy at 8:21 AM on March 20


Yeah, OK, I'm not sure that TFA isn't being misleading. If the facts are that you're paying to put on an event with a lot of free panels that anyone can go to, or watch streamed online, and you're just not invited to the VIP party portion of the larger event, that's much less gross.
posted by tyllwin at 8:39 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]


griphus: [all-access] requires all sorts of extra control, for one thing

all else aside, i have to think this was probably a major factor, if not the main one. some of these folks definitely have stalker-fans -- they exist at all levels. I of know a horror writer -- not a huge seller by any means -- who has had guys come across country to stalk her.
posted by lodurr at 8:48 AM on March 20


to tyllwin's point, people seem to be consistently reading this as mostly about the party. so maybe they need better copywriting.
posted by lodurr at 8:50 AM on March 20


This is really weird. Does the person writing this know that the cost to put on a charity event is probably almost always more than what actually gets donated? Stuff costs money.

Could all these actors pay to put this on? I don't know, but they do say this upfront:

The funding strategy we have been using to produce Nerd HQ is no longer viable due to venue deadlines and the commitments required by the Nerd Machine to properly plan the event. We wish we could continue to subsidize the event ourselves, but we simply no longer can.

And it's nitpicking that you don't get anything, you do get your name on the wall of contributors! (for some people that is actually something I imagine) But you are helping to put on a badass party. Where over $100k will go to charity (based on past trends). Sounds good to me.

But then I also refuse to buy wrapping paper from my daughters school, and just give cash instead. Same thing with girl scout cookies - You really want to support them? Why buy their marked up trans-fat sugar bars when you can just give them cash?
posted by Big_B at 8:59 AM on March 20


Does the person writing this know that the cost to put on a charity event is probably almost always more than what actually gets donated? Stuff costs money.

Not sure what your point is, here, since you follow this up by establishing that you don't indulge the model yourself.
posted by lodurr at 9:02 AM on March 20


I don't indulge in enriching a corporation when you can just go right to the source, but I could see throwing an event to do the same. It's about the experience, and not someone's profit. Probably still confusing but hopefully that helps.

The article just reads like outrage for outrage sake, and ignores the economics of raising money for charities.
posted by Big_B at 9:16 AM on March 20


Through a fandom lens, i don't think it's outrage for outrage sake, though I can see that it would look that way through the standard net.outrage filter. fandom is different, in complicated ways -- a lot of them selective amplifications of the norms -- but they're ways that Zech Levi is familiar with (he's been around fandom).

I guess I kind of agree with Linda Holmes that it's not surprising or especially squicky by comicon standards, but I also still think the whole idea is ... well, for lack of a better term, annoying. why do we need to do it this way? so often the charity circuit ends up looking like a way to rationalize doing what you want to do by saying 'oh but we're also doing good works.'
posted by lodurr at 9:35 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]


The article just reads like outrage for outrage sake, and ignores the economics of raising money for charities.

But that's really not what's going on. They're saying, give us some money, none of which will go to charity, and we will throw a party that you may not be able to get in to.

When you're running a charity, you can do fundraisers one of two ways:
1. People donate money, receiving nothing in return. The money almost entirely goes to the cause.
2. People buy a thing, whether it's cookies or tickets to an exclusive event. Some of the money goes to the cause, the rest is spent on providing the thing people bought.

If you're running a charity sale, you have to give people something for their money, or else they get testy about most of the money going to something other than the cause itself. This event seems to want the donation model of taking money in and the charity sale model of giving money out.
posted by echo target at 9:35 AM on March 20 [2 favorites]


As someone who is very familiar with large scale productions for corporate events $1million seems reasonable for a 4 day event of this size and caliper. Why the linked to article only mentions the party seems like poor writing to me.
Keeping in mind that the four days mentioned is while they are open and operating.....add a couple days for setup, maybe one for rehearsal and or tech and a day afterwards to strike the event, you are now at seven or eight days for labor and security, add in gear for that period and you can rip through a million bucks pretty fast. If the union is involved, all bets are off as anything after 5pm is time and half, anything between midnight and 7am is double time, weekends are double time etc etc.
As for the choice of crowd funding an event like this it makes perfect sense to me from a risk management standpoint. If they don't raise the full amount from crowd funding they can always scale back. With sponsor dollars if they don't raise enough, they still have signed contracts with sponsors that they have to honor. Plus they are streaming all the events, and this does get more people to feel like they are involved in something they care about even if they can't attend, which I believe is what crowd funding is all about.
posted by HappyHippo at 9:36 AM on March 20


well, technically, i think what they're saying is 'give us some money, none of which we can guarantee will go to charity (though we hope at least 25% will).'
posted by lodurr at 9:36 AM on March 20


I think zach levi wants to do the right thing. but I just can't shake the feeling that cause marketing is in general pretty creepy.
posted by lodurr at 9:37 AM on March 20


Again, I think it helps to not think of this as a charity event, but rather a fan event that also raises a fair amount of money for charity. Would it feel more or less weird if the event didn't raise any money for charity? I think it's cool that they do.

Here's the proposition:

We want to have an event!
We can't afford it!
Corporate sponsorship isn't viable!
Let's ask the people who might want to support this if they'd like to, but let's be sure to let them know what they're giving money for and what they'll get in return!

If people don't want to support this, they won't. The people that do are doing it with eyes wide open. There's no subterfuge here.
posted by inturnaround at 10:33 AM on March 20 [3 favorites]


well, technically, i think what they're saying is 'give us some money, none of which we can guarantee will go to charity (though we hope at least 25% will).'

I don't think that's right. The event will facilitate fundraising activities and the proceeds of those activities will go to charity (the notorious Operation Smile, of course), but the funds raised directly through the indiegogo campaign will not:

Again, we want to make it very clear that the money you are contributing for Nerd HQ is not going to charity. The funds raised here will pay for the production of Nerd HQ in San Diego this July. As always, One Hundred Percent (100%) of the money raised by panels, auction items, photos, and signings will continue to be donated to Operation Smile.
posted by payoto at 10:50 AM on March 20 [1 favorite]


They're saying, give us some money, none of which will go to charity, and we will throw a party that you may not be able to get in to.

The money is for the event where the charity money will be raised. And I'm not sure what you're implying with "may not be able to get in to" but the indiegogo page says this:

Nerd HQ brings you twenty-five plus hours of "Conversation for a Cause" content, live-streamed to everyone, FOR FREE, no matter where you are in the world (some restrictions may apply based on country.) The physical event in San Diego is COMPLETELY FREE for everyone to enter and enjoy. AND, we throw the most epic dance parties for both fans and celebs, again, TOTALLY FREE.

posted by Big_B at 10:55 AM on March 20


But it's for the FANS!


The WHOLE EVENT is a perk!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:29 PM on March 20


I'm potentially OK with this, but then I'm also irked by it.

I think I would not be irked if I weren't constantly subject to a barrage of SUPPORT NERD HQ stuff on twitter, with the most irritating guilt-trip carpet-bomb marketing strategy ever.

I really hate crowdfunding campaigns that try to make you feel like a bad person for not giving. I mean, it's not abused puppies or children with leprosy we're talking about, here. It's a Comic-Con side event.

I'm also sort of confused about why they can't just get corporate funding for this?

(The partially OK part is that I think buying a ticket to an event is ultimately the same thing as "crowdfunding" it. And, sure, if there's some rich guy who can't make it to Comic-Con this year but supports the idea of Nerd HQ and wants to put down $1000 so people can enjoy a free event, why the fuck not?)
posted by Sara C. at 12:29 PM on March 20


People shell out a crap-ton of money just to get to be in rooms with famous people

Well, yes and no. I mean, actual tickets to SDCC are under $50/day. It's dirt cheap compared to something like Coachella, and probably pretty reasonable compared to any big trade show (which is basically what a con is).

Most of the extravagant expense is people who travel cross-country to attend and need flights, hotel rooms, excess baggage for their cosplay gear, etc. You can spend a crap-ton of money just to get to be in rooms with famous people.

I still feel pretty squicky about "paying money to be in a room with famous people", as I've talked about before on metafilter, but meh. I'm also not entirely convinced that celebrity encounters are the main reason people go. It's not the reason I'm going to SDCC this year. I have much bigger issues with the structure of paying for autographs and photo ops than I do with the idea that you have to buy a ticket to get into a large event that costs a crap-ton of money to put on.
posted by Sara C. at 12:38 PM on March 20 [2 favorites]


Pay for a party for Nathan Fillion? With my money? Even the catering? I mean, he has grown to be a big TV star. He certainly would except a spread worthy of a man of his gravitas.
posted by Authorized User at 3:19 PM on March 20


and we will throw a party that you may not be able to get in to.

But nowhere does the original campaign say that. Supposedly, it's free to attend, for everyone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not, then this is pretty manipulative writing on the article's part.
posted by suedehead at 8:46 PM on March 20 [1 favorite]


Yeah, the article seems to be conflating the panels and other free to the public events with VIP parties. That said, I think it's shitty to expect the fans to foot the bill for the latter, but the idea is to make Nerd HQ a self-sustaining thing. I think that's a somewhat odd goal, but clearly their corporate funding fell through and they didn't want to completely tank the idea since people seem to enjoy going.

I don't really get the "pay for a party you aren't getting into" angle on the FPP article.
posted by Sara C. at 11:30 PM on March 20


Yeah. It seems like the angle is: "Every year we throw a huge free party for people! Sometimes we even donate money to charity! This year, our funding fell through; help us still throw huge free parties that sometimes donate to charity!"

Which seems reasonable.

And the article is saying: "Why should we donate money to fund a private VIP party that doesn't even donate all of your money to charity anyways?"

Which is pretty disingenuous.
posted by suedehead at 9:02 AM on March 21


That said, I am way, way over the constant barrage of social media about how I'm a bad person if I'm going to SDCC and choose not to donate to them.
posted by Sara C. at 9:10 AM on March 21


actually it seems to me that what the article is saying is 'Why should we donate money to fund a private VIP part that says it's about fundraising for a charity that doesn't even donate all any of your money..."

The article is a bit too dramaturgical, perhaps, but it's not disingenuous. And knowing what I've learned courtesy of this thread about Operation Smile, I might fault them more for considering the donation in the first place.
posted by lodurr at 11:27 AM on March 21


I think there's a fundamental difference between an event that is exists to raise funds for charity and may incidentally be kind of entertaining and an event that would exist anyway but which donates some or all of its proceeds to charity.

To me, Nerd HQ is clearly in the latter group -- the raison d'être of Nerd HQ is doing stuff with nerdy celebrities, not raising money for Operation Smile. The charitable angle helps make the whole thing seem nicer and makes it a little easier to get people to open their wallets for celebrity experiences and merch, but I don't feel like it's is presented as a fundraising event, and most of the people who attend and are involved would still want to attend even if there was no fundraising going on because OMG Nathan Fillion is going to be there.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:26 PM on March 21 [1 favorite]


I dunno, the nerdhq videos I've watched were pretty heavy on the Operation Smile pitch.
posted by lodurr at 7:29 AM on March 22


« Older Coordinating The World   |   The Beastmasters Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post