People have started noticing recently that Anita Sarkeesian has repeatedly alluded at her "non-profit" organization, Feminist Frequency, being in financial trouble.
I have always been quite cynical about that "non-profit" status, tending to think that it's "non-profit in legal status only", in that yes, it's legally registered as a non-profit organization (which, as far as I know, means that the company itself cannot make significant yearly profits, which I think means it cannot have some kind of investors and shareholders who earn money from the company; in other words, the assets and capital of the company cannot significantly raise, all earnings going to justified expenditures). One has to wonder, however, where all that money is going to, because as an organization it's not doing much.
Luckily, in the United States one requirement imposed onto non-profit organizations is that they have to be 100% open about their earnings and expenditures, to the last cent. They have to make yearly open and public reports on this, and they have to report every single cent (lest they be investigated and sued if they try to embezzle some of that money). Thus we can get a glimpse of what's happening.
Unluckily, it appears that they can be as vague with these expenditures as they want. While they have to report every single cent earned and expended, they seemingly don't have to be extremely specific on where, or who, exactly the money goes to, or how exactly it's being used. (I suppose that if the money goes to a person, it's that person's tax report that's specific about this, but that's not necessarily public information.)
So let's take a little look at their 2018 report:
The expenditures consist of "programming", "administrative", "development and community engagement", and "misc adjustments". Could it be any more vague?
What exactly is "programming"? It doesn't explain, but I think it has something to do with video production and related projects (but not related to computer programming). What exactly has the organization produced?
During 2018 there were a total of 90 videos uploaded to their YouTube channel. Hey, that sounds like a rather large number! That's like one video every 4 days.
Except that 79 of those "videos" are actually not videos at all. They are voice-only podcasts, with a static image, requiring exactly zero video production. They consist of nothing more than three or four people talking for an hour, and that's it.
Only 11 of those uploads are actual videos. That's like less than 1 per month.
The quality of those 11 videos is nothing to brag about. This is not just badmouthing or bashing. They are extremely simplistic, with editing and graphics that can be done with inexpensive software very easily. There are literally thousands and thousands of videos out there done with zero budgets that are of significantly higher quality.
Consider that $195339 is a bit over $16000 per month. Who is getting that money? That's a rather hefty monthly salary, even if it's divided between like three or four people. For less than 1 video production per month (and a bunch of voice-only podcasts that costs nothing to anybody to make).
Remember that this is a very small organization, currently comprising of only like a half dozen people at most (some of them even doing it on a voluntary basis, getting no salary at all, according to their own word.)
How many people are needed to run the administrative duties of such a minuscule organization? There are even bigger companies that have only one person in charge, and perhaps another running finances (even though most often finances are outsourced to an external company offering such services).
$116382 is about $9700 per month. Again, a decent monthly salary for a person administering the organization. Even for two people. Who exactly is getting this money? The report doesn't say.
Perhaps the most vague of them all is "development and community engagement", at $126471 per year, or about $10500 per month. What exactly does this even mean? Once again, the report does not go into details.
Who exactly is getting all that money? What exactly is it spent on? What possible "development" or "community engagement", whatever that means, could require $10500 a month, for the entire year?
Maybe it's some kind of rent, for offices or filming studios? Yeah, for 11 short videos? Who on earth would rent an office space or a studio for an entire year, 24/7, to make 11 short YouTube videos (videos with production values that are even lower than many people are making at their home for quite literally a zero budget)? I don't think all this money goes to rent, or anything like that.
And what exactly is "community engagement", exactly? What do you need $10500 a month for, for the entire year? What does "community engagement" even mean? What costs so much? Are they traveling using luxury airliners to different parts of the country or something?
Somehow I get the feeling that some people there are paying themselves hefty salaries a bit under the table... while at the same time kicking off members and having them work on a voluntary basis, with no salary. Or alternatively they are spending absolutely stupid amounts of money on things they wouldn't have to. Or both.
Well, one thing is rather easy to predict: Every time Anita Sarkeesian is running out of money, she will come up with either a new "project" to scam her gullible audience with (ie. a project that's done on a shoestring budget at someone's home using inexpensive equipment and software, while trying to fool the viewer into thinking that it's actually a high-quality big-budget project requiring a lot of money), or she will invent yet another controversy where she just conveniently happens to be the victim, prompting the useful tools to shower her with pity money (because nothing heals a bruised ego better than boatloads of cash.)
So expect her next move pretty soon. Which one of those will it be? Hard to predict. Probably a new "project", although if she's desperate enough, she'll just make up yet another way of victimizing herself. Maybe some regressive leftist game journalists will still publish some flashy article about her.
I have always been quite cynical about that "non-profit" status, tending to think that it's "non-profit in legal status only", in that yes, it's legally registered as a non-profit organization (which, as far as I know, means that the company itself cannot make significant yearly profits, which I think means it cannot have some kind of investors and shareholders who earn money from the company; in other words, the assets and capital of the company cannot significantly raise, all earnings going to justified expenditures). One has to wonder, however, where all that money is going to, because as an organization it's not doing much.
Luckily, in the United States one requirement imposed onto non-profit organizations is that they have to be 100% open about their earnings and expenditures, to the last cent. They have to make yearly open and public reports on this, and they have to report every single cent (lest they be investigated and sued if they try to embezzle some of that money). Thus we can get a glimpse of what's happening.
Unluckily, it appears that they can be as vague with these expenditures as they want. While they have to report every single cent earned and expended, they seemingly don't have to be extremely specific on where, or who, exactly the money goes to, or how exactly it's being used. (I suppose that if the money goes to a person, it's that person's tax report that's specific about this, but that's not necessarily public information.)
So let's take a little look at their 2018 report:
The expenditures consist of "programming", "administrative", "development and community engagement", and "misc adjustments". Could it be any more vague?
What exactly is "programming"? It doesn't explain, but I think it has something to do with video production and related projects (but not related to computer programming). What exactly has the organization produced?
During 2018 there were a total of 90 videos uploaded to their YouTube channel. Hey, that sounds like a rather large number! That's like one video every 4 days.
Except that 79 of those "videos" are actually not videos at all. They are voice-only podcasts, with a static image, requiring exactly zero video production. They consist of nothing more than three or four people talking for an hour, and that's it.
Only 11 of those uploads are actual videos. That's like less than 1 per month.
The quality of those 11 videos is nothing to brag about. This is not just badmouthing or bashing. They are extremely simplistic, with editing and graphics that can be done with inexpensive software very easily. There are literally thousands and thousands of videos out there done with zero budgets that are of significantly higher quality.
Consider that $195339 is a bit over $16000 per month. Who is getting that money? That's a rather hefty monthly salary, even if it's divided between like three or four people. For less than 1 video production per month (and a bunch of voice-only podcasts that costs nothing to anybody to make).
Remember that this is a very small organization, currently comprising of only like a half dozen people at most (some of them even doing it on a voluntary basis, getting no salary at all, according to their own word.)
How many people are needed to run the administrative duties of such a minuscule organization? There are even bigger companies that have only one person in charge, and perhaps another running finances (even though most often finances are outsourced to an external company offering such services).
$116382 is about $9700 per month. Again, a decent monthly salary for a person administering the organization. Even for two people. Who exactly is getting this money? The report doesn't say.
Perhaps the most vague of them all is "development and community engagement", at $126471 per year, or about $10500 per month. What exactly does this even mean? Once again, the report does not go into details.
Who exactly is getting all that money? What exactly is it spent on? What possible "development" or "community engagement", whatever that means, could require $10500 a month, for the entire year?
Maybe it's some kind of rent, for offices or filming studios? Yeah, for 11 short videos? Who on earth would rent an office space or a studio for an entire year, 24/7, to make 11 short YouTube videos (videos with production values that are even lower than many people are making at their home for quite literally a zero budget)? I don't think all this money goes to rent, or anything like that.
And what exactly is "community engagement", exactly? What do you need $10500 a month for, for the entire year? What does "community engagement" even mean? What costs so much? Are they traveling using luxury airliners to different parts of the country or something?
Somehow I get the feeling that some people there are paying themselves hefty salaries a bit under the table... while at the same time kicking off members and having them work on a voluntary basis, with no salary. Or alternatively they are spending absolutely stupid amounts of money on things they wouldn't have to. Or both.
Well, one thing is rather easy to predict: Every time Anita Sarkeesian is running out of money, she will come up with either a new "project" to scam her gullible audience with (ie. a project that's done on a shoestring budget at someone's home using inexpensive equipment and software, while trying to fool the viewer into thinking that it's actually a high-quality big-budget project requiring a lot of money), or she will invent yet another controversy where she just conveniently happens to be the victim, prompting the useful tools to shower her with pity money (because nothing heals a bruised ego better than boatloads of cash.)
So expect her next move pretty soon. Which one of those will it be? Hard to predict. Probably a new "project", although if she's desperate enough, she'll just make up yet another way of victimizing herself. Maybe some regressive leftist game journalists will still publish some flashy article about her.
Comments
Post a Comment