DigVentures

[BillyPilgrim]

As it is a Social Enterprise
one expects it to be a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners. It is also working with Vivacity, an independent, not-for-profit organisation with charitable status that manages many of Peterborough’s most popular culture and leisure facilities on behalf of Peterborough City Council (http://www.vivacity-peterborough.com/mus...e/flag-fen).

I saw on the website that it was a social enterprise and that they were working with Vivacity, that's why I was asking. The Dig Ventures website is very clear that Vivacity is a non-profit, but there isn't any statement about their own status. Social Enterprise in itself is a bit of a vague term (SE's can be for-profit or non-profit unless structured as a Community Interest Company [CIC] etc.) and there wasn't any info on if they have (or are working towards) a Social Enterprise Mark (the only certification for social enterprises). I'm asking because I'm interested in what happens to any funds raised above the ?25,000 target (in a hypothetical best case scenario the project could raise over ?100,000 via Sponsume). I'm not suggesting that for-profit status is bad, but I would like to know how any excess will be used/invested if they are for-profit and I think it's only fair that we should know before pledging our own resources. So, Dig Ventures are you non-profit or for-profit?

For the record I have absolutely no problem with Dig Ventures charging for the opportunity to dig at Flag Fen. It's not particularly different from the way quite a few research digs are run in the UK (charge American students two grand and use that to subsidise home students, outreach & research etc.) - except perhaps more honest and open about this fact. I do have a bit of an issue with the seed venture round; charging ?10 to access web content about the dig is in effectively erecting a pay wall around digital access. I think this may have serious implications about the visibility of archaeology if adopted more widely. As a crude comparison how many Times Vs Guardian articles have you seen being shared on Facebook recently?

I am not trying to be narky here (I do want to see the project succeed and they will be getting a tenner off me). I just think that - as this is being touted by quite a few people as the future for non-commercial archaeology projects - it is right that it is debated, questioned and examined thoroughly so that any model is robust going forward.