I think it's exactly that. Kickstarter is a platform. Youtube is also a platform.
Platform is just a fancy way of saying things are here.
In fact, opening up a youtube channel does have a promise. A webseries sucks if it has no ending.
It's only disingenuous to individuals who find something to feel bad about it. No different than someone feeling bad that a donationcoded software is not on DC. It can happen but it's on the individual, not on the actual model.
I would even go beyond and say you are going against your case.
"If" Kickstarter is a "promise" then what is this? Jerk moves to break promises?
Real projects have no consequences if funding is sought before they start, and that funding is not reached. In that, they are similar to Kickstarter. I've started quite a few projects, tested the waters, and bailed because there was not enough interest/I couldn't raise enough funds. That's the same level of involvement that you are starting at Kickstarter. If they receive the funds, then cannot deliver, there are very real consequences.
The answer is obviously no but it sounds like this "if" we apply the wrong analogy of Kickstarter being a promise. Yes I know what the nice sounding quote is but there's quotes and there's reality. The quote you pasted was a rhetorical FAQ style question. It wasn't meant to be some sort of official adjective for Kickstarter
Ok. How many? I've backed almost 100 projects. Some have been late, and the execution on some have been less than I'd thought. But (1) looking back at the proposal, I see in hindsight what I missed- that part is my fault, and (2) sometimes things happen that are out of the control of the project and weren't taken into account. That stuff happens.
People learn from mistakes. People like to think they learn from mistakes especially business people. (Not alot of them are able to write really good books on it that go beyond feel good platitudes and bullet points but hey, it's a necessary irrational attempt)
The problem here is, again, you're making the case for why Kickstarter is not a promise. At least no more than a Youtube video being a promise to Youtube viewers.
If we apply the promise analogy, it just seems like a jerk move. You were late for your "promise" and you didn't execute it. K...but what's the compensation? Is it equal compensation? No, because it's a project not a promise once it fails. See how that works?
...there's something else aside that, something that's promise-like but I don't think it can be clearly defined when you want to stick to your version of a Kickstarter as a promise. One that allows you stop making that promise when it's convenient
cause it's not really a promise at all.
Until you can see how wrong that is, it will sound like the point of crowdfunding is about backers but it's not. You know it when you jump away from backing or promises when you defend Kickstarter but jump back to crowdfunding when you want to focus on one sentence about the model.
If this were only about what Kickstarter's definition should be about, it's one thing but it's not.
And in contrast to your heading for #1, there are horri-bad projects in your eyes. What's one man's garbage is another's treasure. This is what Kickstarter measures. The pet rock, the wrist band shapes, and several other questionable things have made tons of money because there was a demand beyond what I'd perceive as value. Were they bad ideas? An emphatic no! They made their creators tons of money, and I wish I'd thought about it. Just because it has no intrinsic value to me, doesn't mean that it doesn't to someone else. And if they're willing to put their money where their mouth is, then who am I to speak on the value of what they see?
Pet rock - would still have a base after it get funded
Wrist band shapes - would still have a base after it get funded.
You're making the mistake of talking about trees while missing the forest. Why did I reply? What was mouser's statement? What was your statement? What was the article about?
The sentence is not There are horri-bad projects that get funded but Counter to #1:
There are so many
horri-bad ideas with insane backings for their value.
If it was kickstarter itself, wouldn't that number be higher?
Why is 44% low for a market? Because Kickstarter is a crowdfunding website not a:
Having that platform allows there to be a critical mass of backers, true. But that's like saying having a street corner by grand central station to sell your creations from is the reason for your success.
It's one of the most well known crowd funding site. It's one of the most successful go-to sites. It's on the internet which has a different scale both for ease of entries and actual entries.
...and a street corner has to compete for space. Kickstarter has to compete for attention. It's just an immediate wrong analogy.
No offense but I think your reply just got off the wrong premise. As soon as that wrong premise start flowing, everything was just jagged. It's not criticism so much as explaining why I tried not expanding on statements such as directly counter to your second point
. Maybe it's my fault for bolding it but my statements were counters to your statements. They don't function as headlines or sentences in isolation.
If you treat them as isolated sentences to be cherry picked, we get to such rhetorical bullet points as:
recognize your audience
tailor your proposal
...even: Kickstarter has nothing to do with incentives
(which raises issues like how an interface can promote behaviour and only works if you don't have this view that Kickstarter is solely a platform that allows you to promise something)
Finally, I think it's important to emphasize that I'm not making arguments. I'm making a direct reply to what mouser is saying only instead of making it a direct reply, I based my direct reply on counter-evidence to why in my opinion, it was neither
If you focused too much on what is traditional and not traditional, it would just lead to more fruitless disagreements and not because we are looking at different ways this time but because then we'd be truly arguing on which one of us is the one having a traditional view when that isn't the subject to begin with. There is no tradition here. There is no argument against Kickstarter here. Kickstarter is not being attacked. Crowdfunding is not being redefined. It is about projects. What lessons could be learned from them. (the main article) Why we disagree with mouser's impression (both of our replies) and what was the nuancy behind what mouser is saying which led to our own contrarian replies to him.