Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

A different perspective on the failure of a Kickstarter

<< < (2/2)

Mark0:
I just saw today a podcast with David Braben (of Elite fame) and Chris Roberts (ditto for Wing Commander). Both have ongoing Kickstarter campaigns for their next games.

Kickstarter - Elite Dangerous
Kickstarter - Star Citizen

One interesting point made by Chris, was that he used Kickstarter also as a way to show other private investors that there was a lot of interest in his project. So he not only surpassed the Kickstarter target by a big amount, but also got even more money from other sources.

Paul Keith:
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.
--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---

A LOT.

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?
--- End quote ---

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?
--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---

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.  

wraith808:
If it was a direct reply, then I don't see why the point for point was against my points, which seemed as if it was a reply to my reply.  It's apparent that we have different views on things, as I allowed for in my final point.  And the debate doesn't seem to be even in the same realm, as the arguments are quite nebulous and unsubstantiated, i.e. I backed up my statements on what kickstarter is with quotes from the site, and from the creation of the prospectus.  But you seemingly tossed those away, in favor of what you think that kickstarter is, rather than how they position themselves.  But as you said that you aren't making arguments and were replying to mouser, I'm just going to bow out now.  :Thmbsup:

40hz:
Platform? Let's get real.

Kickstarter is basically an unregulated forum for solicitation of investors.

You can call it whatever you like. And I'm all for what it attempts to accomplish. But it's still a mechanism for people to solicit money from the general public. And it's ripe for abuse because of it's current lack of regulation and status. So it's only a matter of time before the con artists start taking advantage of that.

We've already seen some amateur attempts at gaming the Kickstarter system already.

Paul Keith:
If it was a direct reply, then I don't see why the point for point was against my points, which seemed as if it was a reply to my reply.  It's apparent that we have different views on things, as I allowed for in my final point.  And the debate doesn't seem to be even in the same realm, as the arguments are quite nebulous and unsubstantiated, i.e. I backed up my statements on what kickstarter is with quotes from the site, and from the creation of the prospectus.  But you seemingly tossed those away, in favor of what you think that kickstarter is, rather than how they position themselves.  But as you said that you aren't making arguments and were replying to mouser, I'm just going to bow out now.  :Thmbsup:
-wraith808 (December 11, 2012, 12:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

I replied because you replied. That's the point.  ;)

Platform? Let's get real.

Kickstarter is basically an unregulated forum for solicitation of investors.

You can call it whatever you like. And I'm all for what it attempts to accomplish. But it's still a mechanism for people to solicit money from the general public. And it's ripe for abuse because of it's current lack of regulation and status. So it's only a matter of time before the con artists start taking advantage of that.

We've already seen some amateur attempts at gaming the Kickstarter system already. -40hz (December 11, 2012, 06:33 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well there's always two kinds of world. The perfect one and the imperfect one.

All businesses is based on imperfect ones IMO but to borrow wraith808's word, they want to "position" themselves as a perfect one.

I would just like to emphasize that perfect here is not quality but peace of mind.

In an imperfect world, there are scams just as there are legitimate products and a platform that can elevate scams, can also elevate legitimate products. Cue the internet.

In an illusionary perfect world, there are criminals who are invested to bypass the rules and the regulations end up hurting the more amateur project providers of legitimate products. Cue the "if you ban something, you subsidize it".

Not that it has much of an effect for "rich" countries or Kickstarter per se (their major base) but if Kickstarter gets regulated, it would hurt many amateurs on it and motivate many amateur scammers to be more professional about their scams as there's a legitimate space left behind by those who are willing to back amateur/micro-funded projects. It's one of the ironies of crowdfunding IMO as well as markets in general.

If it were a mere mechanic for moving money, it would be no different than a microfinance site but lack of regulations led to more time for creativity, more time for creativity led to a different enthusiasm for solicitation, the attitude shift create a different kind of culture which then led to a more dreamer type expectation of shopping mechanic than the less exciting and serious world of micro-loans and you get a "platform" of a different brand. One that has a dynamic that transcends the mechanic for good and for bad.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page