Kickstarter has a problem. Even with all of the successful projects, it's becoming known more for its outlying failures (which of course, can happen to anyone) rather than its outlying successes. What can you do about it, without putting undue strictures on the creators or turning Kickstarter into something it's not? An independent analysis of the numbers seems a good way to start.
The Kickstarter Fulfillment Report - An independent analysis by the University of Pennsylvania.
In March 2015, we invited a scholar from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania to help answer this question. Professor Ethan Mollick is an expert in entrepreneurship and innovation who developed an independent study surveying nearly 500,000 backers about project outcomes and backer sentiment.
Note, that they don't say anything about the funding of the project. That would be more transparent- whether invited meant
solicited and funded. Not that I think it's a salient point, but it will be to some people. All sorts of groups give grants to study particular things that might be of use to the funding group.
There is, however this tidbit, that might stave off the naysayers:
“Kickstarter collaborated on data gathering, but these results are independent and solely my own work. I was not paid by Kickstarter, and all analyses were conducted independently of Kickstarter. Kickstarter was offered the chance to comment on, but not change, this paper before it was made public. For the backer data, Kickstarter conducted the survey using questions jointly developed with me, but shared all relevant non- private data. For the survey of project creators, the survey was conducted by me alone, and responses were not shared with Kickstarter. All errors and omissions are mine.”
Emphasis mine. But the next question is- how were you funded? Which is not answered.
What is important is the next paragraph:
This is the largest study to ever examine the Kickstarter community. We had no influence over its findings. Before research began, Wharton and Kickstarter agreed that we would co-publish the results, whatever was found.
But for some, that will get lost in the question of who funded it, which is a shame.
I'll summarize the points for those who don't want to read.
- 9% of Kickstarter projects fail to deliver rewards
- Failure rates are consistent across categories
- Projects that raise less than $1,000 fail the most often
- There are good failures and bad failures
That last point refers to project satisfaction.
In the end, he says that each backer should allow for a 1-in-10 failure rate of projects backed. I guess I'm just lucky- I consider only 3 of my 350+ projects to have failed. Those have gone silent without delivering. Many are late- very late in one case- but they're still communicating and progressing. And one of those refunded 100% of my pledge, and gave a complimentary product.
I'm in it more for the process, though I only back things that are interesting to me. I have a worse rate on IndieGoGo, which is the reason that I don't use it anymore. It seems more wild west than Kickstarter.
But back to the report - it's an interesting read, with interesting methodology- especially for the last point. I do like that they include it, however.
Show Posts
