I think that your points are based on Kickstarter being something that it's not. Kickstarter is a platform. Comparing Kickstarter projects to youtube productions is disingenuous or wrong even. There are no promises with youtube productions and money is made through youtube on them. At it's core, its a video sharing site. With kickstarter you *are* promising a project and pitching it to investors.
Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) We crafted these terms to create a legal requirement for creators to follow through on their projects, and to give backers a recourse if they don't. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.
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.
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?
How many that once they do succeed, they still fail.
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.
How many that if they weren't on kickstarter, they wouldn't be backed?
That's sort of the point. Crowdfunding lets those that are interested in seeing it succeed contribute to that success. It takes the huge weight off of the shoulders of a few with a lot of money, and puts the control in the hands of those that have less.
It's the marketing of the marketplace with Kickstarter as the marketplace that helps make these proposals take off.
I'd disagree. If so, then why is there only a 44% success rate? If it was kickstarter itself, wouldn't that number be higher? 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.
I think if good incentives or stretch goals where standardized then every blog article advises on how to make a successful kickstarter would lead to success or at least 90% success rate and we wouldn't have post-failure articles like this making sentences of why it's a good thing.
In regards to good incentives, that is a measure of the project, and directly counter to your second point. You have to recognize your audience, and tailor your proposal and the incentives towards that. That's why people publish to a set group of people before the kickstarter launches- to get that feedback. That's why incentives are changed during the kickstarter- to give the people what they want. It's a subset of the good plans- but such an important one that I separated it in my analysis.
The fact is this is another example of kickstarter doing the marketing for the products and the projects' marketing not mattering at all outside of the project's marketing needing to matter because it is part of the competency of the one hosting the thing needing to be backed and cause the "fear of failure" is so ingrained to the project cause the rate of success is supposed to be high.
Respectfully... what? Kickstarter itself has nothing to do with the incentives. It is fully a measure of the person creating the project. As someone who's gone through the beginning stages to see what's going on behind the scenes, I can say categorically that you're wrong there. There's sample projects and suggestions- but nothing past that. There's no direct correlation there.
In the end, the stretch goals is just a built in marketing mechanic for kickstarter to promote kickstarter by giving the vendors an incentive to entice the buyers, not for the buyers to be enticed by the vendors.
Again... what? Have you looked at stretch goals? Those aren't even a Kickstarter thing, and aren't officially supported by Kickstarter. It's something that certain projects have found that works for them in their presentation to be able to lower their price of admission and add gold plating (or fund additional add-ons) as an option, depending on what the backers want. There's not even an infrastructure in place to support them.
Again, I think from your statements you might have the wrong idea of what Kickstarter is, and isn't. Of course it could be that we're just looking at it from different angles. But your arguments seem to be more geared towards traditional definitions, when Kickstarter (and Crowdfunding in general) is anything but.
Recent Posts
