4 ms·

It's probably the number one question we get asked now rebootthesystem, by people in our network who considering KS. It's a catch 22. Aim too low, you can't del

It's probably the number one question we get asked now rebootthesystem, by people in our network who considering KS. It's a catch 22. Aim too low, you can't deliver (unless you get additional capital... which might be the point), aim too high, people don't believe you'll get there, project fails. It's because of these incompatible goals that projects will keep going to low and keep posting eulogies on HN.

nugga 11y ago
I don't understand the "people not believing you'll get there" point. The pledger loses no money if the project doesn't attain its goal so there is no reason to not pledge just because it might fail.
- jkestner 11y ago
  It doesn't seem rational, but it's a real effect. The theory is that people don't want to back a loser, and perhaps that they are psychologically purchasing the product at the point they make a pledge.
  - rebootthesystem 11y ago
    I wonder if anyone has looked at the idea of not showing the funding goal at all until it is funded (or not) or some other metric. For example, show it during the last week of the campaign. I am trying to think of a way to allow project originators the freedom to set reasonable goals (a million, whatever) without fear of this one number becoming a drag on their campaign despite the fact that they are actually being honest about what it will take to deliver a quality product.
    - jkestner 11y ago
      I think that'd be worse because a goal does create a rallying point, and is also used as a signal for how realistic funding this project is (keeping in mind that people irrationally want to back a sure thing). Yes, it's a problem, though not like IndieGoGo's flexible funding. But I don't take it in isolation - determined creators can make a lot happen with a little money, I know. I look more closely at the level of detail of what has been done and what needs to be done, and judge whether I think these people have few enough unknowns to complete it. But that's not a metric that most people are able to judge themselves, which is why it's a problem, and also where the Kickstarter community of other backers should kick in.

nugga 11y ago

I don't understand the "people not believing you'll get there" point. The pledger loses no money if the project doesn't attain its goal so there is no reason to not pledge just because it might fail.

jkestner 11y ago
It doesn't seem rational, but it's a real effect. The theory is that people don't want to back a loser, and perhaps that they are psychologically purchasing the product at the point they make a pledge.
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  I wonder if anyone has looked at the idea of not showing the funding goal at all until it is funded (or not) or some other metric. For example, show it during the last week of the campaign. I am trying to think of a way to allow project originators the freedom to set reasonable goals (a million, whatever) without fear of this one number becoming a drag on their campaign despite the fact that they are actually being honest about what it will take to deliver a quality product.
  - jkestner 11y ago
    I think that'd be worse because a goal does create a rallying point, and is also used as a signal for how realistic funding this project is (keeping in mind that people irrationally want to back a sure thing). Yes, it's a problem, though not like IndieGoGo's flexible funding. But I don't take it in isolation - determined creators can make a lot happen with a little money, I know. I look more closely at the level of detail of what has been done and what needs to be done, and judge whether I think these people have few enough unknowns to complete it. But that's not a metric that most people are able to judge themselves, which is why it's a problem, and also where the Kickstarter community of other backers should kick in.