5 ms·

I was positive on crowdfunding but cases like this show that giving teams money before they deliver is not good for consumers. It gives an advantage for marketi

by mtw 7y ago

I was positive on crowdfunding but cases like this show that giving teams money before they deliver is not good for consumers. It gives an advantage for marketing-driven teams while there's no accountability and no hard reason to deliver. See Kickstarter and Indiegogo with lots of slick videos but really not much to actually use

mtgx 7y ago
Maybe Kickstarter and such platforms need to put up a system where the consumer only pays 10%-50% of the final retail price until the product is completed.
- yifanl 7y ago
  But that isn't their model. Their model is to let the seller set up "reward tiers", and usually the tier that corresponds with "get the final product early!" comes at a bit of a discount off the "final retail price". But even in your case, it's extremely flawed, how can you know the final retail price before they set a final retail price?
- pjc50 7y ago
  The original intent of these systems was to crowdfund printing costs for small-run art projects and the like, where the money would need to be actually spent to produce the items. Not paying the creator upfront would destroy that use case.
vlunkr 7y ago
There are plenty of success stories, among many highly publicized failures. I don’t think we should write the whole thing off. When backing a product, remember that you’re playing the role of an investor, rather than a consumer, so you have to be more wary. When you pay to back an MMO, remember that it has probably the hardest road to success of any type of video game.
- raesene9 7y ago
  You're really not playing the part of an investor on Kickstarter or IndieGogo. An investor stands the chance to make a profit if a venture is successful. That does not describe the model of this kickstarter or any other one I've seen. If a kickstarter says "pledge at this tier and get x in return" that's a supplier-->consumer relationship.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Money is only one kind of investment, regular exercise has a different but still valuable reward. Getting something that does not exist yet is the payout. Handing over money for say a 1/3 chance of the reward is what separates this from a normal purchase. But, hopefully you understand that risk going in.
    - raesene9 7y ago
      The comment to which I was replying implied that participating in a kickstarter was like being an investor (from context, in the financial sense of that word). So we're talking financial investments, not regular exercise. In the financial sense, an investment is where you put money in with the hope of getting more money out. There are levels of risk, and generally the more risky the investment the higher the expected payout. That's not what kickstarter is, at all, as you have zero chance of getting more money out (in this kickstarter for example) you're giving someone money in exchange for the hope of a product downt the line.
      - Retric 7y ago
        Nothing in that post mentioned monetary returns. Still, you can get more value out than you put in depending on how you value the output. Many kickstarter’s are not items that you can buy but rather art projects. How valuable is it for something to exist in this world even if you don’t own it? Now, that’s less true if games or flashlights. But, even if that specific item does not get created simply proving a market for it exists can provide value. Consider, if 10$ helps creat a great restaurant near you. Simply being able to eat at it would provide value even without getting a discount.
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
One could say the same about VC-backed startups.
onion2k 7y ago
I was positive on crowdfunding but cases like this show that giving teams money before they deliver is not good for consumers. At no point on Kickstarter does it ever say you're buying the final product. Kickstarter is not a store. You're not paying someone to make the thing they're kickstarting. You're investing so they can give it a good shot. Perhaps there's an argument that crowd-funding sites need to be even more upfront about how it works, but withholding the money until the team is finished would just mean 99% of projects never happen. That's far worse for the consumer.

by mtw 7y ago

mtgx 7y ago

Maybe Kickstarter and such platforms need to put up a system where the consumer only pays 10%-50% of the final retail price until the product is completed.

yifanl 7y ago
But that isn't their model. Their model is to let the seller set up "reward tiers", and usually the tier that corresponds with "get the final product early!" comes at a bit of a discount off the "final retail price". But even in your case, it's extremely flawed, how can you know the final retail price before they set a final retail price?
pjc50 7y ago
The original intent of these systems was to crowdfund printing costs for small-run art projects and the like, where the money would need to be actually spent to produce the items. Not paying the creator upfront would destroy that use case.

vlunkr 7y ago

There are plenty of success stories, among many highly publicized failures. I don’t think we should write the whole thing off. When backing a product, remember that you’re playing the role of an investor, rather than a consumer, so you have to be more wary. When you pay to back an MMO, remember that it has probably the hardest road to success of any type of video game.

raesene9 7y ago
You're really not playing the part of an investor on Kickstarter or IndieGogo. An investor stands the chance to make a profit if a venture is successful. That does not describe the model of this kickstarter or any other one I've seen. If a kickstarter says "pledge at this tier and get x in return" that's a supplier-->consumer relationship.
- Retric 7y ago
  Money is only one kind of investment, regular exercise has a different but still valuable reward. Getting something that does not exist yet is the payout. Handing over money for say a 1/3 chance of the reward is what separates this from a normal purchase. But, hopefully you understand that risk going in.
  - raesene9 7y ago
    The comment to which I was replying implied that participating in a kickstarter was like being an investor (from context, in the financial sense of that word). So we're talking financial investments, not regular exercise. In the financial sense, an investment is where you put money in with the hope of getting more money out. There are levels of risk, and generally the more risky the investment the higher the expected payout. That's not what kickstarter is, at all, as you have zero chance of getting more money out (in this kickstarter for example) you're giving someone money in exchange for the hope of a product downt the line.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Nothing in that post mentioned monetary returns. Still, you can get more value out than you put in depending on how you value the output. Many kickstarter’s are not items that you can buy but rather art projects. How valuable is it for something to exist in this world even if you don’t own it? Now, that’s less true if games or flashlights. But, even if that specific item does not get created simply proving a market for it exists can provide value. Consider, if 10$ helps creat a great restaurant near you. Simply being able to eat at it would provide value even without getting a discount.

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago

One could say the same about VC-backed startups.

onion2k 7y ago

I was positive on crowdfunding but cases like this show that giving teams money before they deliver is not good for consumers. At no point on Kickstarter does it ever say you're buying the final product. Kickstarter is not a store. You're not paying someone to make the thing they're kickstarting. You're investing so they can give it a good shot. Perhaps there's an argument that crowd-funding sites need to be even more upfront about how it works, but withholding the money until the team is finished would just mean 99% of projects never happen. That's far worse for the consumer.