3 ms·

Looks like Kickstarter is going to end up being known as the company that (kick)started a phenomenon but didn't own it. They should have become a marketplace fo

by staunch 14y ago

Looks like Kickstarter is going to end up being known as the company that (kick)started a phenomenon but didn't own it. They should have become a marketplace for projects, not an arbiter of what gets a shot and what doesn't.

brackin 14y ago
Interestingly they don't seem to want to own the whole phenomenon. Which could be a good thing for what they want to achieve. They want to focus on creative projects over being a platform to fund anything or a store with little accountability.
- loceng 14y ago
  The attention and revenues they would generate from having bigger and more successful products (revenue size wise) would benefit the smaller creative projects IMHO.
alexpenny 14y ago
I think they thought this through. They probably realized they couldn't own all of crowd funding. Wouldn't it be weird seeing a "Fund my new convenience store" on kickstarter. Instead they do own creative projects, which is brilliant because that's where innovation happens.
- project23 14y ago
  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1877926324/plenty-a-grocery-store-for-the-neighborhood?ref=live http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1877926324/plenty-a-groc... It's not the only one... Kickstarter's new policy is about them not wanting to act as an online store, not about taking away the "fund my new convenience store" vs creative projects. Its more about them not wanting to be used by anyone (creative projects included) as if they are there to basically be a selling platform. At least thats how I viewed it.
  - alexpenny 14y ago
    You're right about the new policy. A Better example would have been.. http://gofundme.com/ http://gofundme.com/ Noble projects but the company isn't as successful with general crowdfunding vs kickstarters creative market.
throwa 14y ago
true talk. Their failure to do that and trying to be a gate keeper and dictating what gets a shot might be their bane.

by staunch 14y ago

brackin 14y ago

Interestingly they don't seem to want to own the whole phenomenon. Which could be a good thing for what they want to achieve. They want to focus on creative projects over being a platform to fund anything or a store with little accountability.

loceng 14y ago
The attention and revenues they would generate from having bigger and more successful products (revenue size wise) would benefit the smaller creative projects IMHO.

alexpenny 14y ago

I think they thought this through. They probably realized they couldn't own all of crowd funding. Wouldn't it be weird seeing a "Fund my new convenience store" on kickstarter. Instead they do own creative projects, which is brilliant because that's where innovation happens.

project23 14y ago
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1877926324/plenty-a-grocery-store-for-the-neighborhood?ref=live http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1877926324/plenty-a-groc... It's not the only one... Kickstarter's new policy is about them not wanting to act as an online store, not about taking away the "fund my new convenience store" vs creative projects. Its more about them not wanting to be used by anyone (creative projects included) as if they are there to basically be a selling platform. At least thats how I viewed it.
- alexpenny 14y ago
  You're right about the new policy. A Better example would have been.. http://gofundme.com/ http://gofundme.com/ Noble projects but the company isn't as successful with general crowdfunding vs kickstarters creative market.

throwa 14y ago

true talk. Their failure to do that and trying to be a gate keeper and dictating what gets a shot might be their bane.