5 ms·

I originally came here to make a "Kickstarter is not a store" comment. I totally side with the backers and their ire, and if the devs really did squander the m

by dljsjr 14y ago

I originally came here to make a "Kickstarter is not a store" comment. I totally side with the backers and their ire, and if the devs really did squander the money "recklessly" as indicated then they have what's coming to them but the chorus of "I'm officially requesting a refund" was making me thinking of Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. Come to find out, from the Kickstarter ToS[1]: Kickstarter does not offer refunds. A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer’s request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward. If Alex Peake really did blow through $170k and the product is in fact totally scrapped, then these folks (the Primer Labs folks) seem to be in a world of hurt, owing out a lot of money that they seemingly don't have anymore. And call me a jerk if you want, but I think this is probably the best thing that could happen to Kickstarter; a decent precedent gets set for what happens when you don't deliver on a physical product before the service gets so big that it gets totally out of hand. [1]: http://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use http://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use

jaequery 14y ago
to be fair, i don't think there were any evidence that Alex "recklessly" spent the money. a lot of things could've happened for his disappearance: health issue, gf problems, family problems, got lost in the mountain, etc etc
- dljsjr 14y ago
  Correct. Which is why I prefaced my observation with "if [...]". Obviously, if that isn't the case, then my point is moot.
TillE 14y ago
"unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward." Read that again. If they haven't fulfilled their explicit promises, a refund is required.
- dljsjr 14y ago
  I think my statement was poorly worded. "These folks" = the project people. In other words, they're obligated to refund $170k that they don't have anymore. I've edited to reflect that.
  - guiambros 14y ago
    Don't forget Kickstarter and Amazon already took their 5% each, so the authors never saw the full amount, more like $150K. So now they'll have to refund more than they received. But agree with your original comment: if this goes through till the end (with lawsuits and all the drama), it'll be great for Kickstarter. It'll improve the quality and create a much healthier ecosystem. Another project that got really close to a class action was OpenVizsla USB Sniffer. The conversation moved out of Kickstarter into the discussion list that was created by/for backers, but the authors finally showed up and recognized (somewhat) the problems, and are trying to fix it.
    - marshray 14y ago
      if this goes through till the end (with lawsuits and all the drama), it'll improve the quality and create a much healthier ecosystem. I disagree. I think we really need a funding solution where $150k - $170k projects can fail due to poor execution (rather than fraud) without involving lawsuits. As long as everyone is clear about what their money's doing at the outset.
      - Firehed 14y ago
        Isn't that a seed round? I don't see why crowdfunding should be any different than more formal investors here.
        guiambros 14y ago
        Not at all. Founders (usually) give updates to their investors. They report the progress, ask for help, explain the issues. When things go wrong, usually investors are the first ones to offer help - providing experience, contacts, or sometimes more money. It's their money that is at stake, after all. That's exactly the opposite of failed projects on Kickstarter. Usually (and I'm generalizing here; just using my own sample of 60-70 projects I sponsored, with 5% failure rate or so) the authors simply stop providing updates. They realize they were overly ambitious, or underestimated the costs, or had issues with the team, or simply don't have the competence needed to execute within the time/budget available. Updates become more sparse, and eventually stops. The crowd starts to smell blood and gets angry, digs personal information about the founder, and things get nasty really quick. Just like it happened with the OP, or OpenVizla, or several other pseudo-failed projects. I still think we need one good public failure, with all the drama associated, to clarify to everybody - authors & backers - some very wrong misconceptions about crowdsourcing. Yes, projects CAN fail, and as a backer you have to accept that risk, or wait to buy the product at Amazon. But no, authors cannot simply disappear, run ashamed of their own failure. It doesn't matter if you underestimated the effort, or worked really hard over the weekends, or lost your day job, or life got in the way. Nothing will matter, unless you explain, clearly, to your backers. They may get pissed off, but it's better than the alternative. Authors have to understand that if the ship sinks, you'll have to man up and stay till the end. So be prepared; this is not a free ride, with zero risks. Another thing that would be very positive is to have public financial disclosure. Authors should be required to submit a financial plan explaining how the money will be used - and another one mid-project explain how the money was spent. I'm sure it'd be eye opening, in both ways (people would see how expensive it is to make, say, a game, and authors would think twice before spending every penny).
namank 14y ago
Nope, I waiting to one of the projects to blow up too. To be sure, this is new territory for all parties.

by dljsjr 14y ago

jaequery 14y ago

to be fair, i don't think there were any evidence that Alex "recklessly" spent the money. a lot of things could've happened for his disappearance: health issue, gf problems, family problems, got lost in the mountain, etc etc

dljsjr 14y ago
Correct. Which is why I prefaced my observation with "if [...]". Obviously, if that isn't the case, then my point is moot.

TillE 14y ago

"unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward." Read that again. If they haven't fulfilled their explicit promises, a refund is required.

dljsjr 14y ago
I think my statement was poorly worded. "These folks" = the project people. In other words, they're obligated to refund $170k that they don't have anymore. I've edited to reflect that.
- guiambros 14y ago
  Don't forget Kickstarter and Amazon already took their 5% each, so the authors never saw the full amount, more like $150K. So now they'll have to refund more than they received. But agree with your original comment: if this goes through till the end (with lawsuits and all the drama), it'll be great for Kickstarter. It'll improve the quality and create a much healthier ecosystem. Another project that got really close to a class action was OpenVizsla USB Sniffer. The conversation moved out of Kickstarter into the discussion list that was created by/for backers, but the authors finally showed up and recognized (somewhat) the problems, and are trying to fix it.
  - marshray 14y ago
    if this goes through till the end (with lawsuits and all the drama), it'll improve the quality and create a much healthier ecosystem. I disagree. I think we really need a funding solution where $150k - $170k projects can fail due to poor execution (rather than fraud) without involving lawsuits. As long as everyone is clear about what their money's doing at the outset.
    - Firehed 14y ago
      Isn't that a seed round? I don't see why crowdfunding should be any different than more formal investors here.
      - guiambros 14y ago
        Not at all. Founders (usually) give updates to their investors. They report the progress, ask for help, explain the issues. When things go wrong, usually investors are the first ones to offer help - providing experience, contacts, or sometimes more money. It's their money that is at stake, after all. That's exactly the opposite of failed projects on Kickstarter. Usually (and I'm generalizing here; just using my own sample of 60-70 projects I sponsored, with 5% failure rate or so) the authors simply stop providing updates. They realize they were overly ambitious, or underestimated the costs, or had issues with the team, or simply don't have the competence needed to execute within the time/budget available. Updates become more sparse, and eventually stops. The crowd starts to smell blood and gets angry, digs personal information about the founder, and things get nasty really quick. Just like it happened with the OP, or OpenVizla, or several other pseudo-failed projects. I still think we need one good public failure, with all the drama associated, to clarify to everybody - authors & backers - some very wrong misconceptions about crowdsourcing. Yes, projects CAN fail, and as a backer you have to accept that risk, or wait to buy the product at Amazon. But no, authors cannot simply disappear, run ashamed of their own failure. It doesn't matter if you underestimated the effort, or worked really hard over the weekends, or lost your day job, or life got in the way. Nothing will matter, unless you explain, clearly, to your backers. They may get pissed off, but it's better than the alternative. Authors have to understand that if the ship sinks, you'll have to man up and stay till the end. So be prepared; this is not a free ride, with zero risks. Another thing that would be very positive is to have public financial disclosure. Authors should be required to submit a financial plan explaining how the money will be used - and another one mid-project explain how the money was spent. I'm sure it'd be eye opening, in both ways (people would see how expensive it is to make, say, a game, and authors would think twice before spending every penny).

namank 14y ago

Nope, I waiting to one of the projects to blow up too. To be sure, this is new territory for all parties.