4 ms·
I've never thought about that last point, but it makes a lot of sense. If it's the difference between getting most of the money or none of it, and the creators
by ryusage 14y ago
I've never thought about that last point, but it makes a lot of sense. If it's the difference between getting most of the money or none of it, and the creators can afford to make up the difference, then in a lot of cases it might be rational to do that. That has to have happened at some point.
- morsch 14y agoShould be pretty easy to "afford" since you get the money right back... right?
- jacalata 14y agoalmost all of it, yes. But if, for instance, your project is something that actually requires a $50,000 expenditure, and you put in the last $5000, then you now have a commitment to deliver your $50,000 project and only $45,000 to do it with. For some people that would not be a problem at all, they have that much spare cash. For others this would mean they need to go and fundraise an extra $5000 outside of Kickstarter.
- ryusage 14y agoExactly. The other factor, obviously, is that you have to already have that $5000 and be able to part with it for a while. It doesn't matter that you get it back if you don't have it in the first place.
- fafner 14y agoI wouldn't be surprised if the creators are actually the first ones to "back" the project as well. Potential supporters will certainly feel more comfortable backing a project that already has some pledges.
- cpeterso 14y agoSomeone should have suggested that to the developers of "Alpha Colony" who missed their $50,000 funding goal by just $28: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/12/04/alpha-colony-misses-its-kickstarter-goal-by-28/ http://www.joystiq.com/2012/12/04/alpha-colony-misses-its-ki...
- ericabiz 14y agoChristopher Williamson (DreamQuest founder) is a friend of mine, and posted on his FB wall that a donor pulled out at the absolute last second. There were plenty of people who would have chipped in, but they couldn't react in time. :(