5 ms·

This part: > Why are so many crowdfunded projects blowing their deadlines? >Over and over in our interviews, the same pattern emerged. A team of ambitious but

by rm999 14y ago

This part: > Why are so many crowdfunded projects blowing their deadlines? >Over and over in our interviews, the same pattern emerged. A team of ambitious but inexperienced creators launched a project that they expected would attract a few hundred backers. It took off, raising vastly more money than they anticipated -- and obliterating the original production plans and timeline

casca 14y ago
If they didn't have so much money then the reason would have been that they were strapped for capital. The nature of successful Kickstarter projects is that they are are solving hard problems. Hard problems are very difficult to estimate and the cost of being wrong on your time estimate is very low. So why would anyone not just provide an optimistic delivery date?
- michaelbuckbee 14y ago
  Kickstarter is an interesting mix of promotion and distribution. Projects are seeking not just money, but to find an audience of evangelists and early adopters for their products. Delivery on time (by providing realistic estimates) can help make sure that people don't turn on the project and start generating negative publicity about the project.
- tjic 14y ago
  > The nature of successful Kickstarter projects is that they are are solving hard problems. Not sure I agree with that.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
It is sort of buried, at one of my startups we made a 1U server that went into the phone closet, we found a place in Milpitas that could make us 20 - 30 at a time, and then when we started growing and needed 100 at a time they basically told us "No, we can't do that." That was my first experience with a manufacturer where I got to see what it was that making 100 changed vs making 20. In our case it was mostly all of the various parts that came from different places, so you needed to stage a bunch of things and that difference in delivery times meant that to build a 100 reliably for some components you were holding on to stock of like 500 of other things. That tied up a tremendous amount of money, and the risk was if something went wrong you might have parts to make 80% of 500 things but not the same 80%! It was maddening, and very complex. We had a gal whose job it was was to talk to suppliers basically all day every day and help get things 'kitted'.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  This is why I'm very, very skeptical about hardware Kickstarters by people who have never shipped hardware. Manufacturing is a hugely complicated endeavor that outsiders like to trivialize ("I bet it cost $1 in China!"), and ambitious entrepreneurs like to underestimate. It's the same reason I didn't fund Ouya - I didn't see anyone on the team who has actually successfully shipped a hardware product. It's the same reason I did fund Pebble, because they have, albeit on a much smaller scale. This shit is hard, and people need to realize this.
  - endersshadow 14y ago
    Manufacturing and supply chain is one of the most complicated processes that occurs at businesses, by and large. We're talking about logistics to get your stuff to the warehouse, storing said inventory, monitoring inventory levels to know when to order, manufacturing goods that take time, then storing the finished goods until they can be shipped, and finally, sending them on their way. I've seen companies from all walks of life, and manufacturing goods is by far the most complicated process I've ever had to dive into. People think it's easy because it's simple on the small scale. There's nothing I know of that's harder to scale than manufacturing operations.
  - starky 14y ago
    As someone who works in hardware design, I don't think I would fund a hardware Kickstarter, unless there is someone involved that has shipped at least couple similar products. You are completely right, it is hard, sure the part is only worth $1, but you still have put in months going back and forth with vendors getting that part because they cut a corner or misunderstood what you wanted regardless of how clear you tried to be. Then you need to deal with them on a production scale.
- larrys 14y ago
  "we found a place in Milpitas that could make us 20 - 30 at a time" How true. Inefficiencies add up quickly when you multiply many times. Think about stuffing envelopes by hand. If you need to do 10 no big deal you can fit it into any open time period. If you need to do 10,000 you need a machine or much more labor. (Same with scanning by the way try to do volume scanning with a scan snap you'll get burried).
MrFoof 14y ago
> It took off, raising vastly more money than they anticipated -- and obliterating the original production plans and timeline I wonder if Kickstarter allowed projects to set a maximum number of backers (or a funding cap), if projects would take advantage of it. Honestly, such a move wouldn't help Kickstarter (fewer fees to collect), so I'd have my doubts that such an option would be offered. Even if it were, I wonder how many teams are aware enough of their limits to take advantage of such an option.
- adriano_f 14y ago
  I agree. I think picking the "top 50" projects is just asking for trouble. Those are victims of their success, and have to scale from 0 to mass production on a tight schedule. Going from zero to a few hundred early adopters is much more feasible.
- binarycrusader 14y ago
  "I wonder if Kickstarter allowed projects to set a maximum number of backers (or a funding cap), if projects would take advantage of it" They do; kickstarter project teams can set a cap on each individual tier they offer. However, most projects foolishly have chosen to not place caps on anything except the most "exclusive" tiers -- those that usually offer a chance to name something in a game, or a custom character representing them, a flight to some faraway place to meet the developers, etc. for thousands of dollars. If the tier involves a tangible product, then there should always be a cap. And most of the software projects I've seen should at least triple their estimated project completion time if they haven't started yet or aren't at least "50%" complete.

by rm999 14y ago

casca 14y ago

If they didn't have so much money then the reason would have been that they were strapped for capital. The nature of successful Kickstarter projects is that they are are solving hard problems. Hard problems are very difficult to estimate and the cost of being wrong on your time estimate is very low. So why would anyone not just provide an optimistic delivery date?

michaelbuckbee 14y ago
Kickstarter is an interesting mix of promotion and distribution. Projects are seeking not just money, but to find an audience of evangelists and early adopters for their products. Delivery on time (by providing realistic estimates) can help make sure that people don't turn on the project and start generating negative publicity about the project.
tjic 14y ago
> The nature of successful Kickstarter projects is that they are are solving hard problems. Not sure I agree with that.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

It is sort of buried, at one of my startups we made a 1U server that went into the phone closet, we found a place in Milpitas that could make us 20 - 30 at a time, and then when we started growing and needed 100 at a time they basically told us "No, we can't do that." That was my first experience with a manufacturer where I got to see what it was that making 100 changed vs making 20. In our case it was mostly all of the various parts that came from different places, so you needed to stage a bunch of things and that difference in delivery times meant that to build a 100 reliably for some components you were holding on to stock of like 500 of other things. That tied up a tremendous amount of money, and the risk was if something went wrong you might have parts to make 80% of 500 things but not the same 80%! It was maddening, and very complex. We had a gal whose job it was was to talk to suppliers basically all day every day and help get things 'kitted'.

potatolicious 14y ago
This is why I'm very, very skeptical about hardware Kickstarters by people who have never shipped hardware. Manufacturing is a hugely complicated endeavor that outsiders like to trivialize ("I bet it cost $1 in China!"), and ambitious entrepreneurs like to underestimate. It's the same reason I didn't fund Ouya - I didn't see anyone on the team who has actually successfully shipped a hardware product. It's the same reason I did fund Pebble, because they have, albeit on a much smaller scale. This shit is hard, and people need to realize this.
- endersshadow 14y ago
  Manufacturing and supply chain is one of the most complicated processes that occurs at businesses, by and large. We're talking about logistics to get your stuff to the warehouse, storing said inventory, monitoring inventory levels to know when to order, manufacturing goods that take time, then storing the finished goods until they can be shipped, and finally, sending them on their way. I've seen companies from all walks of life, and manufacturing goods is by far the most complicated process I've ever had to dive into. People think it's easy because it's simple on the small scale. There's nothing I know of that's harder to scale than manufacturing operations.
- starky 14y ago
  As someone who works in hardware design, I don't think I would fund a hardware Kickstarter, unless there is someone involved that has shipped at least couple similar products. You are completely right, it is hard, sure the part is only worth $1, but you still have put in months going back and forth with vendors getting that part because they cut a corner or misunderstood what you wanted regardless of how clear you tried to be. Then you need to deal with them on a production scale.
larrys 14y ago
"we found a place in Milpitas that could make us 20 - 30 at a time" How true. Inefficiencies add up quickly when you multiply many times. Think about stuffing envelopes by hand. If you need to do 10 no big deal you can fit it into any open time period. If you need to do 10,000 you need a machine or much more labor. (Same with scanning by the way try to do volume scanning with a scan snap you'll get burried).

MrFoof 14y ago

> It took off, raising vastly more money than they anticipated -- and obliterating the original production plans and timeline I wonder if Kickstarter allowed projects to set a maximum number of backers (or a funding cap), if projects would take advantage of it. Honestly, such a move wouldn't help Kickstarter (fewer fees to collect), so I'd have my doubts that such an option would be offered. Even if it were, I wonder how many teams are aware enough of their limits to take advantage of such an option.

adriano_f 14y ago
I agree. I think picking the "top 50" projects is just asking for trouble. Those are victims of their success, and have to scale from 0 to mass production on a tight schedule. Going from zero to a few hundred early adopters is much more feasible.
binarycrusader 14y ago
"I wonder if Kickstarter allowed projects to set a maximum number of backers (or a funding cap), if projects would take advantage of it" They do; kickstarter project teams can set a cap on each individual tier they offer. However, most projects foolishly have chosen to not place caps on anything except the most "exclusive" tiers -- those that usually offer a chance to name something in a game, or a custom character representing them, a flight to some faraway place to meet the developers, etc. for thousands of dollars. If the tier involves a tangible product, then there should always be a cap. And most of the software projects I've seen should at least triple their estimated project completion time if they haven't started yet or aren't at least "50%" complete.