8 ms·

He's worth about 22million (according to a google search). I imagine much of that might be tied up in stocks/real estate, etc. 3.5M is not a trivial sum at th

He's worth about 22million (according to a google search). I imagine much of that might be tied up in stocks/real estate, etc. 3.5M is not a trivial sum at that level of wealth. He could certainly borrow it (with interest), but why? Fans aren't taking risk-- they are buying something that they want. Rich/influential people can dodge most risk. Example: the top 7% of the US had their net worths soar 28% from 2009-2011. The rest of us lost 4%. (source: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-economy-wealth-20130423,0,3711482.story http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-economy-wealt... )

wmf 13y ago
Fans are taking the risk that the project will not be delivered.
- namwen 13y ago
  But if it's not delivered they get their money back. . .
  - incision 13y ago
    >But if it's not delivered they get their money back. . . Nope. Backers get refunded if a project doesn't meet the stated funding goal [1]. Once the goal is met and the money has been collected it's between the backers and the creators. [2] "It's the project creator's responsibility to complete their project. Kickstarter is not involved in the development of the projects themselves." 1: Seems to me that lowballing the base goal while piling on a bunch of stretch goals would be a questionable way of gaming this as a creator. 2: http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarte...
    - namwen 13y ago
      Touche'. I did not know that.
      - incision 13y ago
        Not a problem, I imagine many people don't know that. After all, Kickstarter's business is taking 5% rake on those donations so it's not in their interest to make it apparent.
      - jtheory 13y ago
        There's no other way it can work, really. If you're a creator, and collect a lot of money to make something (with some level of risk), there's a chance you'll spend the money trying but still fail -- this is a very real prospect especially if you're trying something technical that hasn't been done before. Then what? They can't give the money back; they don't have it anymore. Forcing them into bankruptcy would basically kill Kickstarter. So their only option is pretty much what they did -- with the course-correction added about a year ago that now they emphasize the fact that projects may fail.
    - T-hawk 13y ago
      Kickstarter reviews applications to determine a realistic floor for the funding goal, to prevent or at least greatly reduce that gaming. They wouldn't let you launch a campaign to start a new SpaceX with $10,000, for example. Otherwise everyone would circumvent the system with a campaign for $1 and then stretch goals, as you say. Source: an online acquaintance who ran a Kickstarter campaign for a video game, and had to revise his initial funding goal upwards by several multiples at Kickstarter's insistence.
      - incision 13y ago
        Those are extreme examples. A $10k SpaceX is obvious, virtual panhandling with a $1 goal is just as obvious. I think "gaming" a system implies a reasonably intelligent exploitation. Something like creating a Kickstarter "for" a sequel to a well-regarded game and setting the actual delivery of that sequel as a top-end stretch goal. The immediate funding goal could only deliver an expansion to the original game. The intermediate goals might be something like a new engine for the not necessarily delivered sequel. Such a project could collect its goal several times over before being asked to deliver what it purports to. This has been done. It's essentially advertising one thing (the Kickstarter title) and delivering something else in the fine print (the goal structure). A simple rule restricting the Kickstarter title and promotional blurb to be representative of the immediate funding goal only would go a long way toward addressing this. Restricting the dollar ratio of the initial goal to the top end stretch goal would probably help as well. I'm sure the review process addresses some things, but how effective can it really be? The breadth of projects types and sizes is too wide and too many will fail (won't provide any return on the cost of a review).
- moron4hire 13y ago
  Can't reply to my sibling here, but no, they do not get their money back. Once a Kickstarter is funded, the money goes to the organizer and then it is gone. It's on their honor to deliver on their promises. Kickstarter does nothing to enforce that. It's somewhat by design, they don't want to saddle starving artists with tons of debt because they made a mistake on how much it would cost to fund the rewards. But that also assumes it's being used by starving artists. Kickstarter seems like it has largely become just an advertising and presales system for established artists and companies.
- webwright 13y ago
  Do you really think this is a meaningful risk here? Would be a huge hit to his reputation if he broke $2M and bolted. With a risk of $1-75 for most folks, that risk/reward ratio seems fairly trivial.
  - wmf 13y ago
    It's unlikely that Braff would "bolt" with the money, but I could imagine the movie getting canceled after the money has been spent, leaving backers with no movie and no refunds.
    - smackfu 13y ago
      That seems pretty unlikely, and kind of highlights how this transforms the risks. If Braff funded it directly, his risk only pays off if he makes the movie and it makes enough money. While using crowdfunding, the backer's risk is only if the movie is not made.

wmf 13y ago

Fans are taking the risk that the project will not be delivered.

namwen 13y ago
But if it's not delivered they get their money back. . .
- incision 13y ago
  >But if it's not delivered they get their money back. . . Nope. Backers get refunded if a project doesn't meet the stated funding goal [1]. Once the goal is met and the money has been collected it's between the backers and the creators. [2] "It's the project creator's responsibility to complete their project. Kickstarter is not involved in the development of the projects themselves." 1: Seems to me that lowballing the base goal while piling on a bunch of stretch goals would be a questionable way of gaming this as a creator. 2: http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarte...
  - namwen 13y ago
    Touche'. I did not know that.
    - incision 13y ago
      Not a problem, I imagine many people don't know that. After all, Kickstarter's business is taking 5% rake on those donations so it's not in their interest to make it apparent.
    - jtheory 13y ago
      There's no other way it can work, really. If you're a creator, and collect a lot of money to make something (with some level of risk), there's a chance you'll spend the money trying but still fail -- this is a very real prospect especially if you're trying something technical that hasn't been done before. Then what? They can't give the money back; they don't have it anymore. Forcing them into bankruptcy would basically kill Kickstarter. So their only option is pretty much what they did -- with the course-correction added about a year ago that now they emphasize the fact that projects may fail.
  - T-hawk 13y ago
    Kickstarter reviews applications to determine a realistic floor for the funding goal, to prevent or at least greatly reduce that gaming. They wouldn't let you launch a campaign to start a new SpaceX with $10,000, for example. Otherwise everyone would circumvent the system with a campaign for $1 and then stretch goals, as you say. Source: an online acquaintance who ran a Kickstarter campaign for a video game, and had to revise his initial funding goal upwards by several multiples at Kickstarter's insistence.
    - incision 13y ago
      Those are extreme examples. A $10k SpaceX is obvious, virtual panhandling with a $1 goal is just as obvious. I think "gaming" a system implies a reasonably intelligent exploitation. Something like creating a Kickstarter "for" a sequel to a well-regarded game and setting the actual delivery of that sequel as a top-end stretch goal. The immediate funding goal could only deliver an expansion to the original game. The intermediate goals might be something like a new engine for the not necessarily delivered sequel. Such a project could collect its goal several times over before being asked to deliver what it purports to. This has been done. It's essentially advertising one thing (the Kickstarter title) and delivering something else in the fine print (the goal structure). A simple rule restricting the Kickstarter title and promotional blurb to be representative of the immediate funding goal only would go a long way toward addressing this. Restricting the dollar ratio of the initial goal to the top end stretch goal would probably help as well. I'm sure the review process addresses some things, but how effective can it really be? The breadth of projects types and sizes is too wide and too many will fail (won't provide any return on the cost of a review).
moron4hire 13y ago
Can't reply to my sibling here, but no, they do not get their money back. Once a Kickstarter is funded, the money goes to the organizer and then it is gone. It's on their honor to deliver on their promises. Kickstarter does nothing to enforce that. It's somewhat by design, they don't want to saddle starving artists with tons of debt because they made a mistake on how much it would cost to fund the rewards. But that also assumes it's being used by starving artists. Kickstarter seems like it has largely become just an advertising and presales system for established artists and companies.
webwright 13y ago
Do you really think this is a meaningful risk here? Would be a huge hit to his reputation if he broke $2M and bolted. With a risk of $1-75 for most folks, that risk/reward ratio seems fairly trivial.
- wmf 13y ago
  It's unlikely that Braff would "bolt" with the money, but I could imagine the movie getting canceled after the money has been spent, leaving backers with no movie and no refunds.
  - smackfu 13y ago
    That seems pretty unlikely, and kind of highlights how this transforms the risks. If Braff funded it directly, his risk only pays off if he makes the movie and it makes enough money. While using crowdfunding, the backer's risk is only if the movie is not made.