10 ms·

Zach Braff Responds to Kickstarter Critics [video]

54 points by why-el 13y ago

sp332 13y ago
The kickstarter isn't really about making money, or about getting a film "made". It's about connecting to fans, and I think it's working just fine.
- larrydag 13y ago
  I think it is about making money but you are right about connecting with fans. Its an added layer above the funding.
- wmf 13y ago
  Couldn't you connect with fans equally well with some kind of "likestarter" campaign where you say "we'll only make the movie if we get 100,000 likes on Facebook"? That wouldn't shift financial risk to the fans.
  - thezilch 13y ago
    I laughed at the idea that a "Like" is equated to connecting with brands; only FB can really think that. It's cheap, shallow, and an extremely poor signal. I bet your every startup here can tell you they have walked into hundreds of sales offices; the buyer loved their product and how it could do this and this and that; but you didn't ask t hem if they would BUY it and they won't when you come back after building it. Not that the same would follow in the case of Braff's endeavor. Financial risk!? I bet the risk is higher you incur a medical bill just thinking about how up in arms folks are about fans being able to donate direct to Braff -- the artist -- AND probably being delivered half a dozen goodies.
  - mdellabitta 13y ago
    What financial risk, exactly? There's no upside to this transaction . It's almost a straight donation save for the perks.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      Even without the perks, the basic idea is that you pay money to allow someone to make something that you want made, so there's still the risk that it isn't completed or differs from what you were promised.
- illuminate 13y ago
  I think you've confused Kickstarter for Twitter.
dwild 13y ago
I think some people fail to see that big projects like that can change the target audience of Kickstarter. Yeah it bring more people, but these people went on Kickstarter for this big movie from Zach Braff, not for indie projects. It show to the big company that Kickstarter is a good option to start project and if more of them do that, then they will dilute the content. It's for the same reason Hacker News doesn't accept news about other subjects. However I love that big project like that start to give consumer the ability to "control" what is produced. Now at least we can show them directly that a project or an idea is good/wrong. I just don't think that Kickstarter is the place to do that (they could easily use one of these Kickstarter-like script that you can install on your own website, they would even save some fees that way).
- troygoode 13y ago
  if Kickstarter pivots (purposefully or not) to support brand name / BigCo projects, that'll just open up a market for someone else to come in as Kickstarter Classic.
  - andkon 13y ago
    Why? They may grow their customer base by bringing on bigger projects, but how would that alienate the customers who are already using it?
    - guizzy 13y ago
      Because Kickstarter is also a platform for discovery. If large corporate projects, which can certainly be funded otherwise, start crowding the site, this means that the smaller projects that can really benefit from Kickstarter for funding might not get the attention they deserve.
    - rubinelli 13y ago
      It happened with eBay: established sellers crowded out smaller and casual sellers in all but the most niche categories. This may not happen in Kickstarter, where the projects aren't fungible, but the precedent exists. These are still early days; big projects are still bringing in fresh backers, and the small projects are benefiting from this traffic. What Kickstarter will look like in ten years is impossible to predict right now.
nacho2sweet 13y ago
I don't see people complaining about all the video games they have kickstarted to get whatever 1995 Cult Hit Part 4 made by an established well known developer from that era. Why does it have to be different for movies.
- plnewman 13y ago
  There were complaints/questions about Richard Garriott's project, but none as high-profile as this current criticism of Zach Braff.
- nhangen 13y ago
  Because most people actually received a game at the end.
- learningram 13y ago
  Because people who contributed got the game. people who put money in his movie get nothing.
  - Wingman4l7 13y ago
    Seriously? They don't get a DVD or download link or movie pass? What do they get? A warm fuzzy feeling that they gave money?
    - k-mcgrady 13y ago
      He explains in this video that he will be posting behind the scenes content regularly over the new 18 months. That's what people get by funding the project. He seems serious about posting a lot of content and it sounds like it's one of the major reasons he did the Kickstarter.
nhangen 13y ago
The 'fans' angle is just a marketing bullet point used to seduce people into backing the project. I don't have a problem with it, because IMO you get what you back, but let's not get ahead of ourselves by thinking Zach is in this for the fans. I would have much more respect for him if he offered copies of the movie to backers, instead of asking them to back it so he can sell distribution rights. Make the fans your distributors. After all, they're paying for it.
- msandford 13y ago
  It sounds like he'll do precisely that as soon as the changes to the law go into effect and he's legally able to.
nsxwolf 13y ago
It's not a zero sum game. People fund what they personally see value in.
bowerbird 13y ago
i thought zack got all the money because he's a celebrity. like, he's cute, and all, and plays a funny guy on scrubs. but... but then i watched that mashable interview... ends up he's paid his dues, and seems to have a clue too. i've backed 2.5dozen projects before, but i went over and gave him $10 -- put him over $2.5million -- because, hey, i like people who pay their dues, and have a clue too... good thing i have a girlfriend, so zack can "shift" all of that "financial risk" to me and my ten dollar contribution. (some of you people need to listen to what you're saying. i'm just sayin'...) -bowerbird
mesozoic 13y ago
I still don't understand why people who like kickstarter only want to see it flounder around with tiny nearly meaningless campaigns and never get anywhere. It's like a bunch of tech hipsters who don't want them to sell out.
joedevon 13y ago
Hmm, maybe Zach Braff will bring fans TO Kickstarter who then help grow the ecosystem. And every big success might just grow Kickstarter. OTOH, do we want Kickstarter, like twitter, to be overrun by celebs? Perhaps what really matters is what Kickstarter wants. Would be cool if they actually had a policy now that this is starting to happen.

54 points by why-el 13y ago

sp332 13y ago

The kickstarter isn't really about making money, or about getting a film "made". It's about connecting to fans, and I think it's working just fine.

larrydag 13y ago
I think it is about making money but you are right about connecting with fans. Its an added layer above the funding.
wmf 13y ago
Couldn't you connect with fans equally well with some kind of "likestarter" campaign where you say "we'll only make the movie if we get 100,000 likes on Facebook"? That wouldn't shift financial risk to the fans.
- thezilch 13y ago
  I laughed at the idea that a "Like" is equated to connecting with brands; only FB can really think that. It's cheap, shallow, and an extremely poor signal. I bet your every startup here can tell you they have walked into hundreds of sales offices; the buyer loved their product and how it could do this and this and that; but you didn't ask t hem if they would BUY it and they won't when you come back after building it. Not that the same would follow in the case of Braff's endeavor. Financial risk!? I bet the risk is higher you incur a medical bill just thinking about how up in arms folks are about fans being able to donate direct to Braff -- the artist -- AND probably being delivered half a dozen goodies.
- mdellabitta 13y ago
  What financial risk, exactly? There's no upside to this transaction . It's almost a straight donation save for the perks.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    Even without the perks, the basic idea is that you pay money to allow someone to make something that you want made, so there's still the risk that it isn't completed or differs from what you were promised.
illuminate 13y ago
I think you've confused Kickstarter for Twitter.

dwild 13y ago

I think some people fail to see that big projects like that can change the target audience of Kickstarter. Yeah it bring more people, but these people went on Kickstarter for this big movie from Zach Braff, not for indie projects. It show to the big company that Kickstarter is a good option to start project and if more of them do that, then they will dilute the content. It's for the same reason Hacker News doesn't accept news about other subjects. However I love that big project like that start to give consumer the ability to "control" what is produced. Now at least we can show them directly that a project or an idea is good/wrong. I just don't think that Kickstarter is the place to do that (they could easily use one of these Kickstarter-like script that you can install on your own website, they would even save some fees that way).

troygoode 13y ago
if Kickstarter pivots (purposefully or not) to support brand name / BigCo projects, that'll just open up a market for someone else to come in as Kickstarter Classic.
- andkon 13y ago
  Why? They may grow their customer base by bringing on bigger projects, but how would that alienate the customers who are already using it?
  - guizzy 13y ago
    Because Kickstarter is also a platform for discovery. If large corporate projects, which can certainly be funded otherwise, start crowding the site, this means that the smaller projects that can really benefit from Kickstarter for funding might not get the attention they deserve.
  - rubinelli 13y ago
    It happened with eBay: established sellers crowded out smaller and casual sellers in all but the most niche categories. This may not happen in Kickstarter, where the projects aren't fungible, but the precedent exists. These are still early days; big projects are still bringing in fresh backers, and the small projects are benefiting from this traffic. What Kickstarter will look like in ten years is impossible to predict right now.

nacho2sweet 13y ago

I don't see people complaining about all the video games they have kickstarted to get whatever 1995 Cult Hit Part 4 made by an established well known developer from that era. Why does it have to be different for movies.

plnewman 13y ago
There were complaints/questions about Richard Garriott's project, but none as high-profile as this current criticism of Zach Braff.
nhangen 13y ago
Because most people actually received a game at the end.
learningram 13y ago
Because people who contributed got the game. people who put money in his movie get nothing.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  Seriously? They don't get a DVD or download link or movie pass? What do they get? A warm fuzzy feeling that they gave money?
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    He explains in this video that he will be posting behind the scenes content regularly over the new 18 months. That's what people get by funding the project. He seems serious about posting a lot of content and it sounds like it's one of the major reasons he did the Kickstarter.

nhangen 13y ago

The 'fans' angle is just a marketing bullet point used to seduce people into backing the project. I don't have a problem with it, because IMO you get what you back, but let's not get ahead of ourselves by thinking Zach is in this for the fans. I would have much more respect for him if he offered copies of the movie to backers, instead of asking them to back it so he can sell distribution rights. Make the fans your distributors. After all, they're paying for it.

msandford 13y ago
It sounds like he'll do precisely that as soon as the changes to the law go into effect and he's legally able to.

nsxwolf 13y ago

It's not a zero sum game. People fund what they personally see value in.

bowerbird 13y ago

i thought zack got all the money because he's a celebrity. like, he's cute, and all, and plays a funny guy on scrubs. but... but then i watched that mashable interview... ends up he's paid his dues, and seems to have a clue too. i've backed 2.5dozen projects before, but i went over and gave him $10 -- put him over $2.5million -- because, hey, i like people who pay their dues, and have a clue too... good thing i have a girlfriend, so zack can "shift" all of that "financial risk" to me and my ten dollar contribution. (some of you people need to listen to what you're saying. i'm just sayin'...) -bowerbird

mesozoic 13y ago

I still don't understand why people who like kickstarter only want to see it flounder around with tiny nearly meaningless campaigns and never get anywhere. It's like a bunch of tech hipsters who don't want them to sell out.

joedevon 13y ago

Hmm, maybe Zach Braff will bring fans TO Kickstarter who then help grow the ecosystem. And every big success might just grow Kickstarter. OTOH, do we want Kickstarter, like twitter, to be overrun by celebs? Perhaps what really matters is what Kickstarter wants. Would be cool if they actually had a policy now that this is starting to happen.