4 ms·

Get all of the hype and exposure that a Kickstarter campaign gives without having to pay them their cut. Makes sense.

by herbig 13y ago

_wesley_ 13y ago
I don't think many people are worried about the 5% Kickstarter cut. Jon and Marshal were probably more interested in having users signed up with their service (which kickstarter wouldn't guarantee)
- loceng 13y ago
  It depends what country you're in and there's also the credit card processing % fee.
tnorthcutt 13y ago
Do you really think the cancellation was premeditated? That's what your comment seems to imply.
- lmm 13y ago
  It doesn't matter whether it was premeditated if the end result is the same. They're still arguably screwing Kickstarter here (do Kickstarter get anything at all for their side of the work?)
- unreal37 13y ago
  I don't think it was premeditated either, but after reading the article it seems it worked out great for them being able to get Mashable and Verge articles, collect 2,000 emails from Kickstarter backers, and then not have to pay Kickstarter a dime. I'm sure the PR company wasn't too thrilled at losing their 7% cut of the proceeds either. But on the whole, it seems they have a really cool product and will do well. Good luck guys!
  - avalaunch 13y ago
    From the article it doesn't sound like the PR company completely let them off the hook. It says Fundzinger "offered a deal that worked for us." As an aside, has anyone else worked with Fundzinger? Sounds like an interesting business model.
    - GFischer 13y ago
      I didn't know what Fudzinger was, so I looked it up and there are several links saying they had a negative experience with them, for example: boardgamegeek.com/thread/1119213/fundzinger-do-not-use They apparently did do their bit (write a Press Release), but not to the campaign creators' satisfaction, and he was very annoyed about their using him as a success story.
      - dasil003 13y ago
        > Fudzinger Freudian slip?
    - SimHacker 13y ago
      They highly endorsed "fundzinger" -- but that's not what some people have been saying: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1119213/fundzinger-do-not-use http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1119213/fundzinger-do-not-us... It shows up near the top of the google results for fundzinger, and a fishy sock puppet "Tim Koteke" showed up in thread and did some damage control for fundzinger. No google or linkedin hits for his name or his projects. Then once people started asking for some evidence that he wasn't just making shit up, he (or somebody) deleted the post (which is still quoted in the thread) and he disappeared. That discussion inspired them to start this thread: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1126569/kickstarter-boost-companies-vulture-list http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1126569/kickstarter-boost-co... If that's the kind of "pr" fundzinger does for themselves, I doubt they do any better for their customers. So why would they recommend fundzinger so highly? Are they just grateful they didn't have to pay them for the hours they worked (or pretended to work)? Or was there some kind of tit-for-tat: you say nice things about us and we don't charge you for canceling the project. That wouldn't surprise me much, after seeing their lame attempt at sock puppeteering. ...Maybe they should have tried to be hip and cool by calling themselves "Fundzingr", then I would have immediately known they were charlatans.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Is that the only factor that matters (whether it was premeditated)? The ultimate effect is still that KS doesn't get a cut.
- midas007 13y ago
  Either way, it's pretty genius in a flappy bird way.
tolmark12 13y ago
Also, the article states that Fundizer did the PR work for a 7% cut of whatever funds where raised... Seems disingenuous to back out after Fundizer did their-work unless they paid them 7% of what they would have raised.
- mkenyon 13y ago
  > Fundzinger had a clause in their contract that if you for any reason cancel the project before the end of the campaign, they would bill you at their hourly rate. > For Fundzinger, we got on the phone with them and explained the situation in detail. They were more than understanding, and offered a deal that worked for us.
205guy 13y ago
And even after using Kickstarter for promotion, they're milking the story for more promotion (how we used kickstarter, oh, btw, we have this cool product). And I see they're still using the Kickstarter branded video. Is that hosted by Kickstarter too? Even if they made the video, they should revert to an unbranded (or self-branded) video in what is obviously a promotional article. I agree with drakaal's comment below [1] that Kickstarter is going to need to protect themselves against such exploitation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7424133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7424133
gesman 13y ago
Well said. nothing to add. Perfect play.

Get all of the hype and exposure that a Kickstarter campaign gives without having to pay them their cut. Makes sense.

by herbig 13y ago

Get all of the hype and exposure that a Kickstarter campaign gives without having to pay them their cut. Makes sense.

I don't think many people are worried about the 5% Kickstarter cut. Jon and Marshal were probably more interested in having users signed up with their service (which kickstarter wouldn't guarantee)

loceng 13y ago
It depends what country you're in and there's also the credit card processing % fee.

tnorthcutt 13y ago

Do you really think the cancellation was premeditated? That's what your comment seems to imply.

lmm 13y ago
It doesn't matter whether it was premeditated if the end result is the same. They're still arguably screwing Kickstarter here (do Kickstarter get anything at all for their side of the work?)
unreal37 13y ago
I don't think it was premeditated either, but after reading the article it seems it worked out great for them being able to get Mashable and Verge articles, collect 2,000 emails from Kickstarter backers, and then not have to pay Kickstarter a dime. I'm sure the PR company wasn't too thrilled at losing their 7% cut of the proceeds either. But on the whole, it seems they have a really cool product and will do well. Good luck guys!
- avalaunch 13y ago
  From the article it doesn't sound like the PR company completely let them off the hook. It says Fundzinger "offered a deal that worked for us." As an aside, has anyone else worked with Fundzinger? Sounds like an interesting business model.
  - GFischer 13y ago
    I didn't know what Fudzinger was, so I looked it up and there are several links saying they had a negative experience with them, for example: boardgamegeek.com/thread/1119213/fundzinger-do-not-use They apparently did do their bit (write a Press Release), but not to the campaign creators' satisfaction, and he was very annoyed about their using him as a success story.
    - dasil003 13y ago
      > Fudzinger Freudian slip?
  - SimHacker 13y ago
    They highly endorsed "fundzinger" -- but that's not what some people have been saying: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1119213/fundzinger-do-not-use http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1119213/fundzinger-do-not-us... It shows up near the top of the google results for fundzinger, and a fishy sock puppet "Tim Koteke" showed up in thread and did some damage control for fundzinger. No google or linkedin hits for his name or his projects. Then once people started asking for some evidence that he wasn't just making shit up, he (or somebody) deleted the post (which is still quoted in the thread) and he disappeared. That discussion inspired them to start this thread: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1126569/kickstarter-boost-companies-vulture-list http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1126569/kickstarter-boost-co... If that's the kind of "pr" fundzinger does for themselves, I doubt they do any better for their customers. So why would they recommend fundzinger so highly? Are they just grateful they didn't have to pay them for the hours they worked (or pretended to work)? Or was there some kind of tit-for-tat: you say nice things about us and we don't charge you for canceling the project. That wouldn't surprise me much, after seeing their lame attempt at sock puppeteering. ...Maybe they should have tried to be hip and cool by calling themselves "Fundzingr", then I would have immediately known they were charlatans.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
Is that the only factor that matters (whether it was premeditated)? The ultimate effect is still that KS doesn't get a cut.
midas007 13y ago
Either way, it's pretty genius in a flappy bird way.

tolmark12 13y ago

Also, the article states that Fundizer did the PR work for a 7% cut of whatever funds where raised... Seems disingenuous to back out after Fundizer did their-work unless they paid them 7% of what they would have raised.

mkenyon 13y ago
> Fundzinger had a clause in their contract that if you for any reason cancel the project before the end of the campaign, they would bill you at their hourly rate. > For Fundzinger, we got on the phone with them and explained the situation in detail. They were more than understanding, and offered a deal that worked for us.

205guy 13y ago

And even after using Kickstarter for promotion, they're milking the story for more promotion (how we used kickstarter, oh, btw, we have this cool product). And I see they're still using the Kickstarter branded video. Is that hosted by Kickstarter too? Even if they made the video, they should revert to an unbranded (or self-branded) video in what is obviously a promotional article. I agree with drakaal's comment below [1] that Kickstarter is going to need to protect themselves against such exploitation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7424133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7424133

gesman 13y ago

Well said. nothing to add. Perfect play.