7 ms·

What happened to 'Kickstarter is not a store' - https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-

What happened to 'Kickstarter is not a store' - https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store ? Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited. Hardware and Product Design projects can only offer rewards in single quantities or a sensible set (some items only make sense as a pair or as a kit of several items, for instance). The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and offering multiple quantities feels premature, and can imply that products are shrink-wrapped and ready to ship.

TillE 12y ago
Honestly, that seems like a completely arbitrary policy which serves no real purpose. In general I'd stay the hell away from hardware projects on Kickstarter, but in this case Pebble has a proven track record of delivering a quality product in a reasonable time frame. I assume that gives them a little more leeway when Kickstarter is approving their campaign.
- joosters 12y ago
  That Kickstarter policy update was in response to the rising levels of failed projects on the site. It was an attempt to fight off bad press. Of course, it turned out to be pretty toothless (Just take a look at the joke of a 'risks' section of almost any kickstarter project. That section was also introduced by this udpate). I'd agree with you that Pebble probably have a better chance than most at delivering on their promises, but as people have commented elsewhere, Pebble are only really back on KS as a promotional exercise. This is not really comparable to most other KS projects. Still, it's one rule for them, another for everyone else. KS are doing well out of this promo too. Perhaps someone should go and report Pebble for their other rule-breaking? Those watch pictures at the top of the page are clearly computer renderings. "If a simulation or photorealistic rendering is discovered after a project launches, that project will be canceled." :)
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    The risks section is great because you can tell very quickly if they've put some thought into logistics or not. No need to enforce that it's properly filled out.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- baddox 12y ago
  > Pebble has a proven track record of delivering a quality product in a reasonable time frame Perhaps I'm remembering this incorrectly, but wasn't the Pebble a textbook example of significant production delays for a Kickstarter hardware project? I'm pretty sure I knew someone who hadn't received his watch from Kickstarter many months after the supposed delivery date, while at the same time he could have gone to Best Buy and bought one.
- gonzo 12y ago
  > but in this case Pebble has a proven track record of delivering a quality product in a reasonable time frame. Hardly. http://readwrite.com/2013/07/09/why-i-cancelled-my-pebble-smartwatch-order http://readwrite.com/2013/07/09/why-i-cancelled-my-pebble-sm...
smackfu 12y ago
If it quacks like a preorder...
- TheHypnotist 12y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. Whatever, if they adjusted the rules someone would find a way around it. It's pretty smart marketing.
darkstar999 12y ago
$3,956,662 (as of this post) happened.
- parktheredcar 12y ago
  I wonder if they are getting the usual 5% or if there's some sort of partnership based on the two companies' histories together.
  - joosters 12y ago
    If Pebble have any sense they'll have negotiated some kind of better deal with Kickstarter, in return for the guaranteed revenue and publicity.
  - canistr 12y ago
    I suspect that the reason to continue using Kickstarter even with the 5% fee is that it comes included with publicity from not just Kickstarter, but the media outlets that will relay this story.
  - ggamecrazy 12y ago
    I think it's highly unlikely that Pebble didn't negotiate that 5% way down. While it's a symbiotic relationship, I think that at this point it's safe to say that it benefits Kickstarter more than Pebble.
    - twrkit 12y ago
      Pebble is getting a very cheap line of credit with theoretically no obligation to repay (hence why any money you give in a KS is a 'donation' or 'pledge').
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        There's a contract to deliver on the promises made: https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#section4 https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#section4 The language isn't real strong though: If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers.
jkestner 12y ago
That's from 2012, and as someone mentioned, was in response to a lot of risky hardware projects. More recently, Kickstarter changed their rules to be a lot simpler. https://www.kickstarter.com/rules https://www.kickstarter.com/rules Perhaps this campaign violates what you perceive as the spirit of Kickstarter, but Kickstarter itself has never had a problem with established companies/entertainers using the platform.
- logicallee 12y ago
  yeah, who would want to use kickstarter for a risky hardware project! When you can use it as a store by a company that raised more than $10 million, and this time sell a fully completed product with no special rewards or community input. They didn't even try to come up with any rewards this time - at any price, or show any part of how it was designed. it blatantly has nothing to do with the kickstarter spirit whatsoever.
  - GuiA 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure the Kickstarter spirit is defined as "whatever the people running Kickstarter want it to be".
  - jusben1369 12y ago
    In my experience services that don't change over time are the ones that go away. Kickstarter seems like a fluid concept that continues to evolve. As I look they're passing $5 million so it seems as though the community is responding.
  - mikeechoalpha 12y ago
    yeah, you can see how outraged people are by how much they are refusing to support the offering
  - jkestner 12y ago
    Well, there's risky and then there's risky. I believe that post was put up at the same time that the LIFX light bulb campaign was prematurely ended at ~$2 million. That project was from someone whose previous KS project was a cardboard lightbox that had missed its shipping date at that point, so I think the likelihood of collateral damage there made Kickstarter pause. (Credit to LIFX that they learned/hired quickly and managed to ship.) Whatever you take the spirit of Kickstarter to mean, I think that Pebble has it. They're grateful for Kickstarter, and foster a user community — launching a new product this way just feels native.
erobbins 12y ago
$250k+ in fees (and growing!) for a product by an established company, that's what. KS isn't going to turn that down.
kmfrk 12y ago
The upside of this is that Pebble get to rake in people's money for pre-orders - not a finished product - which means they manage to pre-empt Apple Watch stealing the show. The drive is going to run until ultimo March, with Apple Watch being ready in April. The downside is that you eat a lot of fees by using Kickstarter, when you might have been able to run your own drive independently like Lockitron, so it's interesting to consider that they went with Kickstarter. I guess the idea of being a "big success on Kickstarter" would be good PR, when Apple is, well, Apple. Maybe people are just much quicker on the draw with the credit cards there, which wouldn't surprise me. Especially after the Stripe payment system.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  Kickstarter has other advantages. For one, everyone who backed the original Pebble watch already has a Kickstarter account.
- reustle 12y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if kickstarter worked out a deal with pebble with a lower fee. All this traffic and press is clearly good for them too.
ansible 12y ago
I really don't see the point of ordering a Pebble from Kickstarter myself, even if I had a desire for such a watch. The nominal amount I might save by doing the pre-order is more than offset by the risk I'm assuming. I'd much rather wait until the product is released, and then read some independent reviews... especially ones where the reviewer has been wearing it for a month or so. I've only funded two crowd-sourced projects. One was for a buddy of mine, the other was for Sandstorm.io, where they were already basically done, and just wanted some more funds for enhancements. And it was open-source, so its just the same in my mind as when I send money to Debian or OpenBSD (which is not often enough, but that's another discussion). And even with Sandstorm, one of the principals is also a friend of a friend, so I had confidence the money was going towards a good purpose.
- reitanqild 12y ago
  For others the price isn't the important point, being along on the kickstarter is merely about being first in the queue for a new toy.
fudged71 12y ago
Indiegogo started making a lot of money due to that differentiation, because you could sell many items on Indiegogo. My understanding is that the Kickstarter policy came in BECAUSE of the original Pebble selling packs of several devices. It's ironic that the policy was reversed and the same company is using that same "multiple products" trick to make a new record on the platform. Ultimately it DOES change the Kickstarter brand. New projects use "Kickstarter" in their press releases and they're set to the same bar of selling millions of items. I feel like the whole concept of "a kickstarter" is no longer what it used to mean. They should have stuck with the "Kickstarter is not a store" policy.

TillE 12y ago

Honestly, that seems like a completely arbitrary policy which serves no real purpose. In general I'd stay the hell away from hardware projects on Kickstarter, but in this case Pebble has a proven track record of delivering a quality product in a reasonable time frame. I assume that gives them a little more leeway when Kickstarter is approving their campaign.

joosters 12y ago
That Kickstarter policy update was in response to the rising levels of failed projects on the site. It was an attempt to fight off bad press. Of course, it turned out to be pretty toothless (Just take a look at the joke of a 'risks' section of almost any kickstarter project. That section was also introduced by this udpate). I'd agree with you that Pebble probably have a better chance than most at delivering on their promises, but as people have commented elsewhere, Pebble are only really back on KS as a promotional exercise. This is not really comparable to most other KS projects. Still, it's one rule for them, another for everyone else. KS are doing well out of this promo too. Perhaps someone should go and report Pebble for their other rule-breaking? Those watch pictures at the top of the page are clearly computer renderings. "If a simulation or photorealistic rendering is discovered after a project launches, that project will be canceled." :)
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  The risks section is great because you can tell very quickly if they've put some thought into logistics or not. No need to enforce that it's properly filled out.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
baddox 12y ago
> Pebble has a proven track record of delivering a quality product in a reasonable time frame Perhaps I'm remembering this incorrectly, but wasn't the Pebble a textbook example of significant production delays for a Kickstarter hardware project? I'm pretty sure I knew someone who hadn't received his watch from Kickstarter many months after the supposed delivery date, while at the same time he could have gone to Best Buy and bought one.
gonzo 12y ago
> but in this case Pebble has a proven track record of delivering a quality product in a reasonable time frame. Hardly. http://readwrite.com/2013/07/09/why-i-cancelled-my-pebble-smartwatch-order http://readwrite.com/2013/07/09/why-i-cancelled-my-pebble-sm...

smackfu 12y ago

If it quacks like a preorder...

TheHypnotist 12y ago
I was thinking the same thing. Whatever, if they adjusted the rules someone would find a way around it. It's pretty smart marketing.

darkstar999 12y ago

$3,956,662 (as of this post) happened.

parktheredcar 12y ago
I wonder if they are getting the usual 5% or if there's some sort of partnership based on the two companies' histories together.
- joosters 12y ago
  If Pebble have any sense they'll have negotiated some kind of better deal with Kickstarter, in return for the guaranteed revenue and publicity.
- canistr 12y ago
  I suspect that the reason to continue using Kickstarter even with the 5% fee is that it comes included with publicity from not just Kickstarter, but the media outlets that will relay this story.
- ggamecrazy 12y ago
  I think it's highly unlikely that Pebble didn't negotiate that 5% way down. While it's a symbiotic relationship, I think that at this point it's safe to say that it benefits Kickstarter more than Pebble.
  - twrkit 12y ago
    Pebble is getting a very cheap line of credit with theoretically no obligation to repay (hence why any money you give in a KS is a 'donation' or 'pledge').
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      There's a contract to deliver on the promises made: https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#section4 https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#section4 The language isn't real strong though: If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers.

jkestner 12y ago

That's from 2012, and as someone mentioned, was in response to a lot of risky hardware projects. More recently, Kickstarter changed their rules to be a lot simpler. https://www.kickstarter.com/rules https://www.kickstarter.com/rules Perhaps this campaign violates what you perceive as the spirit of Kickstarter, but Kickstarter itself has never had a problem with established companies/entertainers using the platform.

logicallee 12y ago
yeah, who would want to use kickstarter for a risky hardware project! When you can use it as a store by a company that raised more than $10 million, and this time sell a fully completed product with no special rewards or community input. They didn't even try to come up with any rewards this time - at any price, or show any part of how it was designed. it blatantly has nothing to do with the kickstarter spirit whatsoever.
- GuiA 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure the Kickstarter spirit is defined as "whatever the people running Kickstarter want it to be".
- jusben1369 12y ago
  In my experience services that don't change over time are the ones that go away. Kickstarter seems like a fluid concept that continues to evolve. As I look they're passing $5 million so it seems as though the community is responding.
- mikeechoalpha 12y ago
  yeah, you can see how outraged people are by how much they are refusing to support the offering
- jkestner 12y ago
  Well, there's risky and then there's risky. I believe that post was put up at the same time that the LIFX light bulb campaign was prematurely ended at ~$2 million. That project was from someone whose previous KS project was a cardboard lightbox that had missed its shipping date at that point, so I think the likelihood of collateral damage there made Kickstarter pause. (Credit to LIFX that they learned/hired quickly and managed to ship.) Whatever you take the spirit of Kickstarter to mean, I think that Pebble has it. They're grateful for Kickstarter, and foster a user community — launching a new product this way just feels native.

erobbins 12y ago

$250k+ in fees (and growing!) for a product by an established company, that's what. KS isn't going to turn that down.

kmfrk 12y ago

The upside of this is that Pebble get to rake in people's money for pre-orders - not a finished product - which means they manage to pre-empt Apple Watch stealing the show. The drive is going to run until ultimo March, with Apple Watch being ready in April. The downside is that you eat a lot of fees by using Kickstarter, when you might have been able to run your own drive independently like Lockitron, so it's interesting to consider that they went with Kickstarter. I guess the idea of being a "big success on Kickstarter" would be good PR, when Apple is, well, Apple. Maybe people are just much quicker on the draw with the credit cards there, which wouldn't surprise me. Especially after the Stripe payment system.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Kickstarter has other advantages. For one, everyone who backed the original Pebble watch already has a Kickstarter account.
reustle 12y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if kickstarter worked out a deal with pebble with a lower fee. All this traffic and press is clearly good for them too.

ansible 12y ago

I really don't see the point of ordering a Pebble from Kickstarter myself, even if I had a desire for such a watch. The nominal amount I might save by doing the pre-order is more than offset by the risk I'm assuming. I'd much rather wait until the product is released, and then read some independent reviews... especially ones where the reviewer has been wearing it for a month or so. I've only funded two crowd-sourced projects. One was for a buddy of mine, the other was for Sandstorm.io, where they were already basically done, and just wanted some more funds for enhancements. And it was open-source, so its just the same in my mind as when I send money to Debian or OpenBSD (which is not often enough, but that's another discussion). And even with Sandstorm, one of the principals is also a friend of a friend, so I had confidence the money was going towards a good purpose.

reitanqild 12y ago
For others the price isn't the important point, being along on the kickstarter is merely about being first in the queue for a new toy.

fudged71 12y ago

Indiegogo started making a lot of money due to that differentiation, because you could sell many items on Indiegogo. My understanding is that the Kickstarter policy came in BECAUSE of the original Pebble selling packs of several devices. It's ironic that the policy was reversed and the same company is using that same "multiple products" trick to make a new record on the platform. Ultimately it DOES change the Kickstarter brand. New projects use "Kickstarter" in their press releases and they're set to the same bar of selling millions of items. I feel like the whole concept of "a kickstarter" is no longer what it used to mean. They should have stuck with the "Kickstarter is not a store" policy.