I'm sick of Kickstarters

[Parmandur]

We had a big discussion about the art over at the 5e section of the OD&D proboards and the GG forums. Joe G finally made a comment that it is what they were sticking with to differentiate it from DCC. IDK if that will continue or not. Its been a couple years.

That said, my issue was between the covers.

Not a lot of there, there?

 

[L R Ballard]

One example is Jared Blando, a professional cartographer. I know his maps are going to be professional and that he knows how to deliver. I am very happy supporting someone like that to build up my collection of digital battlemaps.

Jared Blando's work is first rate. I gifted myself with his How to Draw Fantasy Art and RPG Maps: Step by Step Cartography for Gamers and Fans and spent Christmas day practicing some of his techniques to make a regional map. Jared's name would be at or near the top of my list of cartographers for Kickstarted products that need maps.

Patreon funding can be set up to be specific to a deliverable? Didn't know that. It may be interesting to discuss people's experiences with Patreon in another thread. . . .

 

[Lorrdyn]

I don't morally agree with Kickstarter. It seems to be the same creators that should have already made money from their previous successful project to fund their next one. At this point, I think most publishers/creators use kickstarter as a marketing tool, and from a business perspective, NOT doing a Kickstarter is "leaving money on the table." I've never backed a Kickstarter project, and with my projects I will always follow the concept that the content should sell itself, and any profit should be directly invested back into the next project.

 

[Morrus]

I will always follow the concept that the content should sell itself[

The concept does sell itself. That's exactly how Kickstarter works.

 

[L R Ballard]

At this point, I think most publishers/creators use kickstarter as a marketing tool, and from a business perspective, NOT doing a Kickstarter is "leaving money on the table."

I agree that many publishers/creators use Kickstarters as a marketing tool, but I don't find the practice morally objectionable. A Kickstarter helps a third-party producer solve the problem of getting noticed and therefore helps the publisher make sales.

How would one sell a product without a Kickstarter?

Without a Kickstarter, the product goes directly to Amazon, drivethrurpg, or some other third-party seller. But very few people are going to see the product because it’s buried on a website. The website may not even allow the publisher to include sales copy on the product page.

But it’s a proven fact that a well-written sales letter increases sales.

Perhaps the creator could make a website and post a sales letter as a “landing page” on the website. But a sales letter cannot get sales if no one reads the letter, and one cannot read a letter that one cannot see.

The website would have to be able to drive traffic to the landing page, but website traffic doesn’t come overnight.

Moreover, traffic usually comes at a cost: the seller has to advertise by using banner ads, pay per click, or other kinds of advertising. That’s expensive and therefore infeasible for most third-party startups.

Advertising an adventure module, for example, probably wouldn’t get a solid return on investment if the seller had to pay for advertising.

A Kickstarter solves the problem of how to inexpensively get an audience to read a sales letter. The Kickstarter website gets a lot of traffic and drives that traffic to a Kickstarter landing page. Visitors read the sales copy and maybe even watch a short video or get a preview of the product or a freebie.

The publisher makes more sales. The backers usually get a better deal. Kickstarter gets a cut. It’s a win-win-win.

Honestly, I don’t see a moral problem with using a Kickstarter to post a sales letter. The Kickstarter format helps little publishers get the word out about their products.

Kickstarters give the little guy a chance to succeed.

 

[MNblockhead]

I don't morally agree with Kickstarter.

Morally?!

Why? Are you crying for the poor middleman? Don't worry, if successful enough, the product will go into general distribution and they'll get their cut. If unsuccessful, they never would have got their cut anyway.

Or do you think that unless creators mortgage their homes or put their companies at financial risk, they are not legit?

Even successful publishers who have successfully used Kickstarter, such as Kobold Press, are not big companies. They very likely would not be publishing some of the stuff they have, or at not the quality they've been able, were it not for Kickstarter.

Do you find it immoral that the model spreads the risk to the end customer?

I appreciate Kickstarter giving me an opportunity to help fund cool work I want that a creator might not otherwise take a risk on. My risk is small compared to the risk a publisher would have to take without Kickstarter. And, if I don't want any risk, I can appreciate those who are willing to take the risk and I can possibly benefit if the product is successful and become available for me to buy.

Kickstarter allows for the funding of ideas well to the right on the long-tail of gaming interests and has made the hobby richer and more diverse.

How is this immoral?

 

[Lorrdyn]

Morally?!

Why? Are you crying for the poor middleman? Don't worry, if successful enough, the product will go into general distribution and they'll get their cut. If unsuccessful, they never would have got their cut anyway.

Or do you think that unless creators mortgage their homes or put their companies at financial risk, they are not legit?

Even successful publishers who have successfully used Kickstarter, such as Kobold Press, are not big companies. They very likely would not be publishing some of the stuff they have, or at not the quality they've been able, were it not for Kickstarter.

Do you find it immoral that the model spreads the risk to the end customer?

I appreciate Kickstarter giving me an opportunity to help fund cool work I want that a creator might not otherwise take a risk on. My risk is small compared to the risk a publisher would have to take without Kickstarter. And, if I don't want any risk, I can appreciate those who are willing to take the risk and I can possibly benefit if the product is successful and become available for me to buy.

Kickstarter allows for the funding of ideas well to the right on the long-tail of gaming interests and has made the hobby richer and more diverse.

How is this immoral?

It's immoral because they do not have to use Kickstarter to release their product. They use Kickstarter to milk more money from you. It's the same problem with Early Access video games and their DLC.

 

[Lorrdyn]

The concept does sell itself. That's exactly how Kickstarter works.

So you bought the content, and then the creator gets money? I thought Kickstarter worked by you paying, and then maybe you get the content sometime later.

 

[Parmandur]

It's immoral because they do not have to use Kickstarter to release their product. They use Kickstarter to milk more money from you. It's the same problem with Early Access video games and their DLC.

Many times, to get production costs covered, they do need Kickstarter to pay the printers and such; nothing immoral about it at all, that's absurd.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Lorrdyn]

I agree that many publishers/creators use Kickstarters as a marketing tool, but I don't find the practice morally objectionable. A Kickstarter helps a third-party producer solve the problem of getting noticed and therefore helps the publisher make sales.

How would one sell a product without a Kickstarter?

Without a Kickstarter, the product goes directly to Amazon, drivethrurpg, or some other third-party seller. But very few people are going to see the product because it’s buried on a website. The website may not even allow the publisher to include sales copy on the product page.

But it’s a proven fact that a well-written sales letter increases sales.

Perhaps the creator could make a website and post a sales letter as a “landing page” on the website. But a sales letter cannot get sales if no one reads the letter, and one cannot read a letter that one cannot see.

The website would have to be able to drive traffic to the landing page, but website traffic doesn’t come overnight.

Moreover, traffic usually comes at a cost: the seller has to advertise by using banner ads, pay per click, or other kinds of advertising. That’s expensive and therefore infeasible for most third-party startups.

Advertising an adventure module, for example, probably wouldn’t get a solid return on investment if the seller had to pay for advertising.

A Kickstarter solves the problem of how to inexpensively get an audience to read a sales letter. The Kickstarter website gets a lot of traffic and drives that traffic to a Kickstarter landing page. Visitors read the sales copy and maybe even watch a short video or get a preview of the product or a freebie.

The publisher makes more sales. The backers usually get a better deal. Kickstarter gets a cut. It’s a win-win-win.

Honestly, I don’t see a moral problem with using a Kickstarter to post a sales letter. The Kickstarter format helps little publishers get the word out about their products.

Kickstarters give the little guy a chance to succeed.

I agree, and I'm kicking myself for this very reason. I realize now that I should have done a Kickstarter for my product, for the simple fact that it would have had more visibility. Unfortunately for me, I don't like ripping people off.