Frylock
Explorer
Re: Kickstarter = the Ladders
Thanks for responding, ahayford.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Now this concerns me. I thought the purpose was to support creators that could not afford their initial start up fees. Established companies can afford launching projects (easily or otherwise), and because they have a good reputation, their risk is somewhat lower (though still very present). Ergo, established companies shouldn't be involved by design (as I understand it) but also for the reasons I've laid out. If an established company or person uses Kickstarter (yes, I'm looking right at Paizo), then my ridiculous example becomes very appropriate: They might as well start a kickstarter project for their phone bill. This is something they should be financing themselves.
Which is kind of my point. They bypass people who have the nerve to request an ownership stake when providing the start up capital. The model of risk is important because it assures that no one will show up to Wimbledon with a briefcase instead of a tennis racket. If you don't risk as much, you don't control as much, but you have to make an informed pitch, because venture capitalists do their research. Does the average Kickstarter backer do their research?
That's the purpose of doing your research. Having 50 backers might finance the initial run, but it's hardly a good model for whether the project will succeed large scale. Of course, it succeeds for the backers. The project gets done, and they get their copies, so they're happy. It also gets the project out there with the creator's name on it, giving him or her a shot at the big time if he or she deserves one. This is an attractive idea, which is why Kickstarter should focus on the little guy, but I'm concerned that Kickstarter isn't asking creators any questions at all, let alone the right ones, and that has/will result in too much chaff.
This simply isn't true. Even a great idea might fail due to market forces most backers can't (or at least don't) appreciate. You need to do more research than, "The anecdotal evidence provided to me by my relatively small circle of friends and myself suggests this will succeed because we think it's a neat idea."
Interesting observation, and I'd generally agree. That's how marketing research works generally speaking. I'm no marketing expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't use a website to solicit bids.
Again, it calls into question how you define "chaff." Success and failure of an idea isn't a true judge of its creative merits, nor are anecdotal statements of opinion. In other words, is chaff a "bad" project creatively speaking (a subjective concern) or just an unmarketable one. Look to patent law. How many patent applications are approved as novel, non-obvious, and useful, yet still result in a product that has no real market value? (Quickly, someone close that can of worms before they get everywhere!)
Yes, I agree. I mentioned that in my post. However, considering my assumption is that one-timers have nothing to lose by giving it a half-a$$ed try, there will be a lot of those projects (now or eventually), and that's still a problem.
It sounds to me like people are trying to do two things. First, "stick it to the man" (i.e., venture capitalists, etc.) by bypassing them. Second, use backing of projects as some sort of poor man's marketing data. If you back it, you must want it. This has, or will, create a cluster fudge. (<-- not sure of Morrus's policy on profanity, and I'm too lazy to look it up.) It's a bit more complex than the Kickstarter model gives it credit for being. (BTW, I'm applying this analysis with "gaming" in mind. The projects I've backed, the art of Jeff Dee, are completely different, and Kickstarter works quite well for those because of the nature of the medium.)
I could still be wrong, of course, because I'm speaking theoretically. I don't have the data (although someone linked to a website with data, and I'll look at it), but not being a marketing or gaming "expert," I'm not sure I'm qualified to interpret the data . . . which again, is my point.
It also depends on what you subjectively think is a valuable contribution to the community. If the project goes no further than its initial run, is that a success? Doesn't that add to the community? Who's to say that in the far future, people might get a hold of even the failed works and say, "Damn, this is great. Let's get the author to reprint this."
Then I see the image of the teenager putting on make up at Wimbledon, and I imagine that Paizo is just paying their phone bill. (Sorry that I'm picking on Paizo. It's just an example. I appreciate what they've done for the community.)
Another subjective concern is that if we focus on the little guy, the depth of creativity will grow, as more people become producers, but if we focus on the big guy, our risk as backers of things like missed deadlines and crappy products shrinks. Should we focus on the big guys or the little guys? I favor focusing on the little guys, but a differing opinion (i.e., big guys or both) is neither right nor wrong. It's a matter of opinion.
Again, thanks for responding. I'm curious where the truth actually lies.
Thanks for responding, ahayford.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Now this concerns me. I thought the purpose was to support creators that could not afford their initial start up fees. Established companies can afford launching projects (easily or otherwise), and because they have a good reputation, their risk is somewhat lower (though still very present). Ergo, established companies shouldn't be involved by design (as I understand it) but also for the reasons I've laid out. If an established company or person uses Kickstarter (yes, I'm looking right at Paizo), then my ridiculous example becomes very appropriate: They might as well start a kickstarter project for their phone bill. This is something they should be financing themselves.
Which is kind of my point. They bypass people who have the nerve to request an ownership stake when providing the start up capital. The model of risk is important because it assures that no one will show up to Wimbledon with a briefcase instead of a tennis racket. If you don't risk as much, you don't control as much, but you have to make an informed pitch, because venture capitalists do their research. Does the average Kickstarter backer do their research?
That's the purpose of doing your research. Having 50 backers might finance the initial run, but it's hardly a good model for whether the project will succeed large scale. Of course, it succeeds for the backers. The project gets done, and they get their copies, so they're happy. It also gets the project out there with the creator's name on it, giving him or her a shot at the big time if he or she deserves one. This is an attractive idea, which is why Kickstarter should focus on the little guy, but I'm concerned that Kickstarter isn't asking creators any questions at all, let alone the right ones, and that has/will result in too much chaff.
This simply isn't true. Even a great idea might fail due to market forces most backers can't (or at least don't) appreciate. You need to do more research than, "The anecdotal evidence provided to me by my relatively small circle of friends and myself suggests this will succeed because we think it's a neat idea."
Interesting observation, and I'd generally agree. That's how marketing research works generally speaking. I'm no marketing expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't use a website to solicit bids.
Again, it calls into question how you define "chaff." Success and failure of an idea isn't a true judge of its creative merits, nor are anecdotal statements of opinion. In other words, is chaff a "bad" project creatively speaking (a subjective concern) or just an unmarketable one. Look to patent law. How many patent applications are approved as novel, non-obvious, and useful, yet still result in a product that has no real market value? (Quickly, someone close that can of worms before they get everywhere!)
Yes, I agree. I mentioned that in my post. However, considering my assumption is that one-timers have nothing to lose by giving it a half-a$$ed try, there will be a lot of those projects (now or eventually), and that's still a problem.
It sounds to me like people are trying to do two things. First, "stick it to the man" (i.e., venture capitalists, etc.) by bypassing them. Second, use backing of projects as some sort of poor man's marketing data. If you back it, you must want it. This has, or will, create a cluster fudge. (<-- not sure of Morrus's policy on profanity, and I'm too lazy to look it up.)
It's a bit more complex than the Kickstarter model gives it credit for being. (BTW, I'm applying this analysis with "gaming" in mind. The projects I've backed, the art of Jeff Dee, are completely different, and Kickstarter works quite well for those because of the nature of the medium.)I could still be wrong, of course, because I'm speaking theoretically. I don't have the data (although someone linked to a website with data, and I'll look at it), but not being a marketing or gaming "expert," I'm not sure I'm qualified to interpret the data . . . which again, is my point.
It also depends on what you subjectively think is a valuable contribution to the community. If the project goes no further than its initial run, is that a success? Doesn't that add to the community? Who's to say that in the far future, people might get a hold of even the failed works and say, "Damn, this is great. Let's get the author to reprint this."
Then I see the image of the teenager putting on make up at Wimbledon, and I imagine that Paizo is just paying their phone bill. (Sorry that I'm picking on Paizo. It's just an example. I appreciate what they've done for the community.)
Another subjective concern is that if we focus on the little guy, the depth of creativity will grow, as more people become producers, but if we focus on the big guy, our risk as backers of things like missed deadlines and crappy products shrinks. Should we focus on the big guys or the little guys? I favor focusing on the little guys, but a differing opinion (i.e., big guys or both) is neither right nor wrong. It's a matter of opinion.
Again, thanks for responding. I'm curious where the truth actually lies.
