Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ahayford" data-source="post: 5978880" data-attributes="member: 6680745">I think you're wrong. There is a lot of chaff in their database right now, but many existing companies that have a reputation to worry about have used the model and site to great affect. I think the Kickstarter website itself (technology) isn't very good, and could use with some updating. I'm not even sure the website itself is completely necessary. Coolminiornot essentially built their own when one of their projects was removed from the website and used it to successfully fund their project.Talking Points:1) I think the parton/kickstarter model is awesome for existing companies to judge product interest, award their fans, and to bypass venture capitalists2) I think for some new companies/creators, it allows them a chance to pitch their idea and see what the public thinks. A professional pitch with sample product has a decent chance of getting funded, and a decent chance of actually fullfilling the project.3) If you spend a few minutes to evaluate the pitch, its pretty easy to tell who is likely to succeed and who is likely to fail. Engage your critical thinking and judge the complexity of the project and the state of what the creator is showing you.4) The kickstarter webpage is, largely, unnecessary to the process (imho)5) A lot of the chaff that you see, never gets funded anyway.6) Any person or company that gets funded and fails to finish the project, is unlikely to get funding from crowdsourcing again....nor are venture capitalists likely to touch them. I'd say thats a pretty strong reason *not* to fail and provides that &quot;ownership&quot; that you refer to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ahayford, post: 5978880, member: 6680745"] I think you're wrong. There is a lot of chaff in their database right now, but many existing companies that have a reputation to worry about have used the model and site to great affect. I think the Kickstarter website itself (technology) isn't very good, and could use with some updating. I'm not even sure the website itself is completely necessary. Coolminiornot essentially built their own when one of their projects was removed from the website and used it to successfully fund their project. Talking Points: 1) I think the parton/kickstarter model is awesome for existing companies to judge product interest, award their fans, and to bypass venture capitalists 2) I think for some new companies/creators, it allows them a chance to pitch their idea and see what the public thinks. A professional pitch with sample product has a decent chance of getting funded, and a decent chance of actually fullfilling the project. 3) If you spend a few minutes to evaluate the pitch, its pretty easy to tell who is likely to succeed and who is likely to fail. Engage your critical thinking and judge the complexity of the project and the state of what the creator is showing you. 4) The kickstarter webpage is, largely, unnecessary to the process (imho) 5) A lot of the chaff that you see, never gets funded anyway. 6) Any person or company that gets funded and fails to finish the project, is unlikely to get funding from crowdsourcing again....nor are venture capitalists likely to touch them. I'd say thats a pretty strong reason *not* to fail and provides that "ownership" that you refer to. [/QUOTE]

Verification