Hacker News Reader

Comment by Udo | Hacker News Reader

The expectations some people have about crowdfunding are unrealistic. It has to be clear from the start that when you donate money to those projects the money will be spent and the project might fail anyway. People have been using Kickstarter as a pre-order site which I think is not ideal in many cases. The option to preorder should be different from supporting a project in general, but Kickstarter sadly doesn't offer that kind of separation.

View on HN

>People have been using Kickstarter as a pre-order site which I think is not ideal in many cases.

Kickstarter backs this perception.

"In just 24 hours, 20,000 people bought an Ouya console — a product they had never heard of before yesterday." - Yancey Strickler - Cofounder/Head of Communications at Kickstarter [0]

0: http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/ouyas-big-day

There is no denying failing to make that distinction is good for Kickstarter's business, but I assert it's bad for crowdfunding in general.

Kickstarter is trying very hard to NOT back that perception. They have and continue to make changes to make it clear that Kickstarter is not a pre-order site.

"Kickstarter is Not a Store" - http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store

Kickstarter tries very hard to backpedal on that perception when it's about to blow up in their face. They made that "Kickstarter is Not a Store" blog post and the associated policy change after the press showed interest in the seedy side of Kickstarter; I forget what the exact catalyst was because it was some time ago.

>I forget what the exact catalyst was because it was some time ago.

As I recall, the main Kickstarter hoopla going on at that time was Lifx [0]. Also, September 2012 was the original delivery date for Pebble [1].

0: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/18/kickstarter...

1: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper...

Pretty sure it was the Pebble Watch. Their largest, most publicized project was called in to question after repeated delays.

I think the subsequent changes (i.e. no renderings) made make the platform substantially better. But they still need to get away from that "presale" perception that the general public has.

The first few projects I backed were friends or just because I thought they were cool ideas that would be awesome in real life. Getting something in return was really, in its purest form, a 'perk'.

A project failing and a project going completely silent are two different things.

I agree, but I'd say that a project being fraudulent or going silent is an expected failure mode.

This is the thing that gives me a bad feeling about Kickstarter. It seems like the site and its project creators are preying on those who are willing to lay down money based on hype without being adequately compensated for the amount of risk they're shouldering.

How do you mean, they don't offer that kind of separation? It's very easy to back a project without ordering the product; simply don't select a backer reward level when confirming your pledge.

I think those should probably be two separate steps for most projects. General funding to get the research going, making the prototype etc, then as a second step, allow the ordering of the actual product. There might be projects where this is unfeasible, but in general it would be good to separate the creation of the product and the manufacturing/distribution process. It would be safer for everyone involved, and for projects that fail during research - it would be clear that the money invested into this research is gone. At the same time, harsher measures should cover failure to follow through on actual orders.

That only makes sense for tech kickstarters. Most kickstarter projects don't have any R&D to speak of, and anyhow many production delays are the result of the manufacturing logistics that a wildly successful kickstarter results in.

Take a look at the OGRE board game project, for example. The game hasn't changed significantly since it was published I'm the 70s, but the kickstarter was successful enough that the manufacturing became much more complicated than planned.

The great success of Kickstarter is that it's a one-size-fits-all crowdfunding platform. You can only get so much oversight that way.

> Most kickstarter projects don't have any R&D to speak of

That's true, but this project sure did. I'm not suggesting more oversight, I was saying that the crowd's expectations should be better managed, and that maybe there could be two levels of commitment for a lot of projects. A first level where the project owners get money to prove they can pull it off, and a second one where actual things are ordered and delivered - if and where applicable of course.

I agree. My suggestion is to make a simple keyword replacement on the pledge/rewards sidebar:

Pledge $10 or more Pledge $50 or more

Replace it with..

Donate $10 or more Donate $50 or more

That would make things less ambiguous.

Not at all. The Donate option would cause confusion, even for me. Pledge is the perfect word. Not only does donate imply giving money (which you don't do on Kickstarter), but it also implies a non-profit status.

I do however pledge to give money on KickStarter. I can cancel at any time. Heck, I can pledge and not pay when the time comes.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that changing from Pledge to Donate would have the opposite effect: cause more confusion, cause more problems, and not solve anything you are trying to solve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com