FEATURE: "DOWN AND DANGEROUS" - new update, one year later.

Mentaduke asked earlier if the 25% threshold was still relevant (since it was from an older article). I found a newer write-up from kickstarter's founder from April 2011 and that threshold seems to have moved to 30%, where 90% of projects will be successfully funded. Here is the graph they published, I added the marker for 84% which is where we currently stand with 12 days to go.

graph84.jpg
 
I don't get it. Why do any kickstarter campaigns fail, ever, unless they get, like $0.00? If you announce a goal of, say, $10K, and you only get $3K through donations, with one day left, and it looks like it's gonna fail, why wouldn't you then hand your buddy $7K and then that way it reaches the $10K and you bag all the money. I mean, the $7K still comes back to you, so you could've borrowed that on a credit card or whatever, makes no difference. OK, so you pay $200 to kickstarter, but you're still $2800 ahead, versus getting $0 from a failed campaign. It's like free money. And nobody has to know your buddy is your buddy so it looks just like a random stranger. Similarly here - say, hypothetically if Zak's campaign were to stall at, say, $28,000, why couldn't (theoretically, I'm not suggesting that he would), he simply hand $2K to a friend and have him buy the $28,000? After giving kickstarter their 2%, you're still ahead. Now, I do understand that Zak sees this as a kind of greenlighting or validation process - enough people thought it was worth $30K, and that's kind of a market test, so it's not just about raising the $.

Anyhow, it's just random musings, because I don't understand the concept. I wish Zak great success with the campaign - it looks a cinch at this point - and more importantly, great success with the film. Good luck!
 
Hey Zak, congrats on making it onto the "Popular This Week" page on Kickstarter! Hope that helps bump you over the top.

Also, I'm about halfway through reading "Snowblind" = woah. Intense stuff.
 
OldCorpse said:
I don't get it. Why do any kickstarter campaigns fail, ever, unless they get, like $0.00? If you announce a goal of, say, $10K, and you only get $3K through donations, with one day left, and it looks like it's gonna fail, why wouldn't you then hand your buddy $7K and then that way it reaches the $10K and you bag all the money.
Click to expand...

Because KICKSTARTER takes a percentage.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
OldCorpse said:
I don't get it. Why do any kickstarter campaigns fail, ever, unless they get, like $0.00? If you announce a goal of, say, $10K, and you only get $3K through donations, with one day left, and it looks like it's gonna fail, why wouldn't you then hand your buddy $7K and then that way it reaches the $10K and you bag all the money. I mean, the $7K still comes back to you, so you could've borrowed that on a credit card or whatever, makes no difference. OK, so you pay $200 to kickstarter, but you're still $2800 ahead, versus getting $0 from a failed campaign. It's like free money. And nobody has to know your buddy is your buddy so it looks just like a random stranger. Similarly here - say, hypothetically if Zak's campaign were to stall at, say, $28,000, why couldn't (theoretically, I'm not suggesting that he would), he simply hand $2K to a friend and have him buy the $28,000? After giving kickstarter their 2%, you're still ahead. Now, I do understand that Zak sees this as a kind of greenlighting or validation process - enough people thought it was worth $30K, and that's kind of a market test, so it's not just about raising the $.

Anyhow, it's just random musings, because I don't understand the concept. I wish Zak great success with the campaign - it looks a cinch at this point - and more importantly, great success with the film. Good luck!
Click to expand...

What if you don't have the money?

Not that you can't take out a loan and try to game the system, as you're implying - but does that really help, if you're actually trying to produce your project (be it a comic book, movie, game, etc.)?

Take your example of a $10k project. You listed it at $10k because that's the amount you need to make the project a reality. Sure, you could try your trick and throw in 7 grand if it stalls out at 3... but you're not going to be able to produce the film for $3k. Or if you do, it won't live up to the quality expected for the backers.

So sure, I guess someone could use Kickstarter as a scam, or if they didn't really care about what they were producing - but I think backers are generally savvy enough that if they're going to put their money towards a project, they have a pretty good idea that the person making it is truly passionate about it.

Does that make sense?
 
The "kickstarter takes a percentage" doesn't make sense, and I addressed it: as I understand it, they take 2%, which is really nothing and still makes it worth it to game the system as I described.

Tom Shortridge has a point that if you game it as I described, all you can grab is what's there (minus kickstarter's 2% on the whole thing, so make sure it's worth it after you kick in your own "liberation money", because the 2% would apply to that money as well). And if that leaves you short, then you can't finance your project. Valid point. But it's less valid in a situation as I described it hypothetically in the case of Zak (again: I'm no way no how implying that this is what Zak would do - this is purely my speculation). If all Zak is missing is, say, $2K, then it may be worth doing it - after all, I doubt Zak counted $30K and if he gets $29,999, the project can't be filmed. Obviously, the $30K is a ball park, it may be enough, it may be more than enough, or it may NOT be enough. But it seems silly to stall at, say, $2K with 30 minutes to go, and then watch the whole thing go away for lack of $2K and get $0, because the campaign failed. It seems to me, $28,000 while not as good as $30,000 is better than $0.00. So that would give people an incentive to game the system at that level.

Now, obviously, where that level is, depends on the people involved and on the project involved - some would say, that if you shoot for $10K and only get $3K, that $3K (minus the 2% for Kickstarter) is still better than $0.00. Different strokes for different folks.

Personally, to me the most convincing is Zak's original point: this is a validation exercise as much as fundraising. If you can't honestly convince people to kick in $30K of their own free will, then maybe your project is not as attractive - to the objective audience out there - as you think. This is a real-world test, just like ticket sales are a measure of your commercial success. This of course measures your skill as a sales person, marketer and promoter as well. You know how one of the reasons people used to say "never use your own money, always have your project financed", is because it allows you to step outside of yourself and see the brutal truth: are people willing to open their wallets for what you are selling? This is very valuable feedback.

It reminds me of a thread not too long ago about "can you make a great feature for $10K and under", and the thread went on and on and on and on. Just words. Then Barry Green stepped in with a stunning proposal: he'll front the $10K to anyone who can convince him it's worth financing his/her project. All of a sudden, it goes from a theoretical discussion to "put up or shut up". Now you either sell Barry on it, or you don't. Isn't that a good test to take? Or are you always going to be sitting in your room speculating about how successful your project might be.

So in this way, there is value in getting the $30K (or whatever) honestly. Because honest feedback cannot be bought - you either have the goods people want to pay for, or you don't. And that's why it's worth getting your kickstarter $$$ the honest and straightforward way. At least that's my take :)
 
Another answer: if you had $7K of the $10K to begin with, you probably wouldn't even bother with Kickstarter in the first place. Make no mistake: Kickstarter is not at all like "free money" – you do really have to work for it.
 
dougspice said:
Another answer: if you had $7K of the $10K to begin with, you probably wouldn't even bother with Kickstarter in the first place. Make no mistake: Kickstarter is not at all like "free money" – you do really have to work for it.
Click to expand...

That's such a terrible answer, I didn't even bother addressing it, but now that someone has brought it up again... fine. First, general principle: you can never, ever, have too much money. If you have $7K, are you going to turn down someone's $3K? Really? Especially at these levels of budgets, every dollar counts. There are plenty of people who shoot on tiny budgets and while they may be able to save up the $7K at a rate of $500 a month, you are asking them to now take another 6 months to get the $3K. That's just silly.

Second, who says they have the $7K? You can borrow the $7K for just a few days - from the last day of the kickstarter campaign to the time you get your money back, minus the 2% commission, from the successful campaign - it can be even an advance from a credit card you'll pay right back, so you lose very little.

And yes, of course, kickstarter demands work - you have to hustle, you have to promote, you have to sell. But that goes without saying, ALWAYS, whether the campaign is successful or not. The question I raised, is a structural one - a flaw in the setup, if you will.
 
Sorry; I'll try to make sure my answers are more acceptable to you in the future.

So in your example, you're not actually contributing the money to the project, just "laundering" it through so Kickstarter thinks you succeeded. Of course you CAN do that, but you're making an assertion that a project you said can be done for $10k can now be done for $3k? I don't agree with that assertion, and neither does Kickstarter – that's why it's set up the way it is. If you want to try to juke the system that way, fine... I'm sure you can. But you're paying a premium to do it – and probably making a foolish mistake.

The other problem with your example is that your numbers don't scale. The situation you describe:

If you have $7K, are you going to turn down someone's $3K? Really? Especially at these levels of budgets, every dollar counts. There are plenty of people who shoot on tiny budgets and while they may be able to save up the $7K at a rate of $500 a month, you are asking them to now take another 6 months to get the $3K. That's just silly.
Click to expand...

... might be true for some people, but it's not true for me. If I have the $7k, putting in another $3k is not a problem for me, personally. I have to ask if it's worth the substantial time and effort that I would have to plug into a KS project, dealing with actually issuing rewards to people (keep in mind many of these are not free to you, the creator), and a lot of other bureaucratic hassles that come with it -- and my analysis is that, for $3K, that may not be the best valuation of my time.

Change those numbers to $70k and $30k and it's a different story entirely. For me. For others it might still be the same. That's a neat thing about Kickstarter, though: all kinds of people with access to many varying levels of resources are doing all kinds of different projects that I couldn't have imagined. I've backed a good number of projects now, which have varied from wonderful to disappointing in execution (or never finished at all, which is another story)... evaluating the sum the creator is asking for against my analysis of their ability to execute is part of the exercise that I presume MOST people donating to a campaign are going through.
 
OldCorpse said:
The "kickstarter takes a percentage" doesn't make sense, and I addressed it: as I understand it, they take 2%, which is really nothing and still makes it worth it to game the system as I described.

Tom Shortridge has a point that if you game it as I described, all you can grab is what's there (minus kickstarter's 2% on the whole thing, so make sure it's worth it after you kick in your own "liberation money", because the 2% would apply to that money as well). And if that leaves you short, then you can't finance your project. Valid point. But it's less valid in a situation as I described it hypothetically in the case of Zak (again: I'm no way no how implying that this is what Zak would do - this is purely my speculation). If all Zak is missing is, say, $2K, then it may be worth doing it - after all, I doubt Zak counted $30K and if he gets $29,999, the project can't be filmed. Obviously, the $30K is a ball park, it may be enough, it may be more than enough, or it may NOT be enough. But it seems silly to stall at, say, $2K with 30 minutes to go, and then watch the whole thing go away for lack of $2K and get $0, because the campaign failed. It seems to me, $28,000 while not as good as $30,000 is better than $0.00. So that would give people an incentive to game the system at that level.

Now, obviously, where that level is, depends on the people involved and on the project involved - some would say, that if you shoot for $10K and only get $3K, that $3K (minus the 2% for Kickstarter) is still better than $0.00. Different strokes for different folks.

Personally, to me the most convincing is Zak's original point: this is a validation exercise as much as fundraising. If you can't honestly convince people to kick in $30K of their own free will, then maybe your project is not as attractive - to the objective audience out there - as you think. This is a real-world test, just like ticket sales are a measure of your commercial success. This of course measures your skill as a sales person, marketer and promoter as well. You know how one of the reasons people used to say "never use your own money, always have your project financed", is because it allows you to step outside of yourself and see the brutal truth: are people willing to open their wallets for what you are selling? This is very valuable feedback.

It reminds me of a thread not too long ago about "can you make a great feature for $10K and under", and the thread went on and on and on and on. Just words. Then Barry Green stepped in with a stunning proposal: he'll front the $10K to anyone who can convince him it's worth financing his/her project. All of a sudden, it goes from a theoretical discussion to "put up or shut up". Now you either sell Barry on it, or you don't. Isn't that a good test to take? Or are you always going to be sitting in your room speculating about how successful your project might be.

So in this way, there is value in getting the $30K (or whatever) honestly. Because honest feedback cannot be bought - you either have the goods people want to pay for, or you don't. And that's why it's worth getting your kickstarter $$$ the honest and straightforward way. At least that's my take :)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's really arguing with you - your point is valid. If I were that close to getting a project fully funded, I know I'd try to find whatever way possible to make sure the efforts of the Kickstarter campaign didn't go to waste - if that meant "gaming the system," as you put it, so be it, and figure out how to plug that hole in whatever way possible.

It's a judgement call, like you said.
 
OldCorpse, sorry for the 1-sentence reply. My expanded 2c is:

1. If it's just your close friends donating (and nobody else thinks it's cool)... then it's best to just let it fail, and ask them to give you the cash without going through Kickstarter and paying fees (which are 5%, not 2%).

2. If it's something where you get a nibble of public interest but not enough to meet the goal - sure, you can do the "pay your friend to buy the rest of the project" method. But it's not in the spirit of the thing and you're not going to get repeat investors or ardent fans that way.

3. If it's something *awesome( like DOWN AND DANGEROUS (which I personally think is just going to blow the roof off and way exceed its goal without artificial support)... then this is what Kickstarter is all about. It's about connecting to an audience, making us feel like partners / investors, having something to rally the troops around, etc. And folks get cool swag too! It's a great way to test the waters for business models, etc.

BTW, speaking from a cynical financial gain perspective of Kickstarter, what does it matter to them whether projects succeed because of #2 or #3? They are a money-making operation. This is not a structural flaw, it's a profit mechanism :)

That said, I'm sure in the long term they want as many projects like DOWN AND DANGEROUS - wildly successful ones which which embody the true spirit of Kickstarter and help to grow a strong community.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
I think the point has been made, so I shall say no more about this (otherwise this threatens to be a kind of a derail). What I also wondered about, is if the rules about critical mass for success being 25% or 30% is dependent on the size of the goal - so, say, you need to reach 30% for $10K, but, say, 45% for $20K, and for example 50% for $30K etc. - intuitively it would seem so, because after all, if you have a larger absolute number, then 30% of $10K is $3K, so you need $7K to hit your target which is easier to reach (as in: requires less money), than 30% of $30K, which would be $9K, and so require $21K to reach, or three times as much money to raise...

Setting the goal for a Kickstarter campaign is a triangulation between three variables: how much money you need to complete the project, how good are your marketing skills, and what number is the highest that has a reasonable chance of success given the Kickstarter community dynamics.

I wonder how Zak decided on the number $30K... I know he did look at the history of what kinds of campaigns succeeded at what level of funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top