>It should be for startups and good ideas that can't get funding elsewhere.
Not sure how I feel about this.
Kickstarter does seem to cultivate a wonderful image of taking backers who support projects "to help them come to life, not to profit financially" and connecting them with creatives to enable "their dream to create something that they want to see exist in the world". [1]
It's all very "feel good" and I can understand the feeling that established people or projects are taking advantage of the platform, masquerading in a way. However, it's a bit of a "So what?".
People want to put their money into this and feel a part of it. That's not necessarily helping or hurting anyone else who wants to use the platform.
I'd be really interested in seeing what the trends among backers are. How many small versus large projects the average person funds, whether there's an trickle down exposure to more needy projects from the large overfunded ones, stuff like that.
I wouldn't mind so much if there was a reward structure in place. GS made like 30 million dollars in gross profit. Okay, so if I give Zach 10k of my money and he makes 10x on his investment, why am I not going to get 100k from him? Oh right, because its kickstarter. It exists under the guise of this "help us kick this project to life" but for Zach this is just a "get money, and dont give investors who made it happen anything back other than tchotchkes."
Kickstarter's reputation could be hurt if it just becomes a way for the well off to connect with investor rubes who are being ripped off and don't realize it.
>I wouldn't mind so much if there was a reward structure in place. GS made like 30 million dollars in gross profit. Okay, so if I give Zach 10k of my money and he makes 10x on his investment, why am I not going to get 100k from him? Oh right, because its kickstarter.
This is why I've generally only backed things I believe are genuinely novel and in need of support. I recognize backing as a donation, not an investment.
I'm all for the creation of a true "crowd" investment platform, but I imagine the administrative and regulatory aspects of a such a service pose a big challenge.
>It exists under the guise of this "help us kick this project to life" but for Zach this is just a "get money, and dont give investors who made it happen anything back other than tchotchkes."
While I have no clue about the costs involved in making movie and I don't know who this guy is, I've certainly seen projects which fit that bill and yes, it's absurd.
As far as I can tell, Kickstarter has done very little to prevent misleading projects other than added guidelines for hardware projects last May.
For instance, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping people from creating projects that only deliver the titular product as a stretch goal - blatantly misleading.
>Kickstarter's reputation could be hurt if it just becomes a way for the well off to connect with investor rubes who are being ripped off and don't realize it.
I don't know, as long the people get their tchotchkes eventually they're likely going to be happy.
I think the imminent danger to Kickstarter's reputation is having a large notable project go completely sideways. Suddenly, thousands of people who thought they "pre-ordered" something are going to realize that they actually just gave their money away and Kickstarter doesn't guarantee anything.
What do you mean? There IS a reward structure in place. Those rewards have real value to the people who are paying for them. I did not buy in to this campaign, and I'm guessing neither did you - because the rewards do not have the same value for us. But for the people who did buy in, I doubt they're being 'duped', I think they truly value what they're paying for.
Just because the reward system is not proportional to the profits the project makes doesn't make it any less of a reward system.
One more note - I really don't think this is a "get money and don't give investors...anything back". With all the rewards he's offering, particularly all those voice and video recordings, he's going to be working hard to make good on all these "tchotchkes".
Not sure how I feel about this.
Kickstarter does seem to cultivate a wonderful image of taking backers who support projects "to help them come to life, not to profit financially" and connecting them with creatives to enable "their dream to create something that they want to see exist in the world". [1]
It's all very "feel good" and I can understand the feeling that established people or projects are taking advantage of the platform, masquerading in a way. However, it's a bit of a "So what?".
People want to put their money into this and feel a part of it. That's not necessarily helping or hurting anyone else who wants to use the platform.
I'd be really interested in seeing what the trends among backers are. How many small versus large projects the average person funds, whether there's an trickle down exposure to more needy projects from the large overfunded ones, stuff like that.
1: http://www.kickstarter.com/hello