Comment by jonnathanson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonnathanson | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of this post. But I will admit that Kickstarter has a serious problem on its hands, namely, a growing dichotomy between its emergent user behavior (preordering) and its intended user behavior (crowdfunding).

The site has gone to great lengths in recent months to stamp out the former -- even going so far as to announce "We're not a store," and to impose a lot of restrictions on project listings.

IMO, these moves have only exacerbated the problem at hand. Now you've got a presumptive majority of users who still treat Kickstarter like a preordering site, but who get even fewer details about what they think they're preodering. Case in point: lots of blog posts like this one, which claim they grok the idea that they're not preordering finished goods, but nevertheless complain that they're not preordering finished goods. There's a very clear disconnect between intellectual admission ("I realize I may not actually get this item") and emotional expectation ("Where the f--- is my item???"). This is a recipe for cognitive dissonance, and it leaves a lot of very vocal users frustrated. Some of those users may be right, and others may be off base -- but they are Kickstarter's problem, regardless.

Quite frankly, I don't think there's a fantastic solution to this problem. But project categorization/tiering seems like at least a halfway decent step. Kickstarter should ask its listers to choose which stage of the idea they're in: early concept, prototype, pre-sale, etc. (I'm sure they can come up with better names for these categories). And that stage would be made very clear to the users/backers from the get go.

I don't think Kickstarter can continue to grow, or even last, without preordering. That just seems to be the dominant use case most people have for the site. It's here to stay. If Kickstarter shies away from it, some other crowdfunding company will claim the space and leave Kickstarter in the dust. Rather than trying to stamp it out, Kickstarter should embrace it -- but at the same time, take steps to differentiate it from true kickstarting.

Your post was thoughtful and articulate. I thought I'd check the site as though I were considering starting a project there. First I checked the Guidelines:

http://www.kickstarter.com/help/guidelines

Part of the first Guideline says:

"A project will eventually be completed, and something will be produced by it. A project is not open-ended. Starting a business, for example, does not qualify as a project."

If I were starting a project it seems clear that the expectation is that I deliver something.

I'm not clear if that agrees with your view or not I guess I'm not clear what the expectation of crowdsourcing is. Maybe it's just a buzzword.

Two things:

1) A project is more clearly defined as something that the creators intend an eventual completion. Or, perhaps better, a project is something that has a hard ship date. A project is not necessarily successful: that is, it may fail to make that ship date. If it fails, it may fail in such a way that it never completes. That is the worst case scenario: your money went into a black hole.

2) There's a difference between crowdsourcing and crowdfunding. Crowdsourcing is a riff off "outsourcing"; it's using "the crowd" to accomplish tasks. Crowdfunding is a specific instance of this, in which the task is "give me money".

"I guess I'm not clear what the expectation of crowdsourcing is."

And this is exactly my point. :) I don't think most people are clear -- or at least can't agree -- about their expectations for crowdsourcing, including the users of Kickstarter. The only thing that seems to be clear is that a lot of funders assume that crowdsourcing means crowd-buying. Whereas a lot of project launchers tend to think crowdsourcing means X, Y, Z, what have you. There's a disconnect between these expectations.

(Author here) My post was to help encourage those using Kickstarter be more transparent and thoughtful about the risks and challenges of what they do. That doesn't seem to be the message you got. Can you explain why you think this post "complains it's not preordering finished goods"? I'd appreciate the feedback so I can be more clear next time.

Hi Dan. Actually, the line about "complains it's not preordering finished goods" was not meant to be about you or your post. Rather, I was using it to describe a more general trend I've noticed with Kickstarter, and with people's collective commentary about Kickstarter. Did not mean to single your post out as a "complaint," per se, and I apologize if I created that impression. In retrospect, I should have been clearer in drawing distinctions between my take on your article, and my take on other articles about the same topic.

My broader issue is that Kickstarter, in general, seems to have a dilemma on its hands. On the "buy" side, it has a lot of users who are essentially treating Kickstarter campaigns like product preorders. On the "sell" side, it has a highly variable mix of project owners. Some are doing presales. Some are seeking funding for proof-of-concept. Some are seeking seed money. Some (seem to) have finished products, and are evidently using Kickstarter as a marketing tool. Etc.

The challenge is that you have a fairly homogenous use case on the buy side, and a heterogeneous use case on the input side. Adding to this challenge is the fact that the use case most "buyers" seem to be gravitating toward is directly at odds with the use case Kickstarter wants to encourage on the input/"sell" side.

Now, my recommendation stems from my assessment of the problem. I may be wrong. But to me, when I see a lot of variance on the sell side of a market, and considerably less variance on the buy side, I tend to think the solution involves bucketing, or categorizing, the different product types on the sell side. The goal is to create some sort of homogenous subsets of what is currently a very messy, variable master set.

Let me preface by saying that I'm by no means a Kickstarter expert.

I think Kickstarter is fully focused on creative projects that do actually create things. Each project has to have a clear end point and well-defined creation. It definitely isn't made to clear out old inventory -- so in that sense, it isn't a store, but for those of us that need resources and scale to manufacture a product, it is hugely important, and a lot of their focus.

I do think there are a lot of ideas like categorization and tiering that could help people better understand Kickstarter, and I think they'll continue to refine the concept, of course.

> I do think there are a lot of ideas like categorization and tiering that could help people better understand Kickstarter, and I think they'll continue to refine the concept, of course.

I think that tiering may help, though I don't have the variety of experience to suggest a set of tiers, and I suspect KS devs don't either. I would suggest to Kickstarter that, now that they have a few years' worth of data, mine it and figure out those tiers. Also, start actively going through failed projects and figuring out why they failed, and release that information to the public: you have inertia now; telling people that projects fail after funding is not going to stop them from contributing to ideas they're enthusiastic about.

I don't think that "From Holden" campaign is either of the user behaviors you describe, though I agree that the tendency seems to be moving from crowd-funding to pre-ordering.

The "From Holden" campaign seems to be more about market testing and broadening their reach. With the amount of work they'd already done, they had a product they were ready to start selling and could have set up an on-line store from day one. The low target ($5000) basically guaranteed they could run off 500 or 1000 units and move them out the door immediately.

Since most of us could throw that amount on our credit cards with ease, the only rational reason to run the kick-starter campaign was to make sure the product was wanted before committing to production.

I'm not saying this is all bad ... in fact it's way better than the campaigns with cool ideas but backed by founders with no idea how to deliver. I guess what I'm really saying is that there are more than two reasons for kick-starting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com