Zach Braff Responds to Kickstarter Critics [video] | Hacker News Reader

Zach Braff Responds to Kickstarter Critics [video]

mashable.com

54 pointswhy-el40 comments

I don't see people complaining about all the video games they have kickstarted to get whatever 1995 Cult Hit Part 4 made by an established well known developer from that era. Why does it have to be different for movies.

There were complaints/questions about Richard Garriott's project, but none as high-profile as this current criticism of Zach Braff.

Because most people actually received a game at the end.

Because people who contributed got the game. people who put money in his movie get nothing.

Seriously? They don't get a DVD or download link or movie pass? What do they get? A warm fuzzy feeling that they gave money?

He explains in this video that he will be posting behind the scenes content regularly over the new 18 months. That's what people get by funding the project. He seems serious about posting a lot of content and it sounds like it's one of the major reasons he did the Kickstarter.

The kickstarter isn't really about making money, or about getting a film "made". It's about connecting to fans, and I think it's working just fine.

I think it is about making money but you are right about connecting with fans. Its an added layer above the funding.

Couldn't you connect with fans equally well with some kind of "likestarter" campaign where you say "we'll only make the movie if we get 100,000 likes on Facebook"? That wouldn't shift financial risk to the fans.

I laughed at the idea that a "Like" is equated to connecting with brands; only FB can really think that. It's cheap, shallow, and an extremely poor signal. I bet your every startup here can tell you they have walked into hundreds of sales offices; the buyer loved their product and how it could do this and this and that; but you didn't ask t hem if they would BUY it and they won't when you come back after building it. Not that the same would follow in the case of Braff's endeavor.

Financial risk!? I bet the risk is higher you incur a medical bill just thinking about how up in arms folks are about fans being able to donate direct to Braff -- the artist -- AND probably being delivered half a dozen goodies.

What financial risk, exactly? There's no upside to this transaction . It's almost a straight donation save for the perks.

Even without the perks, the basic idea is that you pay money to allow someone to make something that you want made, so there's still the risk that it isn't completed or differs from what you were promised.

I think you've confused Kickstarter for Twitter.

I think some people fail to see that big projects like that can change the target audience of Kickstarter. Yeah it bring more people, but these people went on Kickstarter for this big movie from Zach Braff, not for indie projects. It show to the big company that Kickstarter is a good option to start project and if more of them do that, then they will dilute the content. It's for the same reason Hacker News doesn't accept news about other subjects.

However I love that big project like that start to give consumer the ability to "control" what is produced. Now at least we can show them directly that a project or an idea is good/wrong. I just don't think that Kickstarter is the place to do that (they could easily use one of these Kickstarter-like script that you can install on your own website, they would even save some fees that way).

if Kickstarter pivots (purposefully or not) to support brand name / BigCo projects, that'll just open up a market for someone else to come in as Kickstarter Classic.

Why? They may grow their customer base by bringing on bigger projects, but how would that alienate the customers who are already using it?

Because Kickstarter is also a platform for discovery. If large corporate projects, which can certainly be funded otherwise, start crowding the site, this means that the smaller projects that can really benefit from Kickstarter for funding might not get the attention they deserve.

It happened with eBay: established sellers crowded out smaller and casual sellers in all but the most niche categories. This may not happen in Kickstarter, where the projects aren't fungible, but the precedent exists.

These are still early days; big projects are still bringing in fresh backers, and the small projects are benefiting from this traffic. What Kickstarter will look like in ten years is impossible to predict right now.

eBay pissed off their customers by prioritizing large ecommerce operations over independent sellers.

IndieGoGo and other alternatives to Kickstarter do exist.

The same argument could be made that it opens Kickstarter up to the mainstream and can help get more eyeballs on the other smaller projects.

I think it'd be interesting if Kickstarter projects were required to (or maybe strongly encouraged to) donate a percentage of their earnings to another project(s) on the site. Making these percentages visible to users would be interesting as well; smaller projects might get some extra visibility from larger projects like Mr. Braff's.

This would be really onerous for small projects that are barely making ends meet. They already have enough trouble budgeting as is.

well, maybe for projects that cross their goal, the surplus can be partially and optionally passed forward

That's already the case, isn't it? If somebody who's running a Kickstarter is concerned about holes being burnt in their pockets, they already have the option of donating some of their money to another Kickstarter, don't they?

I think this is what most people are really afraid of. They want kickstarter to be this small, odd thing that few people know about but they think is cool. By opening kickstarter to the mainstream, their cool, hip "mission district" is being gentrified.

In case that transition caught anyone off-guard, this same pattern is seen over and over in otherwise unconnected things. Punk was cool, before it went mainstream. SoMa was cool, before it was swallowed by condos. Facebook was cool, before my mom started using it. etc.

This is a good thing. People are constantly telling the big media companies, musicians, film studios etc. that they need a new business model - maybe this is it.

This big movie from Zach Braff is an indie project. This isn't just semantics - the whole point of it is that Braff wants to maintain creative control, which requires being independent of the major studios.

What people are miffed about is that he has the money to fund it himself and be even more independant. A complete failure would still leave him enough money to buy a penthouse in NYC. So if this project is so dear to him, why does he need to ask his fans to bear the financial risk?

> What people are miffed about is that he has the money to fund it himself and be even more independant

but, as he said on the interview, e is putting a lot of his money on it (and pre-sale money too).

And as he said on reddit[1][2], he has less money than you think he has.

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1d02a2/help_zach_bra... [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1d02a2/help_zach_bra...

The only way a complete failure would leave him with enough money for a penthouse in NYC is if he were to make the movie Producers-style for $100k and keep the rest. I don't think that will happen, I think it's far more likely that all $2mm plus whatever money he and others are putting up will all be spent on the film.

No, the idea was that his personal fortune minus the entire cost of making this movie would still be sufficient, i.e. funding it himself and failing completely would still not bankrupt him.

So he's claimed the numbers being circulated concerning his wealth are exaggerated and I wouldn't expect him to tell us the correct ones, but one thing I would expect is that if he says he's putting "a lot" of his own money into this project, to also say how much exactly that is.

Okay, I see what you mean there. I thought people were suggesting that the $2mm in kickstarter money was enough to buy a fancy place to live. Yes, sure it would but it's getting spent to make the movie.

Considering how many people have spent their personal fortunes on something they were passionate about and ended up bankrupt dying penniless, it seems prudent to not put a personal fortune at stake.

Furthermore it sounds like he's going to give people their $10 or $25 or whatever's worth so it's not as though they're straight up donating. They're getting the behind the scenes and directors commentary before the movie is even done.

I don't think you have to worry about shifts in crowds because when I started visiting kickstarter, I was funding art shows for painters and strange performance art. I still mostly fund small ( < 2000 dollar) art projects regardless of the fact that kickstarter is full of consumer products and iphone accessories.

It's not a zero sum game. People fund what they personally see value in.

I still don't understand why people who like kickstarter only want to see it flounder around with tiny nearly meaningless campaigns and never get anywhere. It's like a bunch of tech hipsters who don't want them to sell out.

The 'fans' angle is just a marketing bullet point used to seduce people into backing the project. I don't have a problem with it, because IMO you get what you back, but let's not get ahead of ourselves by thinking Zach is in this for the fans.

I would have much more respect for him if he offered copies of the movie to backers, instead of asking them to back it so he can sell distribution rights. Make the fans your distributors. After all, they're paying for it.

It sounds like he'll do precisely that as soon as the changes to the law go into effect and he's legally able to.

Hmm, maybe Zach Braff will bring fans TO Kickstarter who then help grow the ecosystem. And every big success might just grow Kickstarter.

OTOH, do we want Kickstarter, like twitter, to be overrun by celebs?

Perhaps what really matters is what Kickstarter wants. Would be cool if they actually had a policy now that this is starting to happen.

i thought zack got all the money because he's a celebrity. like, he's cute, and all, and plays a funny guy on scrubs.

but...

but then i watched that mashable interview...

ends up he's paid his dues, and seems to have a clue too.

i've backed 2.5dozen projects before, but i went over and gave him $10 -- put him over $2.5million -- because, hey, i like people who pay their dues, and have a clue too...

good thing i have a girlfriend, so zack can "shift" all of that "financial risk" to me and my ten dollar contribution.

(some of you people need to listen to what you're saying. i'm just sayin'...)

-bowerbird

Reply on news.ycombinator.com