Kickstarter Says No Changes Coming to Funding Policy

Kickstarter Says No Changes Coming to Funding Policy

image

Kickstarter says its "all-or-nothing" funding policy is necessary to protect both creators and their backers.

The failure of the Alpha Colony Kickstarter, which missed its $50,000 funding goal by $28 and therefore ended up with nothing, was a sad tale, although in the big picture it was apparently more good news than bad. Even so, it led to some discussion about the nature of Kickstarter goals, and whether its policies should be a little more flexible for projects that come so tantalizingly close to their targets.

But Kickstarter says no. For one thing, allowing projects to be "successfully funded" with less than their target amount puts an added strain on the creator, who may have to honor backer rewards with less money than planned. The policy also protects backers, who pledge to support a project on the assumption that it will receive a certain minimum of funding and therefore have a reasonable shot at success.

There's even an emotional component to it. "It creates this narrative arc," a Kickstarter rep told Gamasutra. "People get sort of emotionally invested in this idea. If you're approaching the deadline, and you're short, people rally behind it. It's almost like a gamification."

The rep also pointed out that even if a Kickstarter fails, it still helps build a community around the project and provides experience that can be used in a future kick at the crowdfunding can, either on Kickstarter or elsewhere. "It's not like you're walking away with nothing," the rep said.

This was actually Alpha Colony's second shot at Kickstarter, but it doesn't sound like it will be the last. In the most recent (and presumably last) update, DreamQuest Games founder Christopher Williamson advised supporters to follow the game on Facebook so they can be notified when it tries again.

Source: Gamasutra

Permalink

understandable. not to mention that in many cases the base goal for a project is not the actual intended base goal for the project, and then they would also have to setup "reasonable" standards if they were going to allow partial funding like:

giving all backers the option to opt out of their contribution, and then offering the same to the creator at the same time. noting that these opt outs would potentially have to be done in almost a time delay negotiation it just becomes preposterous quickly.

then also having to determine how short is just enough to "partially fund" a project: is it a fixed dollar amount, or is it a percentage of goal, and then what is the variance (if any) it just becomes a nightmare because we tend to forget, but there are more then just games on Kickstarter, and the base goals are supposed to be based on some possibility of success (even if it is still an arbitrary number that is lower then the actual wanted "low" arbitrary number)

Sooooo... who gets the money then?

LordLundar:
That's not how Kickstarter works. When you put money up, you're making a pledge. No money has been transferred until the goal is met. If the result falls short, all the pledges are wiped out and no money is transferred.

Oh alright then.

Good on them for sticking to the original way of doing things.

It is a sad tale, no question about that. But there has also been a lot of good ones. Dedication will eventually get them where they need to be if they keep trying. Kickstarter was never about picking favorites or pushing slightly for/against certain projects, that hardly seems fair. Even if they gave leash to projects who "almost got there", it would have only made a whole new group of projects who "almost got there" in accordance to the new line drawn. Nothing would be different.

DVS BSTrD:
Sooooo... who gets the money then?

That's not how Kickstarter works. When you put money up, you're making a pledge. No money has been transferred until the goal is met. If the result falls short, all the pledges are wiped out and no money is transferred.

Good call. Most of the Kickstarters I've looked at are trying to get much more than the stated goal anyway, which is why stretch goals exist. Getting even less than the minimum would serve no one at all(unless someone was trying to scam for free money, of course).

it was bound to happen, but darn thats so close. whats interesting is that the second attempt at kickstarter raised less than half the amount the first one did. if it continues like that its really unlikely it will every get funded on kickstarter

Don't get me wrong but if my project was mere 28 dollars short I would simply create an account and fund the last 30 dollars myself. Is that really so hard?

Also, let's kickstart an alternative to Kickstarter!

Anyone who would argue otherwise from this article doesn't understand the importance of reaching the goal. The idea is that they are asking for what they "need" to complete a project. You can't miss your mortgage payment by $28, you can't pay all but $28 of your phone bill. Why would this be any different. And it's the fact that the funding goal needs to be met in order to protect people from kickstarting fake projects just to steal money from people.

Quaxar:
Don't get me wrong but if my project was mere 28 dollars short I would simply create an account and fund the last 30 dollars myself. Is that really so hard?

Also, let's kickstart an alternative to Kickstarter!

You mean Rockethub? Or Lego Cuuso?

saintdane05:

Quaxar:
Don't get me wrong but if my project was mere 28 dollars short I would simply create an account and fund the last 30 dollars myself. Is that really so hard?

Also, let's kickstart an alternative to Kickstarter!

You mean Rockethub? Or Lego Cuuso?

Shutup, this is an original idea!
<.<
>.>

Quaxar:

saintdane05:

Quaxar:
Don't get me wrong but if my project was mere 28 dollars short I would simply create an account and fund the last 30 dollars myself. Is that really so hard?

Also, let's kickstart an alternative to Kickstarter!

You mean Rockethub? Or Lego Cuuso?

Shutup, this is an original idea!
<.<
>.>

Don't forget Indiegogo.

Quaxar:
Don't get me wrong but if my project was mere 28 dollars short I would simply create an account and fund the last 30 dollars myself. Is that really so hard?

Here's the thing, the Alpha Colony off by $28 story is overblown. They were actually off by about $900 dollars. With a few seconds remaining, someone added roughly $800 to their pledge leaving the project just shy of its goal by the infamous $28. It wasn't off by $28 for any length of time. There was no time left for any other backer to push it over the top.

I don't think anyone wants underfunded projects that are "close enough" to get their money, but maybe an optional couple hour time extension might be nice for projects that are within 5% of their goal. May prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

The thing about Alpha Colony is that on attempt #1 the goal was $500k, they got about $100k. On attempt #2 (this attempt), they asked for $50k with higher amounts for stretch goals, and got about $49k. If they made it to $50k, they would have actually gotten $100k due to an Arts grant and a private backer kicking in as long as they met their goal. So basically, they originally tried asking for their ideal amount of money and didn't get it, which is why the second attempt was at the more modest 'bare minimum' amount.

Absolutely fair of Kickstarter to stick to it's guns on this one. The article provides all the evidence you need to understand that it's the best way.

Why not stretch the deadline based on the level of funding progress? If a project isn't making its goal, let it close on time. But if it IS making the goal and just needs a bit more time, let it have the time. The amount is what's important to the funding of the project, not how exactly-to-the-minute-long it takes.

Kickstarter's reasoning sounds like - well, not like reasoning at all really, just some vague emotional perspective or something. But that's typical of them from what I've seen, they're essentially an impulse-purchase system, so their business model relies on emotional motivations.

What you need for a good campaign is good marketing. This Alpha thing did not have it.

w00tage:
Why not stretch the deadline based on the level of funding progress? If a project isn't making its goal, let it close on time. But if it IS making the goal and just needs a bit more time, let it have the time. The amount is what's important to the funding of the project, not how exactly-to-the-minute-long it takes.

Kickstarter's reasoning sounds like - well, not like reasoning at all really, just some vague emotional perspective or something. But that's typical of them from what I've seen, they're essentially an impulse-purchase system, so their business model relies on emotional motivations.

If they don't have the momentum, why drag it out. I understand the logic if the dollars were for something life saving, or without a project timeline, but kickstarter is also a way of showing interest. In this case, there were other stipulations to the $50K and timeline too. I could see if fo something where the dollars were the sale, but not the ground money.

There was more at stake than 28 dollars....I think they need some time to go over their plans and figure out their shit before they try again.

Considering how much potential money is batted around in some of the largest KS projects, they're right to justify a hardline stance.

While it's regrettable that Alpha Colony failed, there are plenty of other compelling projects that are meeting their targets with a healthy margin over their funding goal.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here