I'm serious about the offer to visit our office. We know Kickstarters have a bad rap for vaporware that takes forever to deliver. You can visit and play with our working prototype. You can try our software beta on your Android phone. And if you're in Shenzhen next week, you and I can kick it at one of the CMs we're looking at (currently in Shanghai myself).
I think one of the reasons for the reputation is that in order to attract funding, the price has to be highly competitive and the features have to be remarkable and it's hard to one, let alone both with hardware [with software the price is easier because free to use is possible since revenue can come from advertising and data sales and subscriptions].
I think another reason for the reputation is that crowdfunding is often a necessity when there is a lack of sufficient capital to carry out the project to completion. For hardware, with long lead times and multi-level supply chains lack of sufficient upfront working capital. The attractiveness of crowdfunding when faced with working capital shortfalls means that projects likely to run out of money are more likely to wind up with overly optimistic pre-sales pitches on crowdfunding sites.
Which leads to my question: Since crowdfunders are investors, is there a place where prospective investors can see the full company financials including cash on hand, operating expenses, accounts payable, receivables, and all the other documents that due diligence would suggest?
The basic premise here that crowdfunders are investors is wrong. They're idea backers - people that are willing to donate money to see great ideas come to life. Kickstarter says this themselves, and it's a little strange to make the jump that a backer == and investor. Wouldn't you agree?
I think the reputation stems primarily from crowdfunders ultimately receiving less than was expected earlier when the money changed hands. So I think "investor" might be overly generous for crowdfunding projects where the sales pitches that are structured like advertisements for consumer products.
That's not to say that there are not crowdfunders who are having fun funding projects while recognizing there is little or no chance of delivery. What I am saying is that the reputation comes from people without that view of the world.
All that with the caveat that my definition of 'donate' appears to have a different connotation.
As someone who has been burned on about 50% of Kickstarters, I find it totally underwhelming. There's a 50% chance I save like 20%, and a 50% chance I lose 100%. Bad expected value for sure.
Your making an effort to combat that perception is a good move.
Thanks Matt. Totally get it. I think because Kickstarter starts feeling like a store, its easy to forget the situation of the campaigners: super early on, having invested their own funds to come up with a prototype that they're now crowdfunding to come to life. Thinking about it in terms of expected value, Kickstarter never makes sense. Thinking about it in terms of providing an incremental X% chance that something cool will succeed and come to life is I think a much more realistic representation of what Kickstarter provides.
You're right. And I think it feels that way for inexpensive items. If I put $30 into a board game and it never gets made, oh well.
But if I buy a $300 smart lock and it never ships or it ships to me a year later and is so poorly-designed as to be completely useless, it starts to feel like a really bad store.
I think if it feels to backers like a store, it'd be nice if Kickstarter and the people who put projects up treat it like one too.
I'm a big fan of this idea. We have a lot of active Andromium users in India. We are really liking the idea of going to market after Kickstarter to India.
