Saw this yesterday, and while I agree on some level, Kickstarter isn’t Wal-Mart. I 100% disagree, with this reasoning
“Strickler thinks that paying too much attention to deadlines draws focus away from where it belongs: on the “journey” to launching a new creation.
“When we go see a movie, we don’t think about how long the post-production took,” he says. “We don’t look at the Sistine Chapel and think, ‘This took four years,’ or however long it took.” “
The reason that comparison doesn’t work for me, is that when I’m watching a movie, i didn’t buy the ticket when it was a script. If kickstarter would like to not take my money until the creators deliver, that’s ok. I’ll wait another year for the (still no ETA) Present I backed a year ago. I’m happy to help someone on “the journey” maybe kickstarter can back the journey and collect money at the destination, if the journey is what’s more important to them?
If i had paid to build the sistine, you bet I’d be watching my sun dial. I’m sure the backers where back then, or possibly it was built with realistic deadlines.
The article has an interesting graphic outlining the most popular and most late shipping projects. I’ve backed a few on the list.
I understand and have talked about it before that, when you think you’ll be building 5,000 of something, and now have backers for 75,000 that’s a different manufacturing plan than you had. You have to start over. It’s both a great and a terrible problem to have I imagine.
What’s the answer? I wish I knew. I also wish Kickstarter took a less Blasse approach to it. My backing of projects has significantly decreased this year despite awesome projects being present. I look at a project, add 6 months to a year to the ship date, and almost always, that makes it something I’m not interested in. Or at least willing to wait and buy it in the store if it makes it that far.