Compared to when you backed your first crowdfunding project, where would you say your confidence currently stands? Every creator is different, but when you have a particularly bad (or good) experience with a campaign, does it impact the lens through which you view other campaigns?
I recently learned of a publisher, Doomsday Robots, who has decided to make an official, public pledge that focuses on backer-centered principles. They’re seeking to implement the pledge on any campaign they run, and for the good of the crowdfunding eco-system, they’re calling on other publishers to do the same.
Here’s the pledge (big thanks to Bryn Smith for providing this and the graphic):
Doomsday Robots’ Call for Backer-Centered Crowdfunding Policies
Over the past several years crowdfunding has seen a precipitous loss of backer trust. Even those who were once avid fans of crowdfunded projects, are leaving the crowdfunding scene altogether due to continued disappointments.
It is Doomsday’s position that this loss of trust is driven not by the “entitlement” of backers, but rather discouraging behaviors by publishers, including but not limited to the following:
-
- High-pressure, FOMO inducing, sales tactics
- Cancellation of funded projects
- Misrepresenting shipping fees
- Huge delays without regular communication including ghosting backers
- Lack of transparency including intentionally misleading backers
- Treating backers’ concerns and questions contemptuously
- Misallocating funds including using backer money for other projects
- Delivering games to non-backers before backers
- Products not meeting the expectations set by the publisher
We do not believe that publishers are acting out of malice. Most were well-meaning creators who became overwhelmed by unprecedented challenges.
Regardless of their intentions, these behaviors degrade the crowdfunding experience for everyone, especially indie creators who, without backer trust, would never have the support needed to share their creations with the world.
We believe what has been lost is the essential vision of crowdfunding. Backers do not give money to fund the publisher’s company; they weren’t sold stock or an investment. Backers gave publishers money to participate as a team in the creation and realization of a product.
This loss of vision has caused publishers to change their view of backers from partner to disposable consumer which de-centers the backer experience and prioritizes profits.
It is Doomsday’s position that backers are the lifeblood of crowdfunding and they should be treated with the highest regard. If a publisher doesn’t wish to center backers in their decisions, they should not be crowdfunding.
Doomsday pledges and encourages other publishers to commit to backer-centered crowdfunding policies.
The following are a sample of these policies and Doomsday Robots’ pledge to backers:
-
- Backer funds will only be used for the project for which they are crowdfunded until general fulfillment (delivery) is complete.
- Product will not be available for sale by retailers or at conventions to non-backers until general fulfillment is complete.
- We will not censor criticism or frustration by backers (with the exception of abuse).
- We will accurately represent shipping costs – even if we choose to subsidize them.
- We will not create unrealistic funding goals. If the project funds, we will not cancel it later.
- We will provide monthly financial reports to backers to show exactly how their money is being allocated until general fulfillment is complete.
- We will provide no less than one progress update monthly to backers until general fulfillment is complete.
- We will never make the MSRP of our games lower than our equivalent pledge amount.
- We commit to include backers as partners in the process of creation, and not just pre-order customers.
Doomsday has made mistakes in the past and even contributed to some of the problems that we are calling out now.
This is a call for accountability to ourselves as much as it is for other publishers. Together we can improve the crowdfunding experience for everyone.
Finally, we want to thank all of those who have supported us in the past and especially over the last few challenging years. You have enabled us to bring our games to life and see the joy they bring to others.
For that we cannot share enough gratitude. It’s why we want to see a change for the better on behalf of all backers.
***
I really like the focus on personal accountability and transparency in this pledge. This is about a creator saying that backers come first. If this philosophy resonates with you, the Doomsday Robots newsletter signup form is here.
Another creator, Prometheus Labs, took this pledge to heart and posted a version of it on their website as well. Frank West of The City of Games has a great pledge too (I like his philosophy of asking every step of the way, “Am I doing this for me or for my backers?”). Later, FATboardgames also posted a pledge of their own.
Having read the pledge several times, there are a few things I might consider adding:
- A commitment to getting a product as close to production-ready as your budget allows before launching the crowdfunding campaign. Having a product that is only partially created is the source of several issues that Bryn outlines in this pledge.
- A commitment to viewing crowdfunding as a worldwide endeavor–that is, value and appreciate distant backers as much as backers in your country. This manifests in various ways (like using region-friendly shipping options), and I think it’s the default for many campaigns these days, but I still think it’s worth declaring.
- Retailers can be backers too, and I think retail backers should be allowed to sell the product upon receipt, just like any other backer. I understand that this is often confusing for individual backers, but transparency by the creator should help.
- I’m on the fence about this one, as I think creators of all shapes, sizes, and experience can use crowdfunding to serve backers at any time in their company lifespan, especially if they “commit to include backers as partners in the process of creation, and not just pre-order customers.” But if you really want to put backers first, I think there comes a day–for at least some products–that you simply make a product and then accept money for it instead of the other way around. This shifts the risk from the backer to the publisher. Again, I don’t think there’s an obligation for any publisher to do this, but there are ways to offer the excitement and value of a crowdfunding campaign without the huge gap in time between pledge payment and delivery.
What do you think about this pledge? What do you most appreciate about it, and is there anything you would add? Do you agree that your general trust in crowdfunding has decreased over time?
***
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.
31 Comments on “An Inspiring Publisher Pledge for Crowdfunding”
Leave a Comment
If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.
Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.
I’m not trying to say this an absolute truth, but my thoughts based on my limited knowledge and experience.
I think a big part of the problem can be explained by the following:
Kickstarter makes a profit out of commissions from successful projects; therefore it is in their interest to promote projects which are surpassing their funding goal.
When performing a search, funded projects will show close to the top of the list and the ones which are far from funding will be pushed down, making them effectively impossible to find (for a potential backer who doesn’t know about the project)
I think we all agree that Kickstarter is not a charity and has to make money. Nothing wrong with this concept, but maybe so in the way it’s applied, as this system creates a massive incentive to fund quickly and puts publishers (specially first timers) in a nearly impossible position.
Assuming the publisher went through the numbers and did their due diligence, the main options are either setting a low funding goal and produce the game at a loss in the hope of making a profit from retail (very difficult to do for first timers and small companies) or trying to reach the goal quickly and hope this snowballs into traction, but eventually having to cancel after getting ‘funded’ due to lack of funds (not illegal by any stretch of imagination, but dishonest towards backers)
Some projects by large publishers realistically need well over $100k just for a production run (moulds for minis are very expensive, apps can have no ceiling when it comes to costs, and large teams of highly skilled professionals obviously cost money, sometimes paid as commissions)
On top of this, there are some philosophical questions that would need answering.
What kind of projects belong to Kickstarter?
Small companies definitely benefit from the platform but, do large and established ones actually need to get ‘kickstarted’?
Why would an established creator/publisher with abundant funds and a really expensive product or a large IP use Kickstarter, other than as a pre-sales platform?
If Kickstarted is used as a pre-sales platform, what sort of rules and regulations should be in effect to prevent abusive commercial practices under the shield of the backer model?
Not saying right or wrong here.
Just saying all actors involved in this; Kickstarter, publishers and backers have responsibilities towards each other and should, ideally, take actions on their part to tackle the problems mentioned.
The pledge is a good starting point, but is far from solving the problem.
There are also questions of long-term vs short-term consequences for decisions. For Kickstarter, further pushing successful projects has clear short-term benefits – Kickstarter’s commission comes from every dollar pledged to successfully funded projects, so they miss out on dollars pledged to unfunded and cancelled projects, and dollars not pledged at all. So the earlier they can make the cut between projects that will fail to fund successfully, projects that will fund but not see much conversion from people browsing, and projects that will successfully convert views to pledges, and divide their promotion of projects accordingly (funnelling enough people to projects that might fund to get them over the line, burying the no-hopers, and promoting the big winners). There are also advantages to backers of being shown projects they’re more likely to be interested in, rather than having to filter through projects that don’t interest them in order to find ones they are interested in funding, so a good recommendation algorithm is going to help both of those sides. Obviously, for creators, what matters is whether their project gets enough support from Kickstarter and funding from backers to reach the (real) funding goal, and, in the short term, getting more potential backers sent their way, even if each is unlikely to back, is better, and whatever they can do to persuade potential backers to back, and Kickstarter to promote them is going to help.
Long-term, though, backers benefit from having a wide range of potentially interesting projects available to choose from, and being able to discover projects that, while not necessarily popular, are precisely what they didn’t know they wanted. Kickstarter benefits from having more potential backers and more projects for them to back (provided the backers don’t get spread so thin so that projects fail to fund). And creators benefit from having more potential backers willing to engage with Kickstarter rather than giving up on the whole process.
Of course, there are always going to be some people just in it to make a quick buck while the opportunity’s there, and if that trashes the system and makes it non-viable in the long run, that’s not their problem because they’ll just move on to reselling graphics cards to cryptominers or some other grift…
I am probably an outlier here, but honestly I am indifferent to this kind of “pledging.” It reminds me a little too much of political posturing. Just lots of vacant words, until actions actually back it up. A creator can say all of this stuff, but I won’t trust them any more or any less until they actually do it/don’t do it.
On the flipside, this kind of pledge only feeds into the backer entitlement problem. I am not a creator, but I am a super backer, and honestly the worst thing about crowdfunding isn’t getting a late pledge or even getting burned, it is the expectations my fellow backers have. A publisher that makes a pledge like this and misses even one line item is likely to be taken in front of the firing squad.
I’d say make this pledge as a company, hang it on the wall, refer to it often, let it guide you through the campaign, but that is for you. Being ethical doesn’t need to be publicly broadcast, or approved by the masses. As they say, BE the change you want to see.
I would much rather see this kind of thing being publicly adopted by the crowdfunding platforms themselves. A kind of BIll of Rights and Responsibilities for creators. Then the platforms can hold creators accountable for it. At the very least they could enforce the rules they already have. Kickstarter for example has a “regular update” policy, but never seems to actually hold creators to it. Of course there needs to be an equivalent one for Backers.
Yeah, this sort of pledging can be a bit performative – whether there is genuine intent to follow through, or just a cynical attempt to get a temporary reputation boost, it’s very easy to not follow through.
Which is the same problem you highlight with Kickstarter – having good policies undermined by a lack of enforcement. And the solution to that isn’t more policies; it’s enforcement of existing policies.
I disagree with the pledge on one point: the requirement to fulfil for backers before letting non-backers get the game.
Firstly, the timing of a convention is outside the publisher’s control. They can’t just choose to delay taking games to a convention by a month to let backers get their copies first; if they miss a major convention, then it’s a year before their next shot.
Secondly, retailer backers shouldn’t be held to a different standard than other backers (who are free to resell their copies on eBay as soon as they arrive). If they showed commitment by backing the project, they’re entitled to their copies too.
Thirdly, the world is a big place. Shipments to different places can get different delays, and I don’t see the point in sitting on a thousand copies of a game that are ready to distribute to backers and retailers in, say, the US, while you wait for another thousand to arrive and be ready for distribution in the EU.
What I would suggest as an alternative for this aspect of the pledge is: “fulfilment to backers will not be delayed by fulfilment to non-backers, retailers, etc”.
I may not speak for everyone, but what matters to me is not that I get my (special deluxe) copy of the game before anyone else (except other backers) but that my copy of the game isn’t delayed (except by sending copies to other backers).
I like the intention of the Pledge – it demonstrates integrity and accountability, which is what has been slipping away from Creators over the years.
While I agree with most all points of the pledge, as well as additional points brought up in the comments, I believe it all comes down to ONE simple principle: Consistent AUTHENTIC COMMUNICATION (first and foremost on the platform used to fund the project). When a creator commits to that, “success” is guaranteed regardless of marketing approach and campaign details.
[…] odds that just a day before the Kingdom come Deliverance campaign was shut down, Jamey Stegmaier wrote an article where he talks about the topic? He Gives an example of an awesome Publisher Pledge, that Doomsday […]
I thunk a huge issue is in both sides peyote are forgetting or learning what it is like to invest. Crowd finding in the board game scene has become more about a pre purchase vs investing to help bring something to life. The creator often is using the platform to simply pre sell a product or the investor feeling the sense of this being a purchase.
I think many of these values that doomsday had created are verry good for the scene, but a few of them encourage this mindset as well.
I’ve backed about 125 projects over the past few years, so I’m pretty familiar with Kickstarter. Nearly every response I had is already covered by other comments, except a couple things:
1) Once you have final (or near-final) samples, EVERY subsequent update should have new pictures. Even if it’s “We haven’t received anything new, so here are some new pictures of what we already have.” We backers want to stay excited about the project, and actually seeing it will keep us excited.
2) Kickstarter Updates should be the FIRST place updates are posted. Not your discord channel or your Facebook page. ESPECIALLY brand new sample images. You chose Kickstarter as your platform, so ALL of your backers use it. I don’t want 100 discord channels, and maybe I don’t use Facebook. But I use Kickstarter, and you *know* I use Kickstarter.
3) someone else already mentioned this, but it’s worth repeating – don’t give me an update that is ONLY an advert for another product. Always pair it with current project updates, and put the project updates BEFORE the advert. We get excited when we get that notification that there’s an update. We hate you (maybe not quite “hate”…) when we get excited for info and all you’re doing g is asking for more money on an unrelated product.
Great post, Jamey. I find your vision as a “regular backer with experience running crowdfunding projects” really interesting.
About the topic, I am a relatively new backer (my first backing was Frosthaven in May 2020), so I cannot talk, from personal experience, about the crowdfunding scene “of old”. I have been lucky not to back any project that got infamous for the troubles it had (even though I bought its final game in the second-hand market). But from my limited experience, I can point out a few other problematic things:
1 – Bad project planning and/or management: it is not unusual for a project to have initial time estimates proven wrong; this can happen in any kind of field in which there is a high risk of discrepancies between the initial vision and the final product. I am yet to see a CF project with decent scheduling or risk management. The ideal would be if the creator used a proven and established management methodology (like PMBOK or ISO 31000) but a first step could be just showing information on time estimations clearly and thoroughly, accompanied by the REASONING behind such estimates, and a plan on how and when they would be updated.
2 – “Pledge design”: sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what comes included in the pledge. What is the difference between pledge level A from pledge level B? Why should I choose pledge level C instead of pledge level D with add-on E? What is exactly included in stretch goals?
3 – Stretch goals: I sometimes feel that stretch goals are empty promises. I mean, they do not seem like significant additions to the product because the funding reached a new order of magnitude that allows it to be included. I mean, in a game with 200 cards, you tell me that if you raised 20k more you will add a set of 5 new cards?
4 – KS exclusives: This is usually the hardest for me to swallow. Some projects would not be possible by a self-funded retail cycle, like super deluxe-golden-coated-1:1-scale miniature games, but keeping the game card that depicts artwork with some resemblance to some TV/movies/board game review celebrity from the retail printings sounds more like feeding FOMO than a proper reward to the initial backers.
5 – Late pledges: there should be a reasonable reason for the backer to be “allowed in” to the funding after the campaign ended, otherwise it is not a funding campaign, it is concealed pre-sales. The creators should disclose the exact amounts raised via the campaign and via the pledge manager. Also, many projects can be pledged with $1, just to get access to the pledge manager. It seems silly. You are investing in a project, but your money won’t make a difference. I think it is more reasonable to allow anyone to do the late pledge if there is some significant drawback, like a worse price. But I maintain that late pledges for people who have not participated in the campaign should be called what they are: “pre-sales”.
6 – MINIATURES: I know this is too specific for a “commitment policy” like what was being proposed by doomsday, but everyone with some knowledge of the crowdfunding scene understands exactly what are the problems that I am referring to: bloated content, higher shipping prices, worse carbon footprint, etc. Some games benefit from having many plastic components (either miniatures or others), but the need to push unnecessary components (from gameplay or aesthetical standpoint) seems like the creator is trying to raise the final product price, and maybe juggling the profit margins or push a tie-in sale.
7 – ENVIRONMENT: I think our hobby should grow and please us more and more, as long as it does not involve hurt to society as a whole. So, the environmental commitments to the projects should be explicit, managed, and significant. This might also include the miniatures issue pointed out before, or any kind of use of plastic, non-reforested wood, etc., inefficient manufacturing and logistics, etc. The ideal would be if all projects could objectively present the environmental impact of everything that I buy/fund.
Thanks for your detailed comment, Alberto! I agree about clear rewards, and I’m also turned off by KS exclusives. You make an interesting point about “late pledges”, and I appreciate you bringing up the impact on the environment.
When it comes to $1 for pledge manager access, I can see more than one side to it:
– Some portion of people will pledge that dollar and then never upgrade to an actual pledge, and those dollars will add up.
– There will be people who genuinely want to contribute to the project, but for whom the timing of the financial commitment doesn’t work. It’s more inclusive to allow people who need to save up for it the opportunity to contribute than to limit it to people who happen to have disposable money during the funding window.
– Additional funds from pledge manager can contribute to reaching (real) stretch goals or other milestones, and provide a buffer against cost overruns.
– There are more ways to contribute to a project than just putting money toward it. $1 backers can still participate in the backer community and still make worthwhile suggestions.
For late pledges more generally, I’d turn the question around – why should there be an arbitrary cutoff to the funding and contribution to the project? Obviously, the initial funding needs to be collected at some point, but why stop people from continuing to add funding just because you’ve started spending some of it? Particularly for projects where there is a lengthy development phase between the initial funding and the start of manufacturing, the practical cut-off is when you order a production run of a particular size, not when you close the initial funding campaign.
That’s not to say I’m opposed to charging late backers a price closer to the final retail price, but it seems silly to say “you found out about this project a week too late; you can’t support its creation, and you won’t be able to purchase it until it goes to retail two years from now”.
I think the cutoff is important because a $1 isn’t a paid-for game. I’d be interested to know what percentage of $1 backers actually back the game in the pledge manager, and whether that is generally consistent across the board. If a stretch goal is something like, “Different art for each player board”, then that art has to be created. As a backer, I may not want the whole project delayed so some art can be created after the PM is closed. For some (many? most?) projects, allowing the PM to fulfill stretch goals would just exacerbate the problem of projects being months or years late.
As for “What if someone can’t afford it right now?” – well, they’re out of luck. If your local FLGS is having a sale, would you expect to be able to tell them, “Payday is in 7 days. Can I get the sale price then, even though the sale ends tomorrow?” What if you found out about the sale a week after it was over? You still wouldn’t expect to get the sale prices or special promos provided at the sale. A KS campaign isn’t really that different.
I might not expect them to still offer the sale price, but I would expect them to still sell me the game, rather than it not being available for a couple of years after the sale.
It also makes a big difference how much advance notice there is. If my FLGS offered a one-week sale with no warning, at some random time, I’d expect them to do a lot less business than if they’d advertised the sale for a few weeks in advance, or if they regularly held a sale at the same time every year.
As for stretch goals, a goal of “different art for each player board” carries two costs: the commissioning and creation of the artwork; and the additional steps in manufacture and assembly. The former has a much earlier deadline than the latter, and, depending on the project and the budget, it may be practical to commission the additional artwork (or the artwork may already be created for other purposes within the game and just need assigning to the player boards) without committing to actually producing them. And then there are stretch goals like “heavier cardstock” or “thicker cardboard for the box” or “replacing generic cubes with (already designed) custom markers” or “including an (already designed) in-box expansion” which don’t need to be decided until you’re locking down manufacturing prototypes. Managing stretch goals is an entire other topic.
I think this is great, and very welcome news to a community that needs it. Personally, I am liking Crowdfunding games less and less these days.
I’ve experienced the huge delays w/no updates (still don’t have that game). I’ve seen others purchasing games retail when backers haven’t received it. Crowdfunding exclusives that will never reach retail are more prevalent. Huge companies that make huge stacks of cash on their games using Crowdfunding (the sneaky pre-order). Maybe if all publishers vowed this pledge and actually stick to it, I would be more likely to change my opinion.
I’ve backed fewer than a dozen games, one of which turned out to be an over-produced Azul-sized box that should have been in a Crew- or Ten-sized box. Plus, the game was garbage (I rated it a 2 on BGG). I’ve learned that I’d much rather purchase or pre-order games from designers & publishers I know & trust to make quality products that I can get in a few weeks or even days.
“Over the past several years crowdfunding has seen a precipitous loss of backer trust. Even those who were once avid fans of crowdfunded projects, are leaving the crowdfunding scene altogether due to continued disappointments.”
is this actually true? or have there just been some high-profile failures? because while I’ve heard about some of these kerfuffles, I haven’t had any experiences in my personal backing that left me upset and I haven’t personally noticed a large-scale loss of trust.
I’m sure it depends which games/projects you’ve been backing.
I *have* seen an irritating number of entitled backers who can’t understand why the pandemic (or other large scale issues) might delay a project.
Matt: That’s a fair question, and I don’t know. I would be curious to see some data about that.
Unfortunately yes, some bad experiences have colored my view on crowdfunding.
1. Lack of communication about what is going on – I think everyone expects delays but for the project to be delayed and no particular reason ever stated or completely ghosting backers is ridiculous. Too many also used “well it’s COVID” as an excuse because other publishers navigated those waters just fine.
2. Creators misrepresenting how far along into the development process they are. I’ve had a couple do this – act like they are ready to send the game to the printers and a year or more later, still haven’t finalized things.
3. Others getting it before the backers. I understand shipping all those orders completely around the world takes time. I do get it. But it also feels bad to see others who went to WhateverCon getting and playing the game I backed WAY before me.
4. Re: “Toxic” comments sections- the ones I’ve seen go toxic are ones that have honestly deserved it due to the issues of point 1 and 2. Every other Kickstarter I’ve been on, delays happen and literally no one cares. Ok thanks for letting us know. The comments section that get hateful and have thousands of posts, yeah there’s a reason.
5. Kickstarters that aren’t much different than retail: there’s some companies that use it like a preorder and you MiGHT get an extra card or something so there’s not much incentive for me to join, I’ll wait til retail thanks.
The bad experiences and the mildly annoying experiences of point 3 and 5 have made me think twice about crowdfunding. I funded 13 projects in 2021. This year it’s been 3.
Thanks for sharing, Amy. The only point of yours that I disagree with is #5–whether I back a project now or buy it later, I don’t care if the product is different. I just want the best version of the product (even just the best version of the retail version of the product). I do appreciate when I pay a lower price for pledges or when there are some non-exclusive promos included, but overall I just appreciate the opportunity to lock in my pledge/order for something that looks awesome.
That said, I do think crowdfunding is a great opportunity to offer a deluxe version of the game next to a more standard version (again, as long as it isn’t exclusive, as I want publishers to have the opportunity to remake awesome stuff later if people want it).
I backed all sorts of games years ago, some ended up being good, others mediocre. I never really had my faith in the system shaken, to date I’ve only had one board game project fail to deliver, although they’re still promising they will as soon as they can.
My biggest issue comes down to the quality of the games themselves. For every Kickstarter game I’ve kept, there are probably ten I sold or donated. I decided that it’s almost always a better idea to wait for a general release of a game – the true gems generally get one, while the flash in the pan games fade away just as quickly as they arrive.
I am on board with all of this, except I doubt the real need for this one: “Product will not be available for sale by retailers or at conventions to non-backers until general fulfillment is complete.”
If the publisher is being sly about it, and ends up purposely delaying shipping or production of your rewards in order to get a big print run to stores weeks or months before fulfilling backers, that’s a problem, and should be avoided.
But having been involved as a Kickstarter creator on multiple board game projects and having backed quite a few, I think backers who get mad about this are usually just whiners.
Needing to have your probably discounted, KS perked-up game on your table before it’s available in retail form at the FLGS for a retail price is a combination of the FOMO being decried and a sense of entitlement we don’t want to encourage.
Conventions, holiday shopping deadlines, production delays, and the vagaries of shipping sometimes simply coalesce and the game ends up at Gen Con or Target a week before you get your copy. As long as the publisher is honest and communicates the reasons, get over it.
While I disagree with Dan about games being generally available at retail before being delivered to backers being acceptable, I strongly agree with games being available at a convention when fulfillment to all backers is close. I’ve had a campaign I backed do this and they clearly communicated that selling copies at GenCon was a financial opportunity that they just couldn’t afford to miss. If fulfillment is within a month or two then I think it’s perfectly acceptable.
I also think monthly financial reports is too frequent. If they are only committing to updates at least once per month then quarterly financial reports should be sufficient.
My perspective on this is as someone who only backs 2 different types of projects: most new content from companies I like and trust (of which there are a few) and expansions for games that have already released and are good. Otherwise it’s way too hard to judge the quality of a game that is months away from releasing, and previews of most crowdfunded products are overly kind because so many concerns can be addressed “later in production”. Only when it is finally at the review stage can press content really be accurately critical of the final product.
Great article. The biggest failure I keep repeatedly seeing is communication to backers. Especially with new publishers or projects, if there’s lack in communication, especialliy if it was told to backers there’d be regular updates, it really tarnishes their reputation for me on crowd funded projects.
That being said, what one publisher does never affects if I back another publisher. There’s some publishers that I’ve been backing for 5+ years now and have my complete trust. I don’t even expect regular updates from them anymore I trust them that much.
But the one thing I disagree with is the statement on getting the project as close to production as possible prior to launch. The core of crowd sourced projects is getting the funding for the project, not just production/distribution. I understand having a well put together project with some sample artwork and rules and/or videos, but if a new publisher is expected to have the game practically done, they’d need to fork out the time and money for artwork, samples, playtesting, etc. So I don’t mind if the funding goal of the project includes the designers’ pay for continuing to work and develop the last parts of the game. And I personally don’t think backers need to be involved in the project (I know some feel this way when they back a project), but I don’t mind if the project will take another half year of development.
And a last thought, I’ve personally backed out of campaigns that had a toxic crowd in comments/forums. It was unrelated to the project, but I felt if I was supporting the project, I was supporting those ideals/beliefs as well.
Ryan: I think you might be missing a few key words from my suggestion about preparing the product in advance: “A commitment to getting a product as close to production-ready as your budget allows before launching the crowdfunding campaign.”
“as your budget allows” is a crucially important part of that statement that I don’t think your response accounts for (basically, I agree with most of what you said, and I think what you said is encompassed in what I wrote in the article).
Ah yes, thanks for your response, I did miss those keywords. And in that case, I completely agree with that point!
I definitely appreciate the spirit of this! It certainly covers my main problems Ive had with a lot of campaigns:
– Unrealistic lead times. If its going to take 18 months, thats fine, we’re used to it. Dont tell me its going to be 6 (lol) and then give vague updates every 3 months past that eta.
– Ads dont count as updates. Im tired of publishers “updates” being a 2 sentence, frustratingly vague and obvious state of the current project followed by paragraphs upon paragraphs about other projects
– Trying to squeeze every penny out of backers. Seriously, Ive seen some campaign ask for upwards of $30 for a wash effect on their minis as an add-on.
– Shipping costs. This is the most egregious one Ive come across – seeing shipping costs get “updated” several times over a campaign is frustratingly common. I work in commercial sales – if shipping costs go up by a negligible amount, we usually eat it out of respect for the customer, if it goes up by such a margin we have no choice but to charge the customer, we explain the situation to the customer and do 2 things:
1. Try and split this cost with the customer rather than dumping it all on them (it was us who gave misleading info, after all.)
2. Be transparent as possible and give the option to cancel, rather than quietly up the cost and hope they wont notice.
The one part of this pledge I disagree with is the notion that its making all crowdfunding look bad. Theres definitely specific publishers who are on my “sh*t list” and I will not back, but being part of a well-run campaign is a lot of fun, and I will keep doing it for this experience.
As a side note – Ive noticed the larger the publisher, the less they adhere to these kind of ethical practices. Is that just me or is anyone else experiencing this?
Luke: I don’t know if it’s a matter of visibility or something else, but I agree that when I look through the list at the beginning of the pledge, the creators that come to mind are big publishers, not small creators.
I fully believe that over the past few years too much risk has moved from creators to backers. We should all be operating with a customer first approach and I’ll be doing a few things “the old way” on my upcoming campaign as I believe it’s how it should be done.
With that said, there is certainly a clear line between first time creators vs experienced creators, and also more traditional games vs more explorative games. I don’t think a single set of rules can be applied to everyone, but I would suggest when making decisions every creator considers:
Am I doing this for me or for my backers?
“Am I doing this for me or for my backers?” I think that’s an excellent question for creators to ask.
I love seeing your Backer Guarantee! Thank you for making crowdfunding more awesome.
https://thecityofkings.com/news/my-backer-guarantee/
My pleasure Bryn!