Currently there are at least 3 crowdfunding projects featuring multiple games, so I thought this might be a good opportunity to explore the pros and cons of that strategy.
Let’s start with brief profiles of these 3 projects, as well as a 4th project from a few years ago that offers additional insights:
Solani + The Girl Who Made the Stars
- $45,294 raised ($30,000 goal)
- 671 backers
- 2 games ($49 each; both for $95)
- Final Frontier Games
- currently live on Kickstarter
Factory Funner, Bear Raid, and Ghosts of Christmas
- $106,088 raised ($50,000 goal)
- 1,580 backers
- 3 games (one is $15 and the others are $34 each; all three for $69)
- BoardGameTables
- currently live on Kickstarter
Monster Invasion
- $8,978 raised ($5,000 goal)
- 135 backers
- 4 games (two are $25 each and the others are $40 each; all four for $89)
- Petersen Games
- currently live on Gamefound
Waters of Nereus/Cosmic Run: Regeneration
- $12,565 raised ($35,000 goal)
- 174 backers
- 2 games (one was $37 and the other was $42; both were $70)
- Dr. Finn’s Games
- was live on Kickstarter in 2018 (cancelled)
- As separate projects, Cosmic Run: Regeneration later funded for $26,230 and Waters of Nereus funded for $18,452.
Please keep in mind when comparing these projects–or any projects–that they are much more than a few numbers. There’s presentation, pricing, creator reach and history, themes, mechanisms, reviews, platforms…all of these variables and factors determine their success.
Overall, there’s mixed success among these projects, though I am impressed with the current funding for the first two.
Pros
- consolidated shipping: This is a win-win for both the creator and their backers. The cost per unit is lower if you can fill a 20′ or 40′ shipping container with games, and backers who order multiple games pay lower shipping fees than if they bought the games separately.
- bundle discount: By offering multiple games at a bundled discount, backers save on each game. If the price is right, the creator potentially sells more of each game this way.
- potential appearance of greater success: If a potential backer arrives at a project page to see $100k+ in funding thanks to multiple products, that can be a stronger signal of trust than $30k in funding.
- your time as a creator: As Seth mentions in the comments, it takes a lot of time and energy to run a campaign, so you can operate more efficiently by incorporating multiple products into the same project.
Importantly, please note that the first two benefits only apply if a backer orders multiple products.
Cons
Before I jump into this long list, I want to make it clear that I hope for nothing but the best for the projects I’ve highlighted today. These are good publishers run by good people, and they’re supported by good backers. The point of this post is to outline some considerations if you’re thinking about running a crowdfunding campaign for multiple products instead of one specific product.
- perception of casting a wide net: What would you rather have, a box of 10 games you kind of want or 1 game you really want? I think there’s a perception when a designer or a publisher is churning out games that they’re throwing a lot of stuff at a wall in the hopes that something sticks. This may not at all be true, but perception matters.
- dividing the spotlight: Perhaps this is my bias for how I run Stonemaier, but if we spend a lot of time and effort making a product we believe in, I want to showcase it and it alone. Disney doesn’t release different movies on the same day for a reason. By shining the spotlight on a single product, you convey to consumers how important that product is to you–there’s huge value added in doing so.
- quality over quantity: I don’t know about you, but there’s always at least a dozen unopened games on my shelf of opportunity. I’m not hurting for more games, but I am interested in great, unique, innovative games. This isn’t to say that all of the games featured in a multi-game project aren’t great, unique, and innovative, but when it feels like I’m only getting the best value if I buy several of them, I’m less likely to buy any of them.
- information overload: Unless it’s an insta-back project, researching any crowdfunding campaign that intrigues me is a bit daunting. It takes time to look through the project page to learn what’s in the game, what makes it special, consume some reviews, etc. And that’s for ONE product. When I see that I need to go through that process for multiple products–which these campaigns incentivize you to do, as you’re only benefiting from consolidated shipping and bundled discounts if you order everything–I’m inclined to move on.
- minimum order quantity paradox: To make most games, you need an MOQ of at least 1000 units. It’s quite possible that you could run a multi-game project where one game does great and another does very poorly, causing you to have a lot of extra copies of that game post-Kickstarter.
- lack of focus: As I wrote here, “every time you lose focus–whether it’s in your rewards, on your project page, in your updates, or elsewhere–you dilute your primary objective.” For any project, you get around 5 seconds to entire a potential backer to learn more. If they can’t figure out the core focus of the project in 5 seconds, they’ll move on.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the cons far outweigh the pros for multi-product crowdfunding campaigns. I think a better way is to run multiple campaigns, one per product, and use a pledge manager to let backers consolidate shipping and apply a discount for repeat backers. What do you think?
***
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content!
20 Comments on “Multi-Product Campaigns: Are They Successful? (KS Lesson #277)”
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.
Here’s some more data to consider regarding small box / cheap / filler games:
Oink Games:
Money Raised: $162,606
Backers: 1741
Games: 3 ($20 each)
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/oinkgames/new-oink-games-projects-2021
BGT.com Games:
Money Raised: $384,985
Backers: 9,772 backers
Games: 3 ($15 each, $39 bundled)
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/boardgametables/gps-sequoia-and-mountain-goats
I fully agree with your points as a general rule! Yet I feel there may be at least one exception where the pros outweigh the cons: small box or “filler” games.
Three past examples of this would include BoardGameTables’ GPS, Mountain Goats, and Sequoia; Button Shy’s recent bundle; and Oink Games’ recent bundle.
If you look at filler games on Kickstarter, they tend to have fairly low crowdfunding support due to less hooks (less fancy components, smaller production budgets, less artwork, etc.) and a harder to swallow shipping cost. In general, these types of games are much better suited for direct to retail distribution. But for an indie publisher who doesn’t have a foot in the door with retail, that’s another story.
As we prepared our small box card game for Kickstarter, we realized that our campaign could make a bigger splash and provide a much better value (shipping and all) if it were bundled with one or two more excellent filler designs. Of course, we couldn’t conjure two more of our own designs out of thin air, so we turned to external designers and our search led us to Reiner Knizia.
He presented to us two designs that fit perfectly within our bundle of unique 20-minute games that can be taught in roughly 1 minute. We have a single artist who will provide a consistent art style across three games that will have the same sized box and cards.
Time will tell whether this theory works out, but we’re excited to launch this Kickstarter campaign later this year!
https://bitewinggames.com
These are great points. People that like filler games are still wanting to expand their collection numbers would love this. A few of the cons that would apply to medium-heavy weight gamers with loads of unplayed games may not apply to other types of gamers, especially those staring to grow their collection.
P.S. I don’t see the name of your game in text on your webpage. I think it’s the name shown on the the card graphic. It might not be worthwhile keeping that name. It’s negative meaning is probably more well known that it’s positive meaning. White Wizard Games is an innocent name as it refers to the robe color, but they still changed their name. Posting the name of your game on social media might also cause the post to get flagged for review. Congrats on publishing a Knizia game. Good luck with the campaign.
You must be referring to Social Grooming. The title has never been flagged when we’ve used it on social media, so I don’t foresee that being an issue. We did consider how it might be taken out of context, but the more common negative connotation is surrounding the term “grooming.”
“Social Grooming” is still primarily understood as referring to animals cleaning each other’s fur, such as monkeys. And when the title is paired with monkey art, it’s immediately apparent what the game is and isn’t about.
Thanks for the well wishes!
There is also the term “Social Media Grooming”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52841358
Just something to be aware. Maybe it’s not a negative connotation problem in this case.
Another super successful one by Oink games ran concurrently during my own Kickstarter. They were everywhere I went lol
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/oinkgames/new-oink-games-projects-2021
I’ve tuned out these particular crowd funded campaigns because it’s just too much. I have backed multi-game campaigns in the past though: the board game tables: mountain goat, gps, and sequoia Kickstarter and Thundergryph’s matchbox set. Those I backed because they felt like lighter, filler games. I only wanted two of the three boardgame tables’ games. But the cost difference seemed negligible and I did like the third game more than I thought I would. The matchbox games were only sold as a set. I haven’t played all of them, yet. I do think having 5 games may have hurt their ability to focus. The rules pamphlets seem lacking compared to other Thundergryph games.
For Monster Invasion – I don’t think the problem is the multi-game scheme. Petersen Games can sell a game. I feel the problem for them is unfamiliarity with the new Gamefound platform. I followed the campaign pre-launch just like I do with Kickstarter campaigns but they haven’t updated so nothing shows up in my mail box and I forget it even exists day to day. Lucky Duck and Robison Crusoe did frequent updates typical of crowdfunding platforms but Monster Invasion just seems like a stagnating pre-order side store. One feature I haven’t seen on Gamefound is a way to monitor everything I am following or backing like on Kickstarter where I can check my ‘saves’ and see funding, days left, etc. I believe the assumption might have been on Peterson’s part that people will head on over and ‘pre-order’ right away as soon as the campaign opened but I for one frequently don’t back on Kickstarter until the last few days of a campaign unless there is some extremely worthy early bird reason. I like to check funding vs goal as a yardstick to back especially first time out and indie projects and also there might be several games ending near to each other with a fixed monthly Kickstarter budget on my end I sort of decide between projects during those last few days. I honestly was interested in two of the Petersen games pre-launch and was going to do a little poking around about them when the time came but honestly unless I remind myself to they just hover in a silent void and projects actually reminding me with a little shoulder tap of potential interest will probably win the day
I think you make some excellent points here, Hai–I hope Petersen and Gamefound read your comment! :)
Dinosaur World is one such project that was very successful. It probably helped that it was sort of a sequel to a well received game already. They also focused on one game more than the other.
When I saw the first Kickstarter I considering backing for Solani, but I wasn’t as interested in their other game, The Girl Who Made the Stars. However because it was a duo Kickstarter I actually thought of the pro of consolidated shipping and a bundle discount and ultimately decided not to back either game because I was only interested in one of them. I’m not sure if this would be considered a con for most people, but it definitely was for me.
Very interesting. Without realizing it, I think I passed on backing the factory funner campaign for the reasons you specify. Factory funner was the only game of the three that I was interested in but I passed on it as I think I felt I was missing out by not ordering the other games as well. Hoping to see it in retail.
Would strongly agree with the cons you noted. Between Kickstarter and the broader availability of so many quality games over the past few years, I really need something to grab me to want to back it.
However, I have taken advantage of a few campaigns that leverage pledge managers to add other products to consolidate shipping. If the company has the logistical bandwidth to support it, I always appreciate this. Typically that has been to pickup a previous release, but would be interesting to see someone try this on a concurrent project.
Would that potentially create some chaos from a funding perspective? For example, if you run concurrent campaigns for project A & B. What if a lot of people opted to back project A, and add the game from project B via pledge manager (rather than backing it directly), isn’t it possible to either underfund, or not meet stretch goals on project A?
That’s an interesting question. I doubt that Kickstarter would allow simultaneous projects, and backers might suspect shenanigans if you run one on Kickstarter and the other on Gamefound at the same time (even if you explain the intention).
Hey Jamie! Thanks for the article, and for highlighting Solani + The Girl Who Made the Stars.
We decided to launch as a 2-game kickstarter for a variety of reasons, including the ones you outlined above.
The games are similar enough in theme and mechanisms that we felt as though offering them at separate times would lead to confusion, or a feeling of “just pick the better one, which is probably the newer one”.
We are also using these games as Flagship titles to launch an entirely new series of games, figuring that launching them at the same time as a mission statement of purpose, and an announcement of the Pillars of Creation series as a whole would help give credibility to the idea that we are committed to making this line of games a success.
Additionally, these games are a step outside of our usual comfort zone, they are semi-abstract, and don’t particularly hold up well to a ton of additional content, expansions, and products sold as add-ons in the pledge manager.
Finally, we thought that either game by itself doesn’t fit the model of “kickstarter bait” like some of our other titles have. This means that there are less overall planned stretch goals, and we can safely divide them between the two games.
Thundergryph’s Matchbox collection raised 320k, and CMON’s animation collection did 740k, which are a few more campaigns of this type which did pretty well.
I do see and agree with many of your cons, we just ultimately had to make our decision because we thought it gave this series of games the best chance of succeeding and making a splash.
-regards, Drake
Drake: Thanks for sharing your perspective! I’m glad to see that you’ve already reached and exceeded your goal after only a few days.
Nice to hear your perspective on this. I initially also felt strongly against this idea, but you’ve made me think twice. And I like thinking twice 👍
I agree. “Perception of casting a wide net” and “Information overload” is why I personally won’t even give 5 seconds to open a link to such a campaign. However, from reading your numbers above it seems like it might be successful for games that may never fund by themselves.
I think the biggest Pro that you are missing, is not needing to run multiple kickstarters. In general I agree that it is better to do separate kickstarters. Yet some small publishers might not have the bandwidth to do that. It would take significantly more work to do 3 separate than do 3 in 1. To me time is a big factor for those with limited bandwidth.
That’s such a good point I’m going to add it now! :)