We ran a Kickstarter campaign last year and we specifically wanted the All or Nothing model because our campaign made promises - and we only wanted to be held to those promises if we had a certain level of interest.
At first glance this made sense but after a second read it doesn't.
> 3) Creators who choose all or nothing are more committed to the project, the raise, and the process. Keep what you raise often attracts dabblers.
I feel this one needs more evidence to back up the claim. I'm sure there are plenty of serious teams who are just as committed on either approach. Just because someone put a number on something doesn't mean they can actually deliver if they hit that goal.
> 4) All or nothing raises more money. The amount of money that is raised every year in crowdfunding via the all or nothing model dwarfs the amount of money that is raised in the keep what you raise model, except in the charitable giving category.
That may be little more than a function of Kickstarter being larger than the others. Not really a helpful datapoint if you're trying to compare the the two approaches.
> A founder can’t go out to raise $5mm and then say to the investors “well we only got $2mm of capital committed, but we are going to close on that next week.” That just doesn’t fly
Isn't this exactly what happens in a 'party round' or a rolling close? We may never know what the the founders were trying to raise, since they'd close at 2MM and announce it as a success. I'm aware that I'm comparing Angel to VC here but my point is that some investors are ok with approach.
i'm not sure the comparison to vc is valid either.
I've heard of people starting kickstarter campaigns who specify a lower-than-needed amount in order to gain momentum that comes from successfully passing the funding mark. However, if they didn't get to an unspecified, possibly more realistic ( and larger ) funding amount they would cancel the project. clever hack!
3 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 17.2 ms ] thread> 3) Creators who choose all or nothing are more committed to the project, the raise, and the process. Keep what you raise often attracts dabblers.
I feel this one needs more evidence to back up the claim. I'm sure there are plenty of serious teams who are just as committed on either approach. Just because someone put a number on something doesn't mean they can actually deliver if they hit that goal.
> 4) All or nothing raises more money. The amount of money that is raised every year in crowdfunding via the all or nothing model dwarfs the amount of money that is raised in the keep what you raise model, except in the charitable giving category.
That may be little more than a function of Kickstarter being larger than the others. Not really a helpful datapoint if you're trying to compare the the two approaches.
> A founder can’t go out to raise $5mm and then say to the investors “well we only got $2mm of capital committed, but we are going to close on that next week.” That just doesn’t fly
Isn't this exactly what happens in a 'party round' or a rolling close? We may never know what the the founders were trying to raise, since they'd close at 2MM and announce it as a success. I'm aware that I'm comparing Angel to VC here but my point is that some investors are ok with approach.
Oh, and the ending is unnecessarily insulting.
I've heard of people starting kickstarter campaigns who specify a lower-than-needed amount in order to gain momentum that comes from successfully passing the funding mark. However, if they didn't get to an unspecified, possibly more realistic ( and larger ) funding amount they would cancel the project. clever hack!
not sure the same this can/is done in vc..?