Well, after having numerous problems recently with a few different KS card projects, I thought it would be a good idea to summarize and get some thoughts on how we, as a community, might best proceed. I'm currently a back on at least 3 playing card projects which are late and looking unlikely to deliver.
This project was funded on 22 July 2012. The last update was on 16 February in which he claimed to have received the cards (and showed pics). He now claims (via ail with another backer) to be locked out of his KS account and to have started slowly shipping, although not one single person reports having received cards and there are no reports of them showing up "in the wild". I personally wrote to Kickstarter on this one and their response (note that they didn't respond to my first email so I had to send a second one);
Thanks for writing in and bringing this to our attention. We’re sorry to hear that this has been a frustrating experience, but unfortunately there’s not much I can do.
When you back a project you enter into an agreement with the project creator, as described in our terms of use (http://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use ... d_commerce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). This agreement establishes a legal requirement for creators to follow through on their projects, and gives backers a recourse if they don't. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.
While Kickstarter is the platform for this agreement, we are not a part of it. Kickstarter itself cannot force the creator to fulfill rewards, offer refunds, or communicate with backers (though we encourage them to do so). It's the creator's responsibility to complete their project as promised.
While issues like this are between the backer and creator, it's important that we're aware of these situations. We’ve made a note of this, and will take the status of this project into consideration if this creator submits another project.
For more on creator accountability, please take a look at our FAQ (http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kic ... asics#Acco" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).
So basically they are saying; we will only do something if he tries to do another project, but you are fck'd and on your own and thanks for the 5%.
The next problem child
I think are are all well aware of the problems with this one. Adam is not responding to any of my queries or emails and looks like he and Russell might have severed ties. He apparently has no consideration for his backers and I consider it unlikely we will see anything back from him on this one. There is a movement afoot to have him reported to the FBI, but I do think his state's Attorney General's office might be a better recourse.
and finally
This one is probably most interesting. The artist basically approached this company (Altius) because he could not create a project in his home country. Altius has now basically stated that a) the funds were "stolen" by a partner in the company and b) backers wouldn't receive anything until 2014 at the earliest. Luckily one of the backers is a lawyer and has gotten involved and there is a private conversation currently going on amongst several backers to take legal action.
The issues overall as I see them;
1. Kickstarter will take no action and tries to wash their hands once they have collected their 5%. Personally I think they are on shaky legal ground and at some point a lawsuit will be filed in which they are found to have some legal responsibility, but the current state is that they do not.
2. Unlike most projects, playing cards (especially those printed by the USPCC) are a tried and true path, with known costs and fulfillment. There are not the issues that other technology-based project might have.
3. Because the amounts in most cases are relatively small, getting the authorities involved is quite difficult and there really isn't a good precedent as of yet.
My feeling is that, as a community, we might find a way to put pressure on both Kickstarter as well as the USPCC to better protect us (the consumers). After all, USPCC is making quite a bit of money from the proliferation of custom decks as they are obviously the vendor of choice. As more of these projects fail and we stop backing them, they will obviously lose out on business. The same applies to Kickstarter, they make money off us these projects being created (and us backing them). The more that we join together and speak with a single voice, the better off we are as a community.
USPCC is not going to stop taking orders from people who they have no idea if they are going to delivering the cards or not. It really isn't their concern. Kickstarter on the other hand, are giving people a platform to sell their items and they are the ones who should prevent people from listing a new campaign if they have had major problems on their first one.
Stopping all the Kickstarter problems is simple, just stop backing projects and most decks won't get funded and if they do, the people who didn't back them won't have to worry about whether or not they will get their items. Most people are creating decks simply because they have seen how successful some decks have been and it is a very easy project to do. You don't have to find a supplier, create molds, make samples or worry about your manufacturing partner. USPCC makes it very simple to deal with the largest quality playing card manufacturer in the world. That is why you get people coming out of the woodwork to make a deck, it is so simple and just about anyone can do it.
Strag wrote: Personally I think they are on shaky legal ground and at some point a lawsuit will be filed in which they are found to have some legal responsibility, but the current state is that they do not.
And therein lies the major problem. Kickstarter is almost beginning to breed and encourage these unprofessional individuals and companies due to the their lack of desire to tackle previous problems, as for the above statement - I couldn't agree more, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see a lawsuit become big news.
BMPokerworld wrote: Kickstarter on the other hand, are giving people a platform to sell their item and they are the ones who should prevent people from listing a new campaign if they have had major problems on their first one.
Strag wrote: Personally I think they are on shaky legal ground and at some point a lawsuit will be filed in which they are found to have some legal responsibility, but the current state is that they do not.
And therein lies the major problem. Kickstarter is almost beginning to breed and encourage these unprofessional individuals and companies due to the their lack of desire to tackle previous problems, as for the above statement - I couldn't agree more, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see a lawsuit become big news.
BMPokerworld wrote: Kickstarter on the other hand, are giving people a platform to sell their item and they are the ones who should prevent people from listing a new campaign if they have had major problems on their first one.
It is very unlikely that people would win. Ebay has already been sued concerning delivery of product by third parties and those people were unsuccessful. In addition, I am sure in the terms and conditions everyone signs when they join, it says Kickstarter is not responsible and you are backing a project at your own risk. However, if they let known frauds continue with one failed project after another, then possibly, they could be held liable.
BMPokerworld wrote:I am sure in the terms and conditions everyone signs when they join, it says Kickstarter is not responsible and you are backing a project at your own risk. However, if they let known frauds continue with one failed project after another, then possibly, they could be held liable.
That is exactly the case in the TS and Cs, but that doesn't stop a legal challenge happening possibly in the future. The bosman ruling in EU sports is a good (if not much, much bigger) example of that.
EDIT - I appreciate that the Bosman Ruling and Kickstarter are not really comparable! Just to illustrate my point.
My feeling is that, as a community, we might find a way to put pressure on both Kickstarter as well as the USPCC to better protect us (the consumers). After all, USPCC is making quite a bit of money from the proliferation of custom decks as they are obviously the vendor of choice. As more of these projects fail and we stop backing them, they will obviously lose out on business. The same applies to Kickstarter, they make money off us these projects being created (and us backing them). The more that we join together and speak with a single voice, the better off we are as a community.
'
The flaw in this part is that in many (probably almost all) cases with these Kickstarter projects, USPCC really has no part of the process until the project is fully funded, as the person has no money of their own to put into the production. The timeline would be thus:
1. Person wants to do a card project. Probably talks to USPCC to get rough costs (which anyone can ask for)
2. Person designs cards enough to get some images for the Kickstarter
3. Person figures out their funding (or not) and sets up the campaign
4. Campaign completes and if funded, person gets money 7-14 days later
5. Person THEN sends 50% of the deck cost to USPCC and the project actually starts production
6. In 1-2 months, when the production is done the person send the other 50% and cards are delivered.
So, you can do a whole lot of stuff before USPCC has any actual part of the process.
Kickstarter makes it very easy to get started, and you can be a horrible planner, horrible artist, a lier, or a cheat but none of those things will become apparent until it's too late for the consumer.
Campaign completes and if funded, person gets money 7-14 days later
I am aware that this is what is stated in the Terms & Conditions when you sign up for Kickstarter and Amazon Payments and I know a lot of designers have thrown that out there as an excuse as to why they can't start getting the ball rolling right after the project is funded, but we got all of the funds that went through, about 5 minutes after the project ended.
In it, they answer a lot of our questions. Though, maybe not to our satisfaction
Lots of good information directly from Kickstarter.
Especially this section here:
Kickstarter wrote:Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This - https://ksr-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/cre ... bility.png - is what creators see before they launch.) We crafted these terms to create a legal requirement for creators to follow through on their projects, and to give backers a recourse if they don't. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.
One thing to remember though it that these are a small percentage of all of the KS playing card projects. For every one that turns out like this, many, many more don't, and people get their cards and are happy. I'm not for killing KS just because they don't take responsibility for the few failures. Should the Sunday newspaper reimburse you if you buy a car from an ad, but get scammed? I think about it the same way. There are scammers out there in every avenue of projects that have the potential to raise money. If people abandon cards on KS, then a lot of great projects may never get off of the ground, and great designers may never be encouraged to keep on, and potentially turn out that next great deck. It sucks to lose money, and it sucks to get scammed, but every single person experiences that at times. That's a fact of life. I've been lucky...I've backed many dozens of projects, most of them playing cards, and have never had a problem. At the rate I'm going, that luck will run out sooner rather than later, but I hate to think what great decks that I wouldn't have in my collection now if KS wasn't around. I personally discovered Encarded during the Tendril campaign, and I have gone on to order a truckload of decks and items from Paul as a direct result. While I may have run across his cards on my own at some point, that gave me the initial introduction to his talent, and gave me the desire to keep up with his designs and future releases. That's just one example. Just a different opinion to consider.
Strag - Nice post. Can I suggest maybe including these 3 "Unfulfilled Kickstarter Campaigns" to this post's menu: http://www.unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; like maybe under a new title. How many Kickstarters are out there that are successful and yet are not fulfilled yet? I don't know? As a community here, ppl would know real quick if they get their cards. Then you could put them in the "Competed Successful / Fulfilled" menu. Think about it. How many are you going to pledge again for Jackson's cards in June when he has not even fulfilled his first Kickstarter. Do you trust him? But I'm sure ppl would like to know he still has a pending fulfillment.
Here is an interesting article of someone who has actually sued a project creator and force them to claim bankruptcy. The article was written for INC. Magazine by Eric Markowitz
When Kickstarter Investors Want Their Money Back
As Neil Singh logged onto his computer one evening in March 2011 to research stands for his iPad, he never imagined he'd end up suing an entrepreneur he had never met--eventually forcing that entrepreneur into bankruptcy.
After surfing the Web for a bit, Singh, a Phoenix, Arizona insurance lawyer, inadvertently ended up on crowdfunding site Kickstarter. He stumbled onto a page promoting an iPad stand called the Hanfree. Singh wasn't familiar with Kickstarter's platform, but he liked what he saw on the screen: a stand with a flexible neck so its user could prop the iPad on any flat surface.
The page included photos of the product, and a sleek video showing the Hanfree propped in various spots around a loft apartment decorated with reclaimed wood credenzas and a designer wall clock. The language on the site appeared sanguine:
"For a $50 pledge you are pre-ordering Hanfree."
"Hanfree will be constructed from the highest quality materials and made in the United States."
"The limited edition Hanfree will be made in San Francisco out of sustainably forested alder, and will be numbered and signed by the designers."
The page included a picture of the early prototype and pictures of the Hanfree's creator, Seth Quest, a designer in San Francisco.
For less than a hundred bucks, Singh thought, why not?
"I didn't know anything about Kickstarter," he says. "I was a typical backer like anyone else. I came across this iPad stand. To me, it looked like a cool thing you could buy. 'If you give me $70, I'll send you one of them.' I didn't do any due diligence. I didn't think I had to. I'm not investing. I'm not doing the same sort of things a potential shareholder would do. I'm just buying a product."
The Hanfree case serves as an allegory for Kickstarter's growing pains as a crowdfunding platform, a largely new and unregulated world in which anyone with any idea--good or bad--can get paid to create it, largely without any vetting or approval process from the site itself. It forces the discussion of what Kickstarter owes to the people who use the service. And the case raises fundamental questions that go to the heart of what means to "crowdfund" in the first place, when there are no customers (just backers), no products (just projects), no business owners (just creators), and no payments (just pledges).
Since its inception, Kickstarter has focused its external messaging as a "funding platform for creative projects," but as more entrepreneurs begin to use the site to fund physical projects, just what constitutes a "project" has been thrown into question.
In Hanfree's case, Singh wasn't the only one who thought the product looked good. By May 11, 2011, the Hanfree reached its $10,000 goal, and then some. In total, Seth Quest, and his business partner, Juan Cespedes, raised $35,004 from 440 backers--an average of about $80 for each investor.
The celebration around the project's funding success, however, was short-lived. Once funded, Quest needed to build the stands, manufacture them, and ship them out to his backers. This quickly became problematic.
"They can tear you down if you fail."
Quest, a product designer by trade, had never started a company before. And he'd never manufactured a product. Weeks--then months--went by with no product and no update for the backers. Hanfree's Kickstarter page, with over 600 comments, became a sounding board for the frustration--and anger--of its most vocal backers, especially Neil Singh.
On August 2, 2011, nearly five months after Singh pledged his $70, Quest wrote: "As far as timeline goes, we are still negotiating with manufacturers and anticipate getting all of the parts to assemble Hanfree mid-October, and are setting a new target to ship November 1st."
November 1st came and went. "I would say it's time for a new update," one backer wrote.
Four weeks later, on Nov 28, 2011, Quest posted an update explaining that the Hanfree project had officially failed, and said he planned to offer refunds to backers.
It wasn't enough for Singh. Kickstarter's terms make it clear that project creators must "refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill." So when weeks passed without receiving one, Singh threatened a lawsuit.
Other backers, like Aza Summers, disagreed with Singh's approach. "Those on this thread who are treating Seth with such harsh judgments and threats of lawsuit (over a $50 or $100 pledge?!) are not the kind of people that I would expect to be the usual kickstarter [sic] backer type," Summers wrote. "It seems to me that Seth has acted in good, if naive, faith, and will do his best to compensate us backers, either by moving the project forward or by a settlement offer."
But Singh was adamant.
"Seth just stalled, and stalled, and stalled," Singh says. "For me, this is why I became a lawyer. I guess I'm more of an idealist than anything else. It just ticked me off."
In May 2012, Singh filed paperwork in Arizona's Justice Court citing breach of contract. He sued both Quest and his business partner, Juan Cespedes, though he eventually dropped the case against Cespedes.
Your backers can give you massive support, but they can also tear you down if you fail. -Seth Quest
About 750 miles away in San Francisco, Seth Quest was having chest pains brought on by anxiety. He wasn't sleeping, he says.
Because he never incorporated Hanfree, Quest was personally liable for the refunds. But the money from the backers was gone, spent on engineers and contract manufacturers. The lawsuit forced him into bankruptcy. From there, things only got worse.
Later that year, Quest moved to Brooklyn, but because of the damage to his reputation, he could only find part-time work in what he calls a non-design-related field. To deal with his anxiety and hypertension, he picked up yoga and joined a boxing gym. These days, he's doing better, but it's a part of his life he hopes to move on from.
"When you fail on Kickstarter, it's a very public failure," says Quest. "It definitely derailed my career substantially. Your backers can give you massive support, but they can also tear you down if you fail."
"More stupidity than fraud."
So, what happened? For one, Quest did not have contracts already in place before he went on Kickstarter--a novice mistake. Once the Hanfree was funded, Quest says, he began contracting with accessories manufacturers in China, Singapore, and Los Angeles. But because those manufacturers were able to see precisely how much money Quest had raised on Kickstarter, Quest says they gained too much leverage in negotiations, chipping away at the product's margins. It soon became too expensive to create the product with the funds raised.
At the same time, Quest's relationship with his Hanfree team began falling apart. "One of the people in my team demanded 50% of the company, and held the design files hostage," Quest says. Ultimately, though, Quest says that Hanfree "failed because of complications with engineering."
He was unable to raise outside investment because of the turbulent relationship with his team.
Singh has his own hypothesis. "I'm convinced this was more stupidity than it was fraud. He just didn't think this through."
According to Singh, his lawsuit was the first ever to be brought against a project creator on Kickstarter, but he has a feeling it won't be the last.
Confusion about the site's mission, it seems, is fairly widespread. In September 2012, the New York City-based company's co-founders addressed this issue head-on in a blog post titled "Kickstarter is Not a Store."
"It's hard to know how many people feel like they're shopping at a store when they're backing projects on Kickstarter, but we want to make sure that it's no one," the founders wrote. "Today we're introducing a number of changes to reinforce that Kickstarter isn't a store--it's a new way for creators and audiences to work together to make things. We'd like to walk you through these changes now."
Perhaps the most important change the founders announced that day was that project creators will be required to reference specific "risks and challenges" in their project proposals. (It's unclear if the Hanfree case influenced their decision to make these changes, but it seems likely.) The company also introduced several new hardware and product design project guidelines, which prohibited product simulations and renderings. Today, many of the renderings on Hanfree's Kickstarter page--like that glossy video of the loft apartment--would not be allowed.
The founders concluded the post, saying, "We hope these updates reinforce that Kickstarter isn't a traditional retail experience and underline the uniqueness of Kickstarter."
'Hope,' here, is the operative word. It may not be enough. Kickstarter is quickly becoming one of the most popular methods for entrepreneurs to fund the creation of their products. This week, in a year-end recap, the company boasted that in 2012, 17 projects raised $1 million or more, including the Pebble watch, the most money raised by any crowdfunded project ever, at $10.3 million in pledges.
The founders certainly recognize this issue ("It's not Best Buy," one of the company's co-founders, Perry Chen, recently said of the site), but as it gains popularity, attracting users who may not be familiar with its mission, it's becoming increasingly important that Kickstarter find a way to clearly and succinctly communicate this message throughout its site and on its project pages--letting backers know that they are not actually buying a finished product.
To be fair, Kickstarter is working hard to make the message clearer. In August 2011, the company began requiring project creators to include an "Estimated Delivery Date" for all project deliverables. And as of May 2012, when a user clicks 'Pledge' on a project page, Kickstarter now displays a message in the upper-right hand corner of the page: "Kickstarter does not guarantee projects or investigate a creator's ability to complete their project. It is the responsibility of the project creator to complete their project as promised, and the claims of this project are theirs alone."
Kickstarter wasn't immediately available to comment on this story.
More money, more problems.
Of course, it's not all bad. Kickstarter's origins--in music, art, and film, especially--have funded hundreds, if not thousands of laudable, engaging, and award-winning projects. In fact, the idea for the company originated in 2002 when Perry Chen, one site's co-founders, wanted to organize a $20,000 concert in New Orleans, but didn't have the money to secure a venue. Some projects have gone on to critical acclaim, too: About 10% of the films at Sundance this year, for instance, have Kickstarter roots.
But the knowledge and experience it takes to create a physical product--one that often needs to be manufactured overseas--relies on a different set of skills and relationships. Simply put: Entrepreneurship isn't art.
To the uninitiated, manufacturing physical products can be an incredibly tricky business, especially when it comes to contract manufacturing, designing product runs, managing inventory, shipping, logistics, etc. Quest certainly isn't the only Kickstarter user to discover that.
Take Flint and Tinder, for example. In April 2012, the Brooklyn-based underwear manufacturer set up a $30,000 goal, to create American-made underwear, but raised nearly $300,000. While the outsized backing may seem like a success for its creator, Jake Bronstein, it created a manufacturing and logistical nightmare. With all his new "customers," his manufacturers told him they'd no longer be able to meet his time frame for shipping. He ended up shipping items three months late, and only because he was able to secure nearly $1 million in venture capital.
While "the vast majority of founders attempt to deliver products promised to funders," according to a July 2012 study from University of Pennsylvania professor Ethan Mollick, "relatively few do so in a timely manner, a problem exacerbated in large or overfunded projects." Mollick examined a dataset of 47,000 Kickstarter projects amounting to $198 million in contributions.
In total, Mollick found that 75% of companies deliver products later than promised. Customer satisfaction is also an issue. After all, many backers have high expectations for products that don't even exist yet.
The pitfalls of dumb money
About six months ago, Sam Fellig, a Brooklyn-based entrepreneur, taught himself code and founded Outgrow.me, a marketplace for successfully funded--but not necessarily successfully created--Kickstarter and Indiegogo projects. It's an interesting business, especially in light of these concerns.
For now, Outgrow.me earns revenue by selling successfully funded--and successfully created--projects. Fellig explains he's taken on a small amount of inventory at wholesale prices from these crowdfunding designers, and resells their items directly on his site for profit.
I think most people think there's some designer working late at night at his firm and he has this genius idea for a project related to what he's doing, but the reality is it's generally anyone. Anyone can be that Kickstarter savant. -Sam Fellig
The experience has given Fellig insight into the world of crowdfunding. A few months after Outgrow.me launched, Fellig began receiving interest from the designers themselves, who requested that he feature their items. He met with several of them, and while he recognized the passion these designers had for their products, he was disturbed by their lack of business acumen.
"I'm not sure if I'd use the word naive, but they're definitely inexperienced," he says. "I've sat down with several designers who have been funded--in the hundreds of thousands [range]. And I asked them 'How many of you have experience in the project you created?' There wasn't one. That's pretty remarkable. I think most people think there's some designer working late at night at his firm and he has this genius idea for a project related to what he's doing, but the reality is it's generally anyone. Anyone can be that Kickstarter savant."
He adds, "This whole idea of crowdfunding is that you're getting rid of VC's quite often. It's not just about getting dumb money--you want smart money. And you lose that when you go through the crowdfunding route. You lose the smart money."
Kickstarter's staff recognizes this problem, but seems to view it as a user hazard that isn't their responsibility. Carefully reading Kickstarter's terms, you can see how the company rather bluntly sets up the relationship between backer and creator in order to indemnify themselves against any legal action, should a successfully funded campaign fail to deliver:
By creating a fundraising campaign on Kickstarter, you as the Project Creator are offering the public the opportunity to enter into a contract with you. By backing a fundraising campaign on Kickstarter, you as the Backer accept that offer and the contract between Backer and Project Creator is formed. Kickstarter is not a party to that agreement between the Backer and Project Creator. All dealings are solely between Users.
At the same time, Kickstarter receives a 5% commission on successfully funded projects, regardless of whether or not the project creator delivers on his or her project. This is important, because Kickstarter acknowledges that lawsuits--similar the suit filed by Singh--are within bounds if the project creator fails to deliver a product. Failure to fulfill the product or refund the money "could result in damage to your reputation or even legal action by your backers," the site's terms say.
Quest knows this damage all too well. Today, he's in Costa Rica, researching his next venture, which he says will be a company with a social mission. After Costa Rica, he plans to move to Los Angeles.
He has tips, he says, for other entrepreneurs who want to crowdfund projects on Kickstarter. First, he says, keep the product simple. If the product has multiple parts, the incremental costs of manufacturing can be deadly. It's also essential to have a prototype of the product, and at least three price estimates from manufacturers--in writing.
Kickstarter, he adds, "changed the course of my life and how I operate." It seems obvious now, but "there's a huge gap between having an idea, and designing a product, and actually manufacturing something."
Eric Markowitz reports on start-ups, entrepreneurs, and issues that
phantom1412 wrote:This one has problem too.
Decks are printed, but it's so damn slow in shipping.
This deck is just another example of no matter how hard you try to avoid it, there are times when you are going to be cheated. But that doesn't mean you should stop doing your due diligence BEFORE the project gets funded. To break even on a Bicycle branded deck, a campaign needs to raise between $10.000 - $11,000. It will vary depending on how many orders are shipping internationally and how many are shipping domestically. If a project funds for less than that, you have a greater risk of the project failing because the creator would then have to add their own money in order for the project to be produced and fulfilled. These numbers are based on a standard Bicycle branded deck without any upgrades such as; foil, embossing, custom seals, metallic inks etc... Any upgrades will require the total amount collected to be higher to have everything funded with the funds received on Kickstarter. In addition, any non-card add-ons, will also increase the minimum amount required to fund the campaign successfully. Another item which could raise the minimum total is if the creator did not design the deck themselves and has to pay an artist. This could ad another $1000 - $3,000 to the total for the project to be fully funded through Kickstarter and sometimes more.
While its true the creator will typically have a significant amount of decks to sell after the campaign is over, there is no guarantee when those decks will sell. That means if they don't hit the minimum funding requirements during their Kickstarter campaign, the project could take forever to be fulfilled.
Kickstarter has a policy that states: "No one can pull their pledge in the last 24 hours of a campaign that has already funded, if their pledge will lower the total below what it took to fund the campaign". Therefore, you may want to consider pledging for a deck you like and monitor it as the project winds down. If the project is approaching the final 24 hours and it does not look like hit will hit the minimum funding level of between $10,000 - $11,000, you may want to consider pulling your pledge. Obviously, that would be a personal decision and one everyone would have to make on their own. Just food for thought.
The way I see it, if you are worried or have been stung before, you should do 2 things:
1) Only back KS's from well-known people who have repeatedly delivered products on time in the past. This should help reduce the risk of not getting the cards promised.
2) For new and untested companies, don't back it, or only back at a low level that you are willing to risk. If the cards are a good enough design, enough other people will back them, the cards will get made, and then you can buy them (or buy more of them), with the knowledge that the decks now actually exist and are in peoples' hands.
Ultraviolet was almost the 1st deck I backed. Another thing to consider is... half the time you're losing what? $11 tops? Some of us loose that much to speeding tickets, overdraft charges and other odds n ends. Chalk it up to "part of life" and let it go. Of course that's EASY for me to say since I have never been ripped off....
Magic_Orthodoxy wrote:Ultraviolet was almost the 1st deck I backed. Another thing to consider is... half the time you're losing what? $11 tops? Some of us loose that much to speeding tickets, overdraft charges and other odds n ends. Chalk it up to "part of life" and let it go. Of course that's EASY for me to say since I have never been ripped off....
yet
That is exactly why people keep getting ripped off because they have Your attitude, as it is only $11. If you keep letting it happen, with no ramifications for the project creator, the problem will only continue grow. If $11 isn't important to you, I can give you my address and you will be more than welcome to send me $11 for free.
Oh no don't misunderstand, it's not that $11 isn't important to me, it's almost... is $11 worth the stress in my life, the blood vessels, the anger, the fight, the court fees, the nasty emails back and forth... or... would I rather enjoy a less stress filled life?
I had a guy total my Toyata pick up and give me whiplash, he had no insurance, I took him to court, and won. That was almost a year of my life. What did he do? Filled bankruptsy and.... I never saw a dime. I paid my own doctor bills and drove a beater Datsun until I could afford a good car again.
There is a guy on our cossplay boards who rips people off all of the time, no product, late product, recasted product - he probably has stolen close to 40K over his career. But it's super hard to put a case together from people all over the world, and it's super hard to prove loss when it's all done through emails and online bill pay. Should he go to jail? Hell yes. But, one or two people can't do it alone.
Like I said, I've been blessed. Nobody has ripped me off, nor my friends. So I don't have a dog in this race, and should probably just shut the*&^% up because I don't know what I'm talking about.
Actually I take that back, I've been ripped off on ebay, but PAYPAL saves your but. Maybe kickstarter should have a paypal option.
Magic_Orthodoxy wrote:Oh no don't misunderstand, it's not that $11 isn't important to me, it's almost... is $11 worth the stress in my life, the blood vessels, the anger, the fight, the court fees, the nasty emails back and forth... or... would I rather enjoy a less stress filled life?
I had a guy total my Toyata pick up and give me whiplash, he had no insurance, I took him to court, and won. That was almost a year of my life. What did he do? Filled bankruptsy and.... I never saw a dime. I paid my own doctor bills and drove a beater Datsun until I could afford a good car again.
There is a guy on our cossplay boards who rips people off all of the time, no product, late product, recasted product - he probably has stolen close to 40K over his career. But it's super hard to put a case together from people all over the world, and it's super hard to prove loss when it's all done through emails and online bill pay. Should he go to jail? Hell yes. But, one or two people can't do it alone.
Like I said, I've been blessed. Nobody has ripped me off, nor my friends. So I don't have a dog in this race, and should probably just shut the*&^% up because I don't know what I'm talking about.
Actually I take that back, I've been ripped off on ebay, but PAYPAL saves your but. Maybe kickstarter should have a paypal option.
Apparently its not hard. Just reread my post above about the lawyer who sued a Kickstarter creator and forced him into bankruptcy. I think anytime you force someone, in a situation like this into bankruptcy because they can't or won't deliver what you pledged for, it is a win and in most cases, better than getting your money back. IMO.
Magic_Orthodoxy wrote:
Actually I take that back, I've been ripped off on ebay, but PAYPAL saves your but. Maybe kickstarter should have a paypal option.
The problem with PayPal is their 45-day window. Since most kickstarter deck projects run well past 45-days, I don't think PayPal is a viable option.
BMPokerworld wrote:
Apparently its not hard. Just reread my post above about the lawyer who sued a Kickstarter creator and forced him into bankruptcy. I think anytime you force someone, in a situation like this into bankruptcy because they can't or won't deliver what you pledged for, it is a win and in most cases, better than getting your money back. IMO.
Thanks!
I read the article already and nowhere in there did it talk about how much the Lawyer spent on bringing action against the guy. He was lucky he would have had court cost only as he was the litigator. And if the creator was sued into bankruptcy then it is unlikely that anyone got anything substantial. Asylum might get this type of thing going as it already has a lawyer backing it that seems to be hot as hates. But at the end of the day I do not pledge over $25 so to bring a personal case against a creator will be hard and fruitless. I agree this is the bigger issue and will help keep this going, unless we have a lawyer get screwed out of a large chunk of change. A bad lawyer runs around $50 an hour so for me to tell my story to him and ask what he could do about it I would already be out three times the amount I was out to start with. We in the America’s need to build a court system that runs on cookies then we could sue all the KS creators that have done us wrong.
BMPokerworld wrote:
Apparently its not hard. Just reread my post above about the lawyer who sued a Kickstarter creator and forced him into bankruptcy. I think anytime you force someone, in a situation like this into bankruptcy because they can't or won't deliver what you pledged for, it is a win and in most cases, better than getting your money back. IMO.
Thanks!
I read the article already and nowhere in there did it talk about how much the Lawyer spent on bringing action against the guy. He was lucky he would have had court cost only as he was the litigator. And if the creator was sued into bankruptcy then it is unlikely that anyone got anything substantial. Asylum might get this type of thing going as it already has a lawyer backing it that seems to be hot as hates. But at the end of the day I do not pledge over $25 so to bring a personal case against a creator will be hard and fruitless. I agree this is the bigger issue and will help keep this going, unless we have a lawyer get screwed out of a large chunk of change. A bad lawyer runs around $50 an hour so for me to tell my story to him and ask what he could do about it I would already be out three times the amount I was out to start with. We in the America’s need to build a court system that runs on cookies then we could sue all the KS creators that have done us wrong.
I 100% agree it can be very expensive to sue someone over very little money. That is why I posted the minimum funding requirements for a bicycle deck to be fully paid for on Kickstarter. I think if you support a project that ultimately does not hit the minimum funding requirements, you run a higher risk that the project will either default or be significantly delayed. But as always, it will be a decision the backer has to make on their own, after reviewing all of the facts.
You're exactly right. It's MUCH cheaper to file a lawsuit against someone when you're the lawyer! If you're not a lawyer, then you are going to lose a lot of money to make a point, at least in small cases like KS.
The article was very interesting, thanks for posting it. This creates a very unique precedent for the backers of the Army Men cards!
BiggerDee wrote:You're exactly right. It's MUCH cheaper to file a lawsuit against someone when you're the lawyer! If you're not a lawyer, then you are going to lose a lot of money to make a point, at least in small cases like KS.
The article was very interesting, thanks for posting it. This creates a very unique precedent for the backers of the Army Men cards!
In NJ, you can always file a small claims court case, up to $5,000, for little to no money. Unfortunately that probably won't matter much to the creator and do little to change their ways.
THAT SAID, I think what D&D are doing on Kickstarter IS what the site is for. Funding a HUGE project. & in the end we will have a new and original film about the history of Magic. I only wish they were closer to their mark of 100K so the backers could win a free deck
Some thoughts on problems with Kickstarter ...(decks)
There were some great successes early, but now the Kickstarter deck pipeline is loaded with people driven by profit - not deck production. That can be a issue when problems arrive which need to be overcome - a dedicated deck producer will overcome but the profit-seeker might fold when the profits dwindle.
Every year, tens-of-thousands (hundreds maybe?) walk into a bank, credit union, savings-and-loan, etc. in order to borrow $10,000-$30,000 for the purchase of perhaps one of these: automobile, boat, home remodelling project, vacation, loan consolidation, college, etc.
In most of these instance, major remodelling may be the exception, the borrower won't be making any money or profit from the loan, yet somehow these things get done and paid off by the borrower. Why does it seem that deck producers can't find the financial backing on their own to fund their decks? If you are confident in yourself and your product, there should be no hesitation in seeking traditional funding. Once your artwork is done and ready, take out a home equity loan, get your deck made in 8-weeks instead of 8-months, watch the money roll in quickly without Kickstarter or Amazon fees, and start it again for the next deck.
Are they all incapable, or are they unwilling? I don't know about you, but the thought of losing the "investments" of hundreds of people who are depending on me seems worse than losing my own money.
Are they so stuck on Kickstarter because they can't market their deck well enough on their own? Should that be a flag when someone is listing a 2nd, 3rd for 4th deck? They already have hundreds of contacts that they know like their work and hopefully they now understand the deck market so that they can promote it in various places.
They are the ones that can make the majority of profit on their decks, so why are they shifting the financial burden to Kickstarter buyers who won't likely make much if any profit?
I'm done with Kickstarter decks. I'll make my investments elsewhere and search the secondary market if I really want something made as KS project.
Question: Would it be useful to split the "New and Custom Decks" into two streams: Self-Funded and Kickstarter? Even before this little rant, I"ve grown tired of seeing the NaCD overloaded with KS junk.
I guess people don't have thousands saved up or laying around. If someone did have full funding, I can understand not investing all your money. If a deck takes $12,000-$15,000 to make, I can see putting in half and then backers can make the rest. A $8,000 fund goal for cards isn't nothing. So when people know the company/person creates good rapport, then it could probably be good and more profitable to use all their own money. It's similar to real estate.
"When I like something, I buy. No matter who did it, how many were printed or how many (re)colors exist.
When I don't like something, I pass. No matter who did it, how many were printed or how many (re)colors exist."
Bikefanatic wrote:I guess people don't have thousands saved up or laying around.
That's for sure. That is why they borrow money for the things I mentioned. Do you think an in-ground pool company tells its customers we need to have you pay 20% out of your own funds and the rest can come from a loan? As long as you have the money, everything's good.
Bikefanatic wrote:I can understand not investing all your money.
It's easy to understand why people are reluctant to do it - but if you priced it right, we are talking about a profit-making exercise. Since funding is so easily found for no-profit or money-losing expenses, it seems reasonable to expect an entrepreneur to use them to create a deck. It sure simplifies the process by eliminating Kickstarter and Amazon requirements.
DelMagic wrote:
Every year, tens-of-thousands (hundreds maybe?) walk into a bank, credit union, savings-and-loan, etc. in order to borrow $10,000-$30,000 for the purchase of perhaps one of these: automobile, boat, home remodelling project, vacation, loan consolidation, college, etc.
This doesn't mean they get approved. If you have tried to get a loan in the past 5 years for more than $1k you'd see that immediately. In reality, no one is going to take out a loan, with the type of interest banks are charging, risk their "collateral" (most people require collateral depending on their credit) and use it towards a deck of cards. There's a thin line between confidence and arrogance, and one can put you in serious debt. If this were 1995 that would be another story. I can tell you right now, I'm more than sure none of the new designers of the past year (Russell, Paul, Lance etc.) made their first decks with the plan to start a business. The business came from the success of their decks. It was probably more "man I would love to design a cool deck of cards" followed by "holy shit they're selling".
Times are changing. Lets look at the Veronica Mars KS as an example. The studios couldn't find financing because, despite the fans encouragement, they were still unsure these fans would actually pay to see the film. So what they do? They left it to the fans. If you want this project, back it. Prove that you want it. Raised what? $2M in 48 hours? Now the fans get what they want, and the financiers who could of lost it all, get their definite answer.
One thing everyone KEEPS forgetting is that KS provides something, self financed decks can't do without spending MORE money that you don't have...MARKETING. Do you think Tendril, Brimstone, The Grid would've sold out that fast without that type of marketing? Look at Aurum, the self financed deck STILL popped up on KS for the extra push. How many people on THIS forum are members due to KS? It's easy to be on one side of the coin and complain about KS when you're not spending the endless hours of work and stress trying to design a product that'll sell. Let alone hope people will even discover it.
The REAL problem with kickstarter is that creators see it as one thing while backers see it as another. Some people are scum and should never run a business, while others strive to do good by the same people who are easy to critisize them. It's a tough business where thick skin and common sense are mandatory. The more people screw you guys over, the harder it is on all of us. When you lose a couple bucks on a deck, sometimes a bit more, yeah it's frustrating. But you can't burn down McDonald's because you got served cold fries.
Creator of The Grid, Grid 2.0 & Mythos: Necronomicon Bicycle® Playing Cards
