The Successor by TGW/Kevin Cantrell

[TheGentlemanWake]

do you think a campaign stagnating like you say is because it was so well advertised in advance that everyone who was going to back has already done so? 981 backers is no small accomplishment and is a pretty large number for playing card campaigns as far as i can tell. how many new backers would one expect over the course of a campaign?

Well I think there’s a few things going on. For one generally speaking KS numbers—although appearing high—are generally across the board stagnating. With the exception being LOTR. Looking at Jody’s campaign and Asad’s it looks like everyone is haveing ‘negative’ funding days. In the 60 days of combined campaigns of mine leading up to this I only had one negative day of funding. At it was a very small amount. Between the above mentioned campaigns there have been quite a few big drop off days. This is contributing to the stagnation across the board because usually it’s bigger tier supporters who drop pledges when they do the math and decide they can’t afford it. That’s a lot of funding that’s usually not offset by smaller trickles of backers who come in mid campaign and usually back for lesser tiers.

Secondly. Yeah I think you are right regarding the big early push. Although with Parlour and tempest we had 1700 and 1200 backers respectively. Part of that is Lorenzo’s existing fan base (although at the time of Parlour’s launch he hadn’t had more than 1200 backers I believe. Secondly I was posting a lot of YouTube content at the time and that obviously drives eyeballs and finally it was a magic friendly deck and the magicians came out to support (in large part due to collabs I did with Alex Pandrea, Pigcake and asad—all of which I’m sure drove interest to Parlour). Despite all that there was a steady stream of 20-40 people a day. I’m seeing far less KS traffic across the board.

Thirdly. The structure of this campaign isn’t conducive to constant increases in funding. Like I said I’m looking for small ways to mitigate this by introducing little add-ons that add value at minimum production costs.

Finally, the economy is rough right now. 267k is nothing to sneeze at. But there’s no doubt it would feel like a ton more with 7% inflation, increased gas prices, rent raises and escalating production costs taking a bite. I KNOW backers feel the same bout the reach of their dollars.

[bdawg923]

Just wondering but why do you need to hit the 400% stretch goal to do mini decks? Why can't they just pay for themselves? Like for example if the cost to you to get it printed and shipped is $10, charging $15 means you make money on each one without having to have the previous funding subsidize them.

[hsbc]

Unfortunately hobbies are a luxury -- not to mention that this is very much a luxury deck in itself -- and I think the inflation happening worldwide is making people cut back on discretionary purchases. I know more money and more stretch goals reached would be awesome but I'm happy just to see this get funded at all

[TheGentlemanWake]

Just wondering but why do you need to hit the 400% stretch goal to do mini decks? Why can't they just pay for themselves? Like for example if the cost to you to get it printed and shipped is $10, charging $15 means you make money on each one without having to have the previous funding subsidize them.

It’s a longer discussion than this post will provide but if I commit to printing mini decks it means that at the very least I must print X amount. With only 981 backers thus far how many do you think realistically I could sell? Bear in mind I have an obligation to provide a free mini deck to all top tier backers. Which represents about 35% of my backer total. So in order to make money the mini decks would have to (a) produce enough profit to pay for production and (b) offset the cost of giving a free one to roughly 390 backers. So to make mini decks viable I’d have to sell enough to the remaining 600 backers (all of which will assuredly not buy one) to be able to cover the cost of printing them. Never mind the work/time involved on my end to interface with manufacturers and oversee the artwork and make sure they get fulfilled. There are a LOT of moving parts. At 400% funding these are manageable problems. Because I can break even or perhaps even take a loss on mini decks because I can always sell the remaining inventory post campaign.

[theCapraAegagrus]

I think that all of the issues have been pretty much covered by TGW and others. Hobbies are a luxury, inflation squeezing our wallets, etc.

I had to cancel my pledge (in-part) because of the housing cost problem; My landlord won't extend a lease renewal offer because they can bend the next guy over much more than they can legally increase my rent. So, I have to save up to put down a deposit on a new place while I continue to pay for my current home. That leads to no money for hobbies for a few months.

A very-niche hobby like this will probably continue to struggle a lot, and likely much more than other areas of business, for awhile.

[STLBluesNut]

but even if they had to come back and buy the same thing later would the end result not be roughly the same even though the distribution of when the money came in be different? so if i bought a 5 deck set vs buying 2 decks then adding on 2 then adding on one, it is the same amount even thought the chart looks like it is rising.

[TheGentlemanWake]

but even if they had to come back and buy the same thing later would the end result not be roughly the same even though the distribution of when the money came in be different? so if i bought a 5 deck set vs buying 2 decks then adding on 2 then adding on one, it is the same amount even thought the chart looks like it is rising.

Absolutely possible. Although it’s worth considering the effect the “stretch add-on” model could’ve had. Maybe some one backs for the red and blue with no black and white to steal attention. Then when the black and white are revealed they (being committed to red and blue before hand) find it easier to add on the black and white rather than simple remove the red and blue. In this case the white can’t be added on so that effect is mitigated

[GandalfTheWhite]

The tucks that you are planning on as add-ons - all of the tucks or just the blue and red?

[rousselle]

I'm not certain, but I think Gio may have gone to such a model where his campaigns now tend to have all (or almost all) of the goods available upfront, and a much shorter window for backing. You'd have to ask him if this is a permanent thing for him or just something he's doing for some projects, but I'm wondering if he'd discovered shorter projects with everything upfront is just-as-profitable and/or less-stressful than longer projects with slow rolls of the cards and spiffs.

I have tended to enjoy his longer projects with slow rolls, because they're just plain fun to watch, but I have no complaints about his latest campaigns.

[TheGentlemanWake]

The tucks that you are planning on as add-ons - all of the tucks or just the blue and red?

All of them . $10 each.

[BaconWise]

Any chance the relief plates will be available as an add-on, like you did with the Tempest metal card?

[bdawg923]

If you sell the prism deck as a display deck, prism tucks and the sculpture, we can just make our own prism editions at home

[TheGentlemanWake]

If you sell the prism deck as a display deck, prism tucks and the sculpture, we can just make our own prism editions at home

If Prism decks are made available it will only be to Prism deck owners.

No plans for the sculpture either. There's nothing on the backside. I did have plans to make a Anointed Joker metal card with the Successor Ambigram back design but that's dependent on funding.

[JacksonRobinson]

In my experience, if you offer "everything upfront" you should do a very short project as you are catering only to the card collectors while at the same time shooting yourself in the foot with the Kickstarter algorithm, to try to get "non-playing card collectors". If you plan a solid campaign with well-timed add-ons that can land your average pledge per backer around $65-85 dollars you setting yourself up for the best use of the Kickstarter platform. The more you can get people to come back, adjust their pledge up or down, make a comment, or whatever the longer your project stays on the popular or trending list on Kickstarter, and the more Kickstarter will push your project to more users.

If you just make everything available at the beginning, it's great for the playing card collector who is backing 47 Kickstarters at the same time he/she is backing yours but it is counterintuitive to the Kickstarter platform. If you are going to do that (IMO) you might as well just do a preorder on your own website and keep the "marketing fee" of 10% Kickstarter charges. If you are gonna use KS and pay the "marketing fee" then you might as well use the platform to your benefit and the way it was designed to work.

Side note, using companies like Jellop and the like is IMO a waste of money in today's "Facebook dying" world. Not to mention that after August, when android rolls out the same anti-tracking updates that iOs did late last year, facebook's historical ad business model will be all but dead, and they will change their business model to becoming a payment processor, and try to get e-commerce businesses to set up shop on their outdated platform, cuz its the only way they will be able to track someone's behavior.

You can get a much more meaningful response from a solid lead generation, email drip campaign which (looping back) if continued throughout the project, will keep the momentum going better.

[bdawg923]

If you sell the prism deck as a display deck, prism tucks and the sculpture, we can just make our own prism editions at home

If Prism decks are made available it will only be to Prism deck owners.

Did not expect that

[TheGentlemanWake]

In my experience, if you offer "everything upfront" you should do a very short project as you are catering only to the card collectors while at the same time shooting yourself in the foot with the Kickstarter algorithm, to try to get "non-playing card collectors". If you plan a solid campaign with well-timed add-ons that can land your average pledge per backer around $65-85 dollars you setting yourself up for the best use of the Kickstarter platform. The more you can get people to come back, adjust their pledge up or down, make a comment, or whatever the longer your project stays on the popular or trending list on Kickstarter, and the more Kickstarter will push your project to more users.

If you just make everything available at the beginning, it's great for the playing card collector who is backing 47 Kickstarters at the same time he/she is backing yours but it is counterintuitive to the Kickstarter platform. If you are going to do that (IMO) you might as well just do a preorder on your own website and keep the "marketing fee" of 10% Kickstarter charges. If you are gonna use KS and pay the "marketing fee" then you might as well use the platform to your benefit and the way it was designed to work.

Side note, using companies like Jellop and the like is IMO a waste of money in today's "Facebook dying" world. Not to mention that after August, when android rolls out the same anti-tracking updates that iOs did late last year, facebook's historical ad business model will be all but dead, and they will change their business model to becoming a payment processor, and try to get e-commerce businesses to set up shop on their outdated platform, cuz its the only way they will be able to track someone's behavior.

You can get a much more meaningful response from a solid lead generation, email drip campaign which (looping back) if continued throughout the project, will keep the momentum going better.

This would certainly explain the drop off in organic traffic to our campaign. On the one hand our $273 per backer is a very healthy total. And fulfillment will be much less of a hassle with lesser number of backers as well. But of course I would’ve loved enough backers to bring that average way down to $80.

Regarding Jellop. They produced a roas of 4. Which is above what I stipulated would be ok (3). However it dipped s lot the last two days so I paused it to keep me in the black with marketing costs. I’m not sure it’s worth it. But it was an experiment I wanted to run.


The all up front campaign was also an experiment. I can honestly say that I will be returning to the previous style stretch goal add-on based model with my beetle backs. This will justify the introduction of my marked edition and a few other things I want to do with the more gameplay/magic friendly design widakk is working on.

I’m working on building the drip email list. My webstore officially debuted just this year so it will take a little bit to garner that reliable contact info. I think the organic traffic from my videos is an obvious help too.

[EvilDuncan]

The all up front campaign was also an experiment. I can honestly say that I will be returning to the previous style stretch goal add-on based model with my beetle backs.

I agree with this move. The all up front is nice in theory and definitely works for smaller campaigns. But it also encourages people to pledge and then never look at the project again. It stops all discussion and momentum for the project, kind of like streaming platforms dropping the whole season of a show vs a weekly release schedule.

[Strag]

Also means that you don't have reasons to give updates on the campaign so no one comes back to review and change pledges. Lots of people here advocated for all up front, but that's because it was what was best for them, not necessarily what was best for the project. In fact I would argue that all up front has the reverse effect: people start with a large pledge to "reserve" the thing they might want then come back later and adjust downward or even drop alltogether. I will admit for this project I am in that camp and will likely reduce or drop my pledge.

[STLBluesNut]

i suppose all of this discussion just goes to show that you cant please everyone either way you go. unless there was some way to run the exact same campaign twice with the 2 different methods it would be impossible to say which one would do better in the end. there are all types of backers and habits. personally, i am a set it and forget it. i may come back to a campaign to see how it is doing but rarely comeback to add to my pledge. perhaps because generally what is added mid campaign is gilded versions, recolors or non playing card items. the only times i have come back and added are because the creator has shown something at the beginning that i want that is later released after a stretch goal is made, but if it isn't at least shown up front so i know it will be available then it doesn't get looked at much less added. i am not the type that is glued to my email or kickstarter updates.

[shkorc]

I agree with this move. The all up front is nice in theory and definitely works for smaller campaigns. But it also encourages people to pledge and then never look at the project again. It stops all discussion and momentum for the project, kind of like streaming platforms dropping the whole season of a show vs a weekly release schedule.

I have a job, small kids and other hobbies. I don't have time to baby sit a KS campaign. I don't want to discuss it, I simply want to support it with my pledge because I like the products.

If that means less profit for the creator, I'm sincerely sorry, I am. But I remember the TOT campaign and it was a frustrating nightmare for me and I'm certain for majority of the 1200 supporters.

[bdawg923]

Apparently $266k with an average of $270 per backer isn't a success now?

The all up front campaign was also an experiment. I can honestly say that I will be returning to the previous style stretch goal add-on based model with my beetle backs.

It stops all discussion and momentum for the project, kind of like streaming platforms dropping the whole season of a show vs a weekly release schedule.

Not to sound rude, but you're still welcome to comment on the project daily, nobody is stopping you. Just like you can watch a show weekly even if it drops the whole season at once. Nobody is stopping you from constantly commenting on the campaign page

[TheGentlemanWake]

i suppose all of this discussion just goes to show that you cant please everyone either way you go. unless there was some way to run the exact same campaign twice with the 2 different methods it would be impossible to say which one would do better in the end. there are all types of backers and habits. personally, i am a set it and forget it. i may come back to a campaign to see how it is doing but rarely comeback to add to my pledge. perhaps because generally what is added mid campaign is gilded versions, recolors or non playing card items. the only times i have come back and added are because the creator has shown something at the beginning that i want that is later released after a stretch goal is made, but if it isn't at least shown up front so i know it will be available then it doesn't get looked at much less added. i am not the type that is glued to my email or kickstarter updates.

That would definitely be a controlled experiment. But I’m also much more inclined to listen to someone like Jackson with dozens of campaigns under his belt when he says that the “show all” model is bad for engagement. In my limited experience that definitely seems to be the case. Hence why I had already decided to revert to the stretch goal style. I’d much rather the pledges go up than see them come down as strag implies he will do with his. If there are a few people, like yourself, who don’t come back to the campaign to check on it it’s wildly offset by the number of those who do come back daily, and comment and adjust pledges.

[TheGentlemanWake]

Apparently $266k with an average of $270 per backer isn't a success now?

The all up front campaign was also an experiment. I can honestly say that I will be returning to the previous style stretch goal add-on based model with my beetle backs.

It stops all discussion and momentum for the project, kind of like streaming platforms dropping the whole season of a show vs a weekly release schedule.

Not to sound rude, but you're still welcome to comment on the project daily, nobody is stopping you. Just like you can watch a show weekly even if it drops the whole season at once. Nobody is stopping you from constantly commenting on the campaign page

You are right to say that there is nothing stopping people from commenting. But more importantly there’s nothing encouraging them to either. Which is the problem.

And I think the streaming show analogy was in terms of buzz. When Netflix drops a show all at once theres a huge buzz and then a sharp decline. Where as the drip fed hbo model has people talking about the show the entire season. It gives people time to discuss every episode and reflect on the events of it rather than move in immediately to see what happens next.

[TheGentlemanWake]

I agree with this move. The all up front is nice in theory and definitely works for smaller campaigns. But it also encourages people to pledge and then never look at the project again. It stops all discussion and momentum for the project, kind of like streaming platforms dropping the whole season of a show vs a weekly release schedule.

I have a job, small kids and other hobbies. I don't have time to baby sit a KS campaign. I don't want to discuss it, I simply want to support it with my pledge because I like the products.

If that means less profit for the creator, I'm sincerely sorry, I am. But I remember the TOT campaign and it was a frustrating nightmare for me and I'm certain for majority of the 1200 supporters.

Part of the problem with TTOTT was that Lotrek is an improviser rather than a methodical creator. We didn’t have a design for dynastinae tempest, despite knowing 100% it would happen, until mid campaign. And even then it was a rough render. That made it difficult to manage the campaign. I learned a ton from that experience and I firmly believe a new stretch goal campaign would be much smoother than TTOTT was.

[EvilDuncan]

Apparently $266k with an average of $270 per backer isn't a success now?

It stops all discussion and momentum for the project, kind of like streaming platforms dropping the whole season of a show vs a weekly release schedule.

Not to sound rude, but you're still welcome to comment on the project daily, nobody is stopping you. Just like you can watch a show weekly even if it drops the whole season at once. Nobody is stopping you from constantly commenting on the campaign page

You are right to say that there is nothing stopping people from commenting. But more importantly there’s nothing encouraging them to either. Which is the problem.

And I think the streaming show analogy was in terms of buzz. When Netflix drops a show all at once theres a huge buzz and then a sharp decline. Where as the drip fed hbo model has people talking about the show the entire season. It gives people time to discuss every episode and reflect on the events of it rather than move in immediately to see what happens next.

That's exactly what I meant. Whether we like it or not, backer engagement is important, especially for large campaigns.

[STLBluesNut]

also, to clarify, and as i have said from the beginning of the discussion, i think stretch goals are ok and decks locked behind stretch goals even, as long as the decks are shown up front so people know what is coming and can plan on them from the beginning. the problem, for me, is when an unshown surprise deck drops out of nowhere. at least being shown upfront the decision can be made on whether you would like that deck or not, plan for it and budget for it. coming back and adjusting is still a hassle though.

one caveat here is that the add on process is made simple. not made complicated by having to change tiers, if you had EB or not EB, doing all these math gymnastics. stretch goal unlocks, add on deck. easy as possible.

any of the above does not negate the dislike for gating purchases behind other purchases as that is what add ons do.

[rockets455]

you kind of backed yourself into a corner with the most expensive tier if every time you add an item to thr campaign, you have to give it them for free which is maybe holding back from releasing some add-ons? anyway, the idea of limiting prism display decks to prism buyers is fantastic. can't afford to cough up $500 for a shiny box? no prism display decks for you! f the plebs i always say. they want a prism deck, well Then loosen those purse strings. should also lock the prism uncut tucks behind that same paywall. burberry doesn't have cheaper versions of their $800 scarves for the poors, why should you? anyway, great campaign so far. definitely not pissing any people off and everyone is very happy with it

[hsbc]

Let's keep criticism civil, everyone

[brownsl]

I also dropped my Claim to the Throne pledge. I was hoping over time I could get over paying so much to get the Prism deck but I could not. Disappointed as I got the Prism deck for the Tempest campaign but was priced out for this campaign.

[bdawg923]

Kinda seems to me that the takeaways from this campaign aren't the right ones. Just some thoughts:

1) it's more successful than tempest by amount pledged, yet the next campaign is going back to the old model? Why? Makes no sense.

2) I think backers backed the $500 tempest tier because it was full of decks, and people are mostly backing this despite the box just to get the prism deck. Yet there's no survey or way to tell whether people mostly want the deck, the box or both. Can't draw any conclusions unless you ask.

3) I imagine lotrek is a more popular designer than Kevin Cantrell (because he mostly does work for other companies, whereas lotrek is his own brand and his decks sell for hundreds of dollars regularly) yet this project raised more funds than tempest. So why go back to the old model?

4) potentially limiting add-ons to certain tiers is a bad look and in my opinion very anti-backer

5) seems like too much weight is being put into commenting and keeping fans engaged. I would rather my campaign made $270k with no engagement rather than $194k with constant engagement. The numbers speak for themselves here.

5a) no way to know if the campaign would have made the same amount if you used the old model. Or more. Or maybe less. There's too many variables. But you do know that it has already made more than tempest.

6) we all thought the campaign would be very successful, which it is, but I wonder if those guesses of how much it would make kinda skewed the vision. People were guessing the campaign could make $350-$600k and if it doesn't, it looks like a failure? It's not. It's still a huge success.

7) comparing to the lord of the rings campaign was another mistake as that is a huge global brand and the tgw brand is nowhere near it. No offense, but lotr just has more fans and more pull.