Kickstarter Transparency

[Jocu]

In the wake of some recent issues with Kickstarter campaigns (both from established and first-time creators) I've decided to be proactive regarding customer trust for our forthcoming campaign this year.

I am putting together a 'transparency' document to put people at ease when backing on the project. It's our second project, but our first with playing cards and I'd like to take this time I have before the launch to ensure that everything goes smoothly.

So currently the document, which will be available from our website in a link in the 'risks and challenges' section of our KS, will effectively contain all the groundwork we've put into the campaign for those who are interested, curious or just looking to find out more about who we are.

So far it will contain...

- Creator biographies and links to social media profiles and contact info
- Printer information, lead times, shipping information and product details
- Breakdown of goal, where the funds will go, print run estimates and shipping costs
- Shipping and fulfilment providers
- All reward manufacturers and information on their processes, minimum orders, shipping information and lead times
- Breakdown of creator funds and contingency planning
- Minimum order requirements for the campaign
- Post-campaign strategy and planning
- Refund policy

Is there anything backers would like to see added to this document in the aim of transparency? For me, the two main issues recently have been the infamous 'cloth bag' switch and a printer switch. The former, I believe, is poor planning regarding a supplier so all suppliers will be listed along with their minimum order restrictions. The latter I'm not sure what happened, but if the creator is telling the truth there should be some kind of policy in place that allows backers to decide as a group on the best course of action before a measure so drastic is taken.

Perhaps you have some other ideas regarding past issues that could be addressed?

Thanks!

[theCapraAegagrus]

This is some pretty good stuff.

As far as "backers deciding" goes - Alex Chin has done polls during some of his campaigns. In Apothecary II, I think, they added a year to the Aces that wasn't there (something along those lines). He polled the backers, whether we'd like the decks shipped as-is, or to reprint the Ace of Spades. We ultimately went with "ship as-is".

The Enuma case is an example of disconnect between creator and customer. The creator thinks they know best without asking for input. Fact is; they paid for LPCC. A delay in printing is kinda 'business as usual' with many KS projects. They did not pay for NPCC. It's an egregious decision IMO.

The amount of transparency you intend on providing is awesome. Just be careful to not share too much. Under-commit and over-deliver. Some people may take your expectations as promises. It's just the nature of consumer business. Those people are wrong, but they exist and back projects nonetheless.

Communication is key. As a member of UC, you obviously know the nature of the beasts. We abhor creators going underground. Face your accusers. No one is immune to criticism. There was a campaign I backed one time where the creator gave an unrelated update almost everyday. I don't need my email blown up daily. Send out "everything is going smoothly" once every other week if things are on-schedule. Lorenzo of Stockholm17 probably runs THE smoothest Kickstarters. If you backed his projects - take cues from him.

[Magic Tapp]

Thanks Jocu. I would generally agree with 2p and suggest to borrow a page from Lorenzo’s campaign where he clearly identified the principal workstreams and is the updates showed progress vis-a-vis each of those.

One area where I would be careful to share too much is the intended split of funds and contingencies. I am not in the card production business but rather in the consultancy one and I had multiple instances of clients first asking me for the likely split of fees across several workstreams (which I told them was nothing but an approximation based on my past work) and then complaining that we spent more time on one part of the project while ignoring the savings on the others.

My point is that fulfilling a project is a fluid process and you may end up overspending on some areas and underspending on the others and you do not want to waste time arguing with some of the pain-in-the-backside backers about the minute and irrelevant details of your spend. As long as you keep within the budget, I do not necessarily need to know where each dollar and cent goes.

That would be my take on this - others may disagree.

And thank you for your initiative - I hope we will see more project creators like you.

[theCapraAegagrus]

...One area where I would be careful to share too much is that the intended split of funds and contingencies. I am not in the card production business but I am in the consultancy one and I had multiple instances of clients first asking me for the likely split of fees across several workstreams and then complaining that we spent more time on one part of the project while ignoring the saving on the others. My point is that fulfilling a project is a fluid process and you may end up overspending on some areas and underspend on the others and you do not want to waste time arguing with some of the pain-in-the-backside backers about the minute and irrelevant details of your spend. As long as you keep within the budget, I do not necessarily need to know where each dollar and cent goes...

100% agree.

[Jocu]

Thanks Jocu. I would generally agree with 2p and suggest to borrow a page from Lorenzo’s campaign where he clearly identified the principal workstreams and is the updates showed progress vis-a-vis each of those.

One area where I would be careful to share too much is that the intended split of funds and contingencies. I am not in the card production business but I am in the consultancy one and I had multiple instances of clients first asking me for the likely split of fees across several workstreams and then complaining that we spent more time on one part of the project while ignoring the saving on the others. My point is that fulfilling a project is a fluid process and you may end up overspending on some areas and underspend on the others and you do not want to waste time arguing with some of the pain-in-the-backside backers about the minute and irrelevant details of your spend. As long as you keep within the budget, I do not necessarily need to know where each dollar and cent goes.

That would be my take on this - others may disagree.

And thank you for your initiative - I hope we will see more project creators like you.

Thanks guys I think you're both right in that regard. There's a funny number in KS where if you just reach you're goal you'll generally have to chip in to cover some shipping costs etc as it's really impossible to include the KS fees and shipping costs in your goal itself (because you never know how many backers you have) so the contingency is there but I think you're right that it's probably too much detail and may raise more questions than needed.

I'll shy away from the money side and simply include details regarding production times and suppliers. The goal breakdown can remain relatively black and white without being over detailed.

[JuFiN]

I think the main thing is that if something goes wrong tell your backers sooner rather than later. “This is what I did wrong, here is how I intend to fix it.” (Look through Lotreks arabesque campaign updates for example of how to announce an unexpected delay). And if it should require action and there are choices such as “do you want the deck on time or late but with better quality?” As a purely made up example. Regardless people who want the side that loses the vote will be upset but I think you will find them much more understanding of the outcome.

[Jocu]

I think the main thing is that if something goes wrong tell your backers sooner rather than later. “This is what I did wrong, here is how I intend to fix it.” (Look through Lotreks arabesque campaign updates for example of how to announce an unexpected delay). And if it should require action and there are choices such as “do you want the deck on time or late but with better quality?” As a purely made up example. Regardless people who want the side that loses the vote will be upset but I think you will find them much more understanding of the outcome.

I agree, but I also think that many KS creators are getting away with murder and not planning effectively. J + T is a prime example - his reasoning for not having printed the boxes was that his supplier's minimum order quantity was too high and those who would do a smaller run were not high enough quality.

The glaring error in this admittance was that he had limited the reward to, I believe, 65 backers (there was a limit that I don't have to hand) and as such he basically admitted not having done research into such a basic thing as minimum order numbers.

So whilst he made things much worse by not liaising with backers, his main issue was one of planning. And I think many KS creators get away with this as when they get funded they generally get enough money to make things work.

So I want to go a step further and explain where things are coming from and also the lengths we're going to in order to anticipate any issues. Hopefully then future rookie KS creators can follow suit when it comes to these things.

I'll check out Lotreks and Stockholm17s campaigns for some inspiration - thanks!

[Bradius]

I agree with what has been said here and I aplaud you for stepping up on this issue. As TwoPiece said, Lorenzo is a good case study on how to do it right. In his last campaign, he really put together super-stars in most cases to put the campaign together. He even decided to use USPCC and Cartamundi for the deck production. He used Lotrek for the tucks and brick boxes and Gamblers Warehouse for fulfillment. The main issue I recall was the manufacturer of the card guard really messed up, but in the end, it all came together. Lorenzo communicated issues very well. But, he has been doing complicated Kickstarter campaigns for some time. His experience showed.

I would also use Sunish as another example of getting it right. Heck, he often gets his projects done early. I really like it when a campaign is not just done on time, but even a little early. Sunish is also communicating with backers throughout the process. I really hate it when creators communicate all the time during the campaign and just totally disappear through the development phase. Sadly, it is far too common and not just in Kickstarter playing card campaigns.

I know this is redudunant, but I like to simply it: Plan, execute, communicate. I guess you can add adapt to obsticals, and keep the customer always in focus throughout the process. The good folks make it look easy.