BackerClub Forums

It seems to me that there is a tremendous difference between a person or people who back numerous projects with only minimal donations and those who actually create a significant source of income to the project. A 1.00 donation may show support but will never fund a project while those who pledge much greater amounts result in successful projects. It would seem that you backer status should have some way of reflecting how much you actually helped the project to become funded. Perhaps even not counting pledges that don't result in at least one of the items being created as a reward. Or perhaps separate levels of backership for different levels of rewards. Such a system would much better reflect how much support you are being to the crowdfunding concept.
Doug

I get what you're saying, that just the number backed alone doesn't tell the whole picture but I don't know how you'll capture all contributions properly. For example
- back at a minimal level but post on your social networks and generate backers from that.
- back at a minimal level but comnunicate with the creator and offer suggestions that push a project over the hump
- back a 10k project at 500 vs back a 100 k project at 500. Capturing that relative percentage will be annoying
- backing early vs late. Which is more important - could argue both sides.



I'm not sure that even if all the data to make the calculations were available to us, you're going to come up with a formula that all agree is equitable. Better to my mind to realize that number backed is just one measure of backing.

--Tom

PS - KS may track some of the data you need, but don't know that they'd share

We had this discussion on the thread Ranks - see page 2 of this BackerClub forum for detailed discussion including long answers from myself (just a member here) and Mark (co-founder)

The tl;dr answer:
1. Kickstarter only makes the number of projects you've backed public so the club doesn't have access to how much we've backed projects

2. Those $1 & $5 backings combined with sharing the project and being active in comments can mean more over the long run than backing a few projects in a big way

I can't manage to link to the discussion directly due to this being in a frame.

I certainly understand what those of you who replied are saying. My point was simply that in all cases the creator has a product that could be of use to most people. To actually pledge to receive one of their products means that you are committed enough to the product itself to try and help them succeed in their effort. A very low pledge does indeed indicate some level of support and word of mouth is perhaps one of the better aids to success. However it seems that without those who are actually willing to buy one or more of the products that the effort will fail. Money is always an issue and like many of you I perhaps spend more on some of these projects than I should. But it is because I truly believe in the value of the product and want one for my very own. To me that is true support of what the project is about.
Doug

Huggie Bear wrote:...in all cases the creator has a product that could be of use to most people.

Not exactly the case. Sometimes the rewards have little or nothing to do with the project.

I understand the mindset that says I'm buying a product when I support a KS project. I tend to think that way myself. But it's not strictly accurate. The real arrangement is that I'm pledging support for a concept, and the creator is rewarding me with something that may or may not be related to the concept. I try to remind myself of that whenever I get frustrated about reward fulfillment.

If I back at $1 but bring in 100 backers plus offer advice to the creator which helps them make their project more appealing causing it to get more backers, more comments, become a staff pick, get picked up by blogs, and news. How does your $100 contribution actually stack up?

We can't make an apples to apples comparison based on how much one has pledged as we don't know enough about what else the backer may have done. Dollars alone don't tell the whole story any more than # of projects backed do.

The thing is the only data accessible to BackerClub is # of projects backed.

I don't know about you but I'm not handing copies of my credit card over to anyone to "vet" my $$s spent on Kickstarter. Nor do I think the people running this club want or have the time to go through that level of detail in order to do rankings for "prestige" and slightly better winnings/prizes every few months.

There is no way to measure the help many of us unofficially give creators. Sometimes it's a quick PM with 1-2 pieces of advice. Sometimes it's stuff we say in comments. Sometimes it's hours of time we spend with a particular creator behind the scenes. How would you suggest doing a tracking/time sheet for that? Who decides what's advice? Does it count if the creator ignores the advice and the project fails?

I only back projects I believe in. Over 525 projects I believe in. I wish I could afford to back them all at high contribution levels and get the product. Unfortunately I'm not a multi-billionaire so I can't. What I can do is share the project. I can give advice to the creator. It has nothing to do with willingness it has to do with basic economics. I only have so much money - there are way more deserving projects than I have money to support financially.

I've seen projects fail which I've thought if I were rich enough I'd love to fully fund. But I don't have several hundred thousand dollars lying around.

Maybe you should take another look at your thoughts on "willingness to pay" and think about people's different financial situation as well as the many other ways someone might help a project succeed many of which require a time commitment not simply throwing money at something.

I have to ask did you go read the thread I recommend up thread on Rank? There Mark and I were much more eloquent. Here I'm afraid I'm more frustrated and a bit insulted by being told only money is important- time and a network I spent 20+ years building which brings in more money than I could ever give isn't really showing commitment.

Everyone has a point of view and to that person their point of view is usually the most valid. I still dispute the value of $1.00 contributions and the supposed "real" donations that are brought to the project by the person who uses that method of contributing. I reccomend all sorts of projects that i don't donate anything to because I am not looking for something in return, I simply validate that the project seems to have value. By viewing the comments of people and the pattern of their efforts it is usually possible to get a fix on what motives may be involved. You don't have to be rich to make meaningful contributions nor do I choose to use only my money as a way to help out the project. On the other hand I am not after the least expensive way to get a better return for myself through other perks that I may be pursuing. THey say put your money where your mouth is. It is not the only way of valuing a contribution but the concept is true. I have a very large following, not for my own gain necessarily but in order to share what I find of value with others.
I dispute the validity of the supposition that a $1.00 donation brings in 100 supporters of a project regardles of what effort the donator puts in since it is based on supposition not fact. In most cases people choose to be upset because they feel that their validity is being questioned. Perhaps there is some basis in the thought. As for the eloquence of previous comments, I must have missed such supposed eloquence. I merely presented a thought to be considered and apparently it offended you. Sorry that was the case. It was not meant to point fingers at anyone in particular but it seems that you saw the shoe fit.
Doug

Doug, obviously not every $1 pledge brings in 100 backers. I'm still not sure you read Marks (group founder) comments on the rank thread explaining why he is doing ranking this way.

Let's be clear on what stats/rank get you:

1. Status on the club - more stars means higher status although I'm not sure anyone can see each other's ranking...

2. Better prizes when the lounge is open and less people to compete against for those prizes

3. Creators may be more interested in talking to higher ranking members (not sure if anything is happening on this front)

I'm sorry I took offence. I forgot I don't care about ranking because it has little real meaning. I don't care about status. I already talk to creators.

All comments are valid and I certainly see the point that is being made about availability of stats to use. I merely was offering another view of the whole concept of crown funding. To me it is a way to get in on the ground floor for projects that are of particular interest to me. Each has their own special interest in various aspects of the concept. I am as private as the next person and don't look for opportunities to disclose my financial stats. It may very well not be workable but as for me I like to know "How" committed people are to various projects as it helps me to understand them and their conviction to the cause. Dialogue is the spice of life and thanks for the various inputs that have been provided.
Doug

Maybe if you were the 1st to bring it up it would have been more interesting. But we discussed it over on the Rank thread a number of times so it wasn't a new perspective.

Dialogue and variety are the spice of life. Repetition however I find to be the bane of online existence. I don't find it that difficult to read through previous titles to see if what I'm about to bring up has been discussed before and if the point I think is novel/new has already been made. I'm always puzzled by others who think they must be the first to think of something. Generally I'm surprised when I'm the first to come up with something I think is obvious because if it's obvious then surely it's been brought up before.