Kickstarter Videos
-
markalanbaker
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:27 pm
So, I'm curious. What bearing does a projects video quality have on your choice to back or not back a project? Does it matter if it is a high quality professionally shot video vs a homemade living room version? What about a project that tries to do a professional looking video, but the quality just isn't there and you can tell they did it on their own rather than hiring someone. Do any of these factors make you more or less likely to back the project?
-
TashaTurner
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:29 am
- Location: NJ
- Contact:
Due to hearing problems I rarely watch the video so if they don't repeat the information in text it impacts my ability to support but I suspect I'm in the minority. 
If I watch the video (<1/3 time) a really poorly done video is a turn off - if the creator doesn't know what to say, keeps saying "umm", and losing track of their thoughts, begging for money - that kind of thing. But then a super professional that feels too scripted/like an ad/too arrogant will also turn me off.
What's important to me is that the creator's enthusiasm comes through, they explain the basics of the project, why/how the idea came about, and they give me a sense of "we want you involved because together we can do something great" - be it a video game, a documentary, a book, a cool new piece of technology - They make me feel like they are talking to ME and inviting ME to be a part of what they are doing.
If I watch the video (<1/3 time) a really poorly done video is a turn off - if the creator doesn't know what to say, keeps saying "umm", and losing track of their thoughts, begging for money - that kind of thing. But then a super professional that feels too scripted/like an ad/too arrogant will also turn me off. What's important to me is that the creator's enthusiasm comes through, they explain the basics of the project, why/how the idea came about, and they give me a sense of "we want you involved because together we can do something great" - be it a video game, a documentary, a book, a cool new piece of technology - They make me feel like they are talking to ME and inviting ME to be a part of what they are doing.
-Tasha http://www.kickstarter.com/profile/479254504
Backed over 3,700 Kickstarters
Social media coach http://tasha-turner.com @turner_tasha
Add signature: Click your name, click send private message, click Profile tab, click Edit signature
Backed over 3,700 Kickstarters
Social media coach http://tasha-turner.com @turner_tasha
Add signature: Click your name, click send private message, click Profile tab, click Edit signature
-
markalanbaker
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:27 pm
Yes, that is my reaction as well. I'm most likely to get a good feeling about a project that has a middle of the road or slightly better than middle of the road video. If it is very bad it can be a turnoff, though mostly in the sense of being very unprepared rather than just nervous. Over the top produced videos can also be a turnoff, especially if they don't include any video of the creator talking. Glad to hear others feel the same way. 
A quality video can be very important to a campaign convincing people to pledge. It is one way that backers assess how professional a project creators is and what they often go to first for information about what the project is actually about.
It doesn't have to be fancy. What I'm looking for when the project creator talks is clear audio, a good camera angle (It helps avoid uncanny looking eye contact) and being well lit. Backers can understand that a project creator doesn't have the funds to pay for someone else to professionally record and edit a video for them. What to avoid is using the default title screens and transitions for popular video editing software like Windows Movie Maker. Some projects have bad audio mixing, meaning that I have to turn up the volume to hear someone talk then turn down the volume when a sound effect is too loud. If a person did not have much quality control over their own pitch video, then I begin to suspect they might not have much quality control over their final product.
For video game projects there is a strong recommendation against the project creator talking to the audience at the start of the pitch video. Potential backers immediately want to see gameplay and having to wait through even 30 seconds of self introduction can be too much. Many project creators need to understand that a large portion of backers won't care about the life story of the developer. They are here for the game. It is also good to have changes in the enegery of a video to keep it more interesting.
I like to use the video for Hive Jump as an example of how to make a not boring video that still conveys a lot of information through visuals and pop-ups without the need for the developer to talk on camera. The tone changes at 00:18 and again at 01:56 to keep things more interesting and suspenseful. At 2 minutes 20 seconds it is not too long. A possible complaint is that there were no human faces in the video to relate to the project. To solve that one option is to have lots of video project updates where the developer talks to the backers.
Physical products on Kickstarter are going to want to pattern their pitch to mention a benefit each time a feature is mentioned. The Coolest Cooler's pitch is the best example I know of for the infomercial style pitch on Kickstarter. There is also the pattern of show the problem first, then show the solution. The project creator only talks about himself at the end to build up trust that the campaign can delvier and what the funding will go towards achieving. It also provided a discount to backers as an incentive to support now instead of potentially later.
Nelly Cootalot: The Fowl Fleet is an example of how to do a comedic pitch video properly. Many bad comedic pitch videos focus too much on the skit and not on conveying information about what the project is. It also has a call-to-action for backers to share the project at the end.
One of the strengths of Kickstarter has over other early crowdfunding platforms was that it is able to host its own videos. I read an article that discussed how IndieGoGo has to use embedded YouTube videos. As a result search engines may bring people to the YouTube video instead of the IndieGoGo page. The conversion rate of views into backers drops as a result of adding an extra step of the person now has to go find the link to the IndieGoGo page to pledge.
It doesn't have to be fancy. What I'm looking for when the project creator talks is clear audio, a good camera angle (It helps avoid uncanny looking eye contact) and being well lit. Backers can understand that a project creator doesn't have the funds to pay for someone else to professionally record and edit a video for them. What to avoid is using the default title screens and transitions for popular video editing software like Windows Movie Maker. Some projects have bad audio mixing, meaning that I have to turn up the volume to hear someone talk then turn down the volume when a sound effect is too loud. If a person did not have much quality control over their own pitch video, then I begin to suspect they might not have much quality control over their final product.
For video game projects there is a strong recommendation against the project creator talking to the audience at the start of the pitch video. Potential backers immediately want to see gameplay and having to wait through even 30 seconds of self introduction can be too much. Many project creators need to understand that a large portion of backers won't care about the life story of the developer. They are here for the game. It is also good to have changes in the enegery of a video to keep it more interesting.
I like to use the video for Hive Jump as an example of how to make a not boring video that still conveys a lot of information through visuals and pop-ups without the need for the developer to talk on camera. The tone changes at 00:18 and again at 01:56 to keep things more interesting and suspenseful. At 2 minutes 20 seconds it is not too long. A possible complaint is that there were no human faces in the video to relate to the project. To solve that one option is to have lots of video project updates where the developer talks to the backers.
Physical products on Kickstarter are going to want to pattern their pitch to mention a benefit each time a feature is mentioned. The Coolest Cooler's pitch is the best example I know of for the infomercial style pitch on Kickstarter. There is also the pattern of show the problem first, then show the solution. The project creator only talks about himself at the end to build up trust that the campaign can delvier and what the funding will go towards achieving. It also provided a discount to backers as an incentive to support now instead of potentially later.
Nelly Cootalot: The Fowl Fleet is an example of how to do a comedic pitch video properly. Many bad comedic pitch videos focus too much on the skit and not on conveying information about what the project is. It also has a call-to-action for backers to share the project at the end.
One of the strengths of Kickstarter has over other early crowdfunding platforms was that it is able to host its own videos. I read an article that discussed how IndieGoGo has to use embedded YouTube videos. As a result search engines may bring people to the YouTube video instead of the IndieGoGo page. The conversion rate of views into backers drops as a result of adding an extra step of the person now has to go find the link to the IndieGoGo page to pledge.