The Kickstarter Blog

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. 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.

Creators must talk about “Risks and Challenges”

Today we added a new section to the project page called "Risks and Challenges." All project creators are now required to answer the following question when creating their project:

“What are the risks and challenges this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?”

We added the "Risks and Challenges" section to reinforce that creators' projects are in development. Before backing a project, people can judge both the creator's ability to complete their project as promised and whether they feel the creator is being open and honest about the risks and challenges they face.

The new section will appear below the project description of projects that launch starting today.

New Hardware and Product Design Project Guidelines

The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and seductive to backers. Today we’re adding additional guidelines for Hardware and Product Design projects. 

They are:

  • Product simulations are prohibited. Projects cannot simulate events to demonstrate what a product might do in the future. Products can only be shown performing actions that they’re able to perform in their current state of development.
  • Product renderings are prohibited. Product images must be photos of the prototype as it currently exists.

Products should be presented as they are. Over-promising leads to higher expectations for backers. The best rule of thumb: under-promise and over-deliver.

We've also added the following guideline for Hardware and Product Design projects:

  • Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited. Hardware and Product Design projects can only offer rewards in single quantities or a sensible set (some items only make sense as a pair or as a kit of several items, for instance). The development of new products can be especially complex for creators and offering multiple quantities feels premature, and can imply that products are shrink-wrapped and ready to ship.

These guidelines are effective for all Hardware and Product Design projects that launch starting today.

We hope these updates reinforce that Kickstarter isn't a traditional retail experience and underline the uniqueness of Kickstarter. Thanks for reading, and thanks as always for using Kickstarter.

UPDATE (Monday, September 24): We just posted an update answering follow-up questions from this post. We've also pasted the content of that post below.

Kickstarter announced that it's prohibiting product renderings in the Hardware and Product Design categories, but "rendering" can mean a lot of things. What does Kickstarter mean?

To clarify, we mean photorealistic renderings of a product concept. Technical drawings, CAD designs, sketches, and other parts of the design process will continue to be allowed. Seeing the guts of the creative process is important. We love that stuff. However renderings that could be mistaken for finished products are prohibited.

Do the new guidelines mean that Kickstarter will only accept Hardware and Product Design projects with finished products?

Not at all. We simply ask creators to share with backers exactly what’s been done so far, show how the product currently works, and explain how it will be completed. In short, we expect creators to show their work. Backers have shown that they're happy to get involved in projects that are in earlier stages when the creator is clear about the remaining work and their ability to complete it.

Do the new guidelines apply beyond Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products?

No. The new guidelines only apply to Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products. These guidelines do not apply to Design projects like the LowLine and +Pool or Hardware projects like Stompy: The Giant Rideable Walking Robot. Why? They aren’t developing new products that backers are expecting in their mailboxes.

How will Kickstarter know whether something is a simulation or rendering?

We may not know. We do only a quick review to make sure a project meets our guidelines. If an obvious simulation or photorealistic rendering is spotted during that review, that project will not be allowed to launch. If a simulation or photorealistic rendering is discovered after a project launches, that project will be canceled. Everyone should continue to use their best judgment when deciding whether or not to back a project.

Kickstarter announced that Hardware and Product Design rewards could only be offered in single quantities. What if my product works best as a pair or as a set of five?

As we noted in the announcement, sensible sets are fine. If your piece of hardware is best offered as a set of five, that's okay, however you couldn’t also offer it as a single piece. Creators will have to decide what works best for their project.

Final thoughts?

We created Kickstarter so more creative work could exist in the world, and last week's changes are in service of that mission. We're confident that these updates will lead to an even better Kickstarter. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, and thanks for being a part of it!

Comments

    1. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Andrew Park on September 21, 2012

      This is a bad change that will definitely stifle/kill up-and-coming projects that might otherwise have had a shot.

      These new rules will require projects to be half-finished or near completion before even allowing creators to post a Kickstart pitch.

      The problem is that many of the best Kickstarter pitches are from teams who need the funding to get to the working prototype stage...this will kill those off.

      Net result: The majority of Kickstarters will be from people who already have some kind of financial backing that helped them get to the prototype stage in the first place. That's the antithesis of a site called "Kickstarter," which implies an organization that helps hopeful creative types get their START.

      Please, PLEASE consider retracting these rules. They will make Kickstarter a much less interesting place and stifle creativity.

    2. Mike3.small

      Creator Michael Meissner on September 21, 2012

      I realize that the tech. stuff is really different than what kickstarter was originally founded for, and there seems to be friction in the community between tech/design and the 'arts'.

      Note, some things must be sold in multiples, such as communications gear like RadioBlock. A radio unit is useless unless it has something to talk to. For example, I am a backer of RadioBlock and I specifically am getting two units, so I can have two Arduinos talk to each other.

      In the electronics space, I have been specifically backing products in multiples, because I have had problems in the past with a single Arduino, where I get something nearly working and I have to tear it down to work on the next generation, and if I want to go back, I have to reconstruct the old unit. Instead with Digisparks and Teeny 3.0's, I have multiple units, and I can have one as the stable unit, and one as the prototype unit. In the case of the digisparks, I specifically got 3 because I have several different projects I want to go on, with a lot of shields, because right now I have vague ideas of what I want to create, but no concrete plans, and having several different shields will allow me to experiment with different things.

      I suspect that these rules will just drive electronics prototyping to other crowd sourcing funding sites. Given most of the projects I have backed recently have been in the electronics arena, I suspect I will wish kickstarter to have a nice life, but the number of projects I will back will be severely reduced.

    3. Ajghead-3.small

      Creator Andrew Gilmartin on September 21, 2012

      I agree with the changes. There are many avenues for obtaining capital for a company to expand its product line. And Kickstarter is not the only crowd-sourced funding facilitator. That Kickstarter is clarifying their mission is good for backers, projects, and Kickstarter's long term reputation.

    4. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Kirk McGinnis on September 21, 2012

      I would also add simulations to the suggestion above.

    5. Mike3.small

      Creator Michael Meissner on September 21, 2012

      One other thing in terms of multiples, I assume that some of the projects will not be successful after the initial KS phase, and as somebody who bends pins from time to time, I try to source multiple items at the initial funding, since I may not be able to replace the product in the future.

    6. Coves_logo_square_copy.small

      Creator Jeremy Cove on September 21, 2012

      Very disappointed with these new rules. I've understood the risks on every project I chose to back. I hope adjustments are made or this site may see a huge decline in interest.

    7. Profile-pic-2---copy.small

      Creator David Hawkins on September 21, 2012

      Consideration...

      Rapid prototypes are not as complete as expensive injection-molds, which means projects will only be able to advertise products which aren't indicative of what backers will ultimately receive. Keeping backers in the dark on such an important aspect seems a little unethical to say that least.

      As a backer I would like to see exactly what I'm getting, not some unfinished garage project which may discourage my from committing my hard-earned cash from the beginning - not encouraging.

      Renders are used because we need a 'kickstart' to get us to the next, more expensive step of fulfilling the vision. If I could create a faithful, working replica, I wouldn't need a Kickstart. This will hurt the little guys - the guys who have always done the innovating.

    8. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Kirk McGinnis on September 21, 2012

      And sorry for the harsh tone of my first post. I love Kickstarter specifically for the product design projects.

    9. 3.small

      Creator Joda on September 21, 2012

      Maybe I'm missing something here with the item restriction, but why are people up in arms about it being "the end of high-tier pledges"? Can you not still pledge any amount you want, and when the surveys go out, just say the $100 you pledged was for x2 $50 items?

      As for renderings, I'm in agreement with most I've heard here in that it shouldn't be a ban, but rather a tag/disclaimer saying this is concept art or similar.

    10. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Christopher M. Whelan on September 21, 2012

      I have read a lot of the comments here, and will respond in a way that I hope Kickstarter will listen to. I have backed 16 projects so far, not counting 3 or 4 that I pulled out of (for various reasons). Two that I backed failed to fund, and two are still up in the air. Of the products I backed, I have received 2, am resonably confident I will receive 4, and for the other 6, am in varying stages of confidence.

      For the projects that I am in doubt about, the biggest problems I have are in the lack of communication and accountabiilty from the creators to the backers, particularly when the creators have problems, or attempt to change function and design criteria away from their advertised idea. Failed products with absentee creators are probably the bulk of your complaints, and I applaud your efforts to reduce these. I think you have gone overboard, though.

      On your ideas,
      1) Risks and Challenges section - excellent. People should understand what they are, and if the creators can in still confidence in a backer to overcome them.
      2) No Simulations or Renderings - shortsighted. Let me explain, and offer a solution. A creator is trying to generate interest in his or her project - to share the vision. Renderings and simulations do this. However, they need to be clearly labelled as such on the product home page.

      Further, the idea, that has been mentioned above, about goals and milestones, is an excellent one. And the idea of tying the funds up in escrow and releasing X% when a milestone is met is a way to ensure that the creator stays on task, and reduces the risk to the backers. A prototype for a hardware or design project is surely a milestone that can be set up, and I would expect that a good portion of the funds could be withheld until a working prototype exists in order to ensure the creator stays with the project and does not squander the money or take it and run.

      On this note, as I said above, the biggest backer frustration is the lack of creator contact. We understand that creators may have other jobs, and are busy, but backers, like VC funders, get regular reports. The reports should be a requirement and, if the backers feel they are lacking, should be able to "flag" a project for further review by KS staff, or to "freeze" further release of funds until substantive communication is resumed.

      3) Multiple Rewards: Should absolutely be allowed. Though this is not a store, a backer can have a vision for why they want a certain product, in multiple quantities. They also should understand their financial risk goes up when they back for more, and certainly they should be asked to "initial" on a page whenever they back a project saying they acknowledge the creator's "Risks and Challenges." Multiple quantities are essential in a design/hardware project in order to meet quantities of scale to ensure a product is even made. By limiting this, I believe many projects will not happen, to the detriment of the community.

      Finally, as many have noted, by forcing a creator to have a working prototype in hand before listing a project, it has essentially become a store and not a place to gain backing for a idea. They might as well just start their own website or sell on Etsy or something, and not give you and Amazon your cut. These rules may potentially end the design and hardware portion of Kickstarter as they leave or other crowd funding sites. If so, that is too bad, since Kickstarter is the best one out there.

      Please reconsider your plan before implementation, and consider implementing some of the suggestions that I and others have made.

      Thanks.

      Chris

    11. Cavaliuslocke.small

      Creator H. Elwood Gilliland III on September 21, 2012

      Why not partner with Quirky?

    12. 225286_6574566183_272_n.small

      Creator Clement on September 21, 2012

      I'm not from the US, so usually I have to pay really high shipping costs for items I want... by disallowing multiple items, it means when I place an order for my friends and myself, we will have to pay for each item being shipped individually. not a great idea...

      However, with regards to many of the said ideas / products not meeting their deadlines, why not implement that creators put limits on how many items they can offer when it hits their goal.

      Say my goal is $10,000. my reward levels should reflect a timeline where these limited amounts can be produced and shipped (give or take a few weeks). More backed funds, and the creator can then release more reward levels, signaling a later shipping date for these new levels. As such, each backer can more clearly see his when he can expect his item.

      Some cases i've seen creators miss their deadlines simply because they receive such crazy responses, almost quadrupling their production amounts, making it unrealistic for them to now hit their earlier proposed dates.

    13. Lightbulb.small

      Creator BrassLion on September 21, 2012

      The multiple item restriction sounds like a bad idea. You already restricted packs larger than ten - which was a good move, btw - but what about people offering, say multiple controllers with a system (Ouya), or multiple small items, or a piece of hardware that can link up with other pieces of hardware? The way it's written is pretty ambiguous - what's a "sensible set"? Some guidance on this would go a long way towards making these rules helpful for project creators. Offering a pack of a hundred of something as a retailer pack is obviously out, but if you back a controller for a game system, say, is a "sensible set" two, so you can play with a friend? Four, because most games support four? One?

      No simulations is an obvious win, no renders is probably good. Do you mean just actual 3d renders, or is all concept art banned for hardware?

    14. 163078_10150118195705692_4872672_n.small

      Creator sixsixty on September 21, 2012

      booo kickstarter.

    15. Profile-pic-2---copy.small

      Creator David Hawkins on September 21, 2012

      "P.S. one solution is for KS to held the fund or distribute fund to "Creator(s)" in phases. Sort of like hiring a contractor for home remodeling. Give 33% at the start of project, another 33% when project moves ahead, and final 33% when project complete. This way the "Creator(s)" can't take the money and run. If the project doesn't complete at a set deadline 2 things can happen, pledgers can vote to extend the deadline or KS issue refund to all pledgers of the left over funds. It protects KS, Creator(s) and pledgers."

      This is a very good idea.

    16. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Noble Hudson on September 21, 2012

      I disagree with the no renderings or simulations change for product designs.

    17. Kick_av.small

      Creator Brogan Zumwalt on September 21, 2012

      Hey I've got an idea for a new piece of hardware. It's really great! I have everything planned out, I just need money to start the manufacturing process. Unfortunately I can't show you any renders of the final project, but I can give you it's dimensions and voltage information! Hey, where's everybody going?

    18. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Ammon Fife on September 21, 2012

      Risks and Challenges, good idea.

      New Hardware and Product Design Project Guidelines: Your lawyers are about to destroy Kickstarter!

    19. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Amanda Plaugher on September 21, 2012

      I have to say I'm not a fan of the multiples rule either. I agree that I should get to chose to invest to get more than one of an unfinished project. I understnd the risks involved. Does ordering multiples make me think this is a store? Not at all. I know this may be my only chance to get this item and I like to share.
      I also think a project should be allowed to show renderings. I too want to know what the finished product should/could look like. Having a limit on the number of renders makes more sense than not allowing them at all. Also, the renders should have a disclaimer. But we as backers still know the risks of a company's promises.
      I love the Risks and Challenges idea. It will help me make a more informed decision when backing projects.

    20. Ghostbusters-logo.small

      Creator Jake Parks on September 21, 2012

      I'm ok with the addition of a "Risk and Challenges" section, but otherwise I'm not a fan.

      1. Simulations and rendering should not be prohibited. These powerful idea marketing and proof of concept tools. If anything, adding a required section to show a project in it's current development state in addition to any rendering would be much more useful. As a backer, I would much rather see both and then decide if I think the developer can pull it off.

      2. Multiple quantities should absolutely be allowed. This could be key to getting a minimum production run and if a backer is willing to make the gamble, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If I can select a $3 reward level but offer $100 as my pledge, why should I not be able to just select a higher reward level with additional units? I would be out no less if the designer failed to produce.

      I think the problem is uninformed backers that don't understand Kickstarter, not a problem with the projects or Kickstarter.

    21. Missing_small

      Creator StumptownGeek on September 21, 2012

      I'm an engineer. I've spent 20 years designing electronic devices. Renders, mockups and simulations are standard parts of the design process. They're like storyboarding for a film. How many movies would be made if before the filmmakers could get any funding they had to shoot all the footage and edit it into a rough cut for presentation to potential backers?

      Lots of projects run late. Some fail. Both of these are risks of backing projects at early stages and that are run by relatively inexperienced people.

      If your goal is to reduce these risks, eliminating simulations and renderings is not the way to go. Insisting that projects publish budgets and schedules with milestones before they are made available for backing would be a good idea. Providing a way for people with relevant expertise (perhaps people who ran earlier campaigns and whose projects came to a satisfactory conclusion) to rate the technical feasibility and schedule risk of projects and combining their ratings to provide guidance as part of the campaign information page might be another good idea.

    22. Mike3.small

      Creator Michael Meissner on September 21, 2012

      I do hope that somebody in KS accounting has done the basic spreadsheet analysis of what this will cost in terms of revenue to KS (reducing some projects funding level dramatically, driving other potential projects to other sites), and that KS management is comfortable with that loss of income. Sometimes you do have to take a principaled stand for what you believe in, but every decision does have consequences.

    23. Kick_av.small

      Creator Brogan Zumwalt on September 21, 2012

      Alright, alright. I took out a loan to polish up the first prototype and here are some photos. Now, I've gotten a lot of requests from small business owners who want to sell this my project in their shop. I know I'm not allowed to offer multiple quantities over Kickstarter, but I have a workaround. All retailers need to do is to create a new Kickstarter account for every item they want shipped to... Wait! Why does everyone keep leaving?

    24. Img_4668.small

      Creator William Muk on September 21, 2012

      I'm stating my opinion here in case KickStarter would like user feedback on these new rules.
      - Agree with the stating of "Risks And Challenges". Good to have a disclaimer.
      - But I think simulations should be allowed provided that it is clearly stated (eg. in the video).
      - Renderings should also be allowed but again should be clearly stated so that we do not mistaken it as an actual product.
      - And multiple quantities should be allowed. Backers should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to have more of the reward.
      Thanks.

    25. Mike3.small

      Creator Michael Meissner on September 21, 2012

      David Hawkings: The problem with some projects is there is a giant capital expense as part of the project (buying a laser custer, ordering a large print run, etc.) that is an unavoidable part of the process. In fact, that's why they are going to a crowdfunding site in the first place, because you need say an initial $5k investment. I imagine the people that are building things that don't require a huge captial investment (say can build things as they get orders) aren't using KS in the first place.

    26. Twitterprofile.small

      Creator Taylor Hill on September 21, 2012

      Product renderings demonstrate considerable design investment - they often require a CAD model to generate, which means the designer has thought through not only the form of the product, but some basic manufacturability issues which can be visualized when you start putting products in that form.

      Product renderings are feasible; whereas relevent, meaningful prototypes might not be without the sought-after Kickstarter funds. For example, if you're planning on injection molding a part, it's extremely hard to prototype without significant overhead, and a non-injection molded prototype might not give the backers the information they need to understand the product.

      I think the requirement to list risks and challenges is AWESOME - and, I also think it will cover some of the issues in making sure backers know what to expect. If creators are diligent in describing how they're going to get from renderings to products, backers can make informed decisions about whether the project seems feasible and the creators seem confident. But they can also to see, from renderings, how much work the creators have done to investigate that process.

      In addition, I think that some responsibility has to be left with the backers, who we assume to be intelligent adults who know the basic premise of Kickstarter. The idea is that you're supporting an IDEA that you think is exciting based on how well the creators EXPRESS their idea, not how well they produce it ahead of time. Yes, many Kickstarter campaigns offer copies of the products they aim to produce as rewards, but anyone who is mistaking that for a purchase of an existing, shrink-wrapped product is clearly not reading the descriptions of the projects or even the Kickstarter FAQ.

    27. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Jo-Herman Haugholt on September 21, 2012

      Kickstarter needs to clarify what they mean by renderings. I assume they mean photo realistic renderings, and not sketch renders, men and therefore agree with this desicions.

      A photo realistic render gives a false impression of "what you see is what you get", while what you really are seeing is what the designer is aspiring for. While this isn't a problem if you're dealing with professional investors, it's a surefire way to build false expectations and inevitable disappointment when dealing with laymen. The final product is likely to have significant differences, due to everything from design changes to physical limitations.

      "Sketch" renders or other mock-ups with an intentional rough look is common in many fields for precisely this reason. By using a "sketch", you can give a customer an impression of what a product will look like, without building false expectations or the incorrect impression that something is almost done when significant work may remain.

    28. Natpic.small

      Creator Nat Iwata on September 21, 2012

      I can't help but feel this rule may have the reverse effect and turn KS into MORE of a store than a place to fund startups. If I have to see the item already built and ready to order, then what of the more complex inventions out there that really need a rendering in order to convey some of the changes they can't afford to make?! If KS is not a store, but a place to gain investment and funding, then this rule doesn't make a lot of sense. Would anyone EVER go to an investor of any kind without renderings of the finished product? I just don't get it....

    29. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Curtis Gray on September 21, 2012

      Not a fan of the no multiple orders... I've been a big fan of the playing card projects, and without the option to buy multiple decks, I doubt that many of these will ever get funded.

    30. Missing_small

      Creator Joshua Iwata on September 21, 2012

      What investor would ever ask NOT to see renderings of a new product they want to invest in? I agree there should be more regulation, possibly forcing project's to use disclaimers on digital renderings, but to prohibit them altogether seems extreme. Some of the most successful KS projects are ones that have a clear vision but needed funding to reach their goal, especially manufacturing projects.

    31. 396438_2675364681040_1319132513_n.small

      Creator Michael McRae on September 21, 2012

      Or you could put a big bold disclaimer in the Terms of Service at the top when people sign up that simply states. "KICKSTARTER IS NOT A STORE"

      From that point on, if a user doesn't realize it's not a store after the big bold/red/maybe flashing text. Then they are idiots.

    32. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Jazz Garcelle on September 21, 2012

      Okay what about music products? Cd production? like MY project will it be greatly affected?

    33. Dlikhten.small

      Creator Dmitriy Likhten on September 21, 2012

      I think it's very important for products to NOT have expectations of exactly what they are. It's good to have an approximate idea of what this product would be BUT this should not be a place to show a shiny thing and say "this is practically the product" because that implies very little risk. If it's a board game, then it's practically saying the game is done, there is zero risk. Maybe that's the case, and you are raising manufacturing funds, but then the project must be exactly that, and I don't think that's what KS is about.

    34. Missing_small

      Creator Darin on September 21, 2012

      I also disagree on the complete ban on renderings or simulations for product designs. I do believe they should be CLEARLY labeled as such, and be secondary to pictures of existing prototypes.

      I'm also in favor to project milestones directly tied to percentage releases of the entire funding amount. This directly correlates to my experience with VC funding.

      Communication is another item that is severely lacking. Good projects keep everybody in the loop - good/bad/mundane. I enjoy the Kickstarter process because I enjoy watching items get made - with all the energy, setbacks and effort that go into each project. I do understand that most of these people have lives/jobs outside of the project. That being said, the less they communicate, the more frustrated the backers become and the more likely any meager update will be pounced on/dissected at length (most of the time in a negative fashion).

    35. Rirathqr.small

      Creator Rirath on September 21, 2012

      Risks and Challenges are a good idea, but no mock-ups / renders / simulations is terribly bad. I really hope you guys come to your senses and reverse that (awful) decision. Really, who was complaining about this?

      All of the changes this site really needs to grow, and this is your choice? Bad form guys.

    36. Me.small

      Creator Shawn Swift on September 21, 2012

      I think you guys are being incredibly short sighted. Under these new rules I would never have been able to launch my own project, (which netted you $1000 and is nearly ready to ship) and if I had managed to launch it would never have been successfully funded, because my prototype would have consisted of a breadboard with a few chips and a whole lot of wires. How am I supposed to sell people on that? And if by some miracle I had been able to produce a fully assembled board to show off, something which would have cost me several thousand dollars I didn't have, I wouldn't even have needed Kickstarter to sell my product because I already knew who my customers were and could reach them through other avenues.

      And if you don't think my product is a good example, look at the Oculus Rift VR goggles. Their prototype is a box held together with duct tape and strapped to your head with an elastic band from some ski goggles. Do you think they would have raised $2.4 million dollars if that's all they'd been allowed to show people? Hell no. People bought into the project not only because they got major players in the industry to back the project, but also because they had concept renderings showing the sleek and sexy industrial design the final product would feature.

      Now I get that you want to make sure that the people who develop these products can actually bring them to market, and maybe you should have to show something more than a concept image. But banning concept images entirely is absurd.

    37. Denny-nasa.small

      Creator Denny Atkin on September 21, 2012

      Have to agree. The Risks section's great.

      But the rule prohibiting renders is too much. I think a far more useful rule would be to require a photo of the current state of the product, and you can also include a *clearly labeled* render if you wish.

    38. Missing_small

      Creator Jack McCullough on September 21, 2012

      Your new rules are over-broad, and will likely discourage many projects where early prototyping is difficult or cost-prohibitive (such as some hardware projects, or consumer products). Renderings and simulations should be allowed for all projects, just require a clear disclaimer to accompany each. This will allow creators to share a clear vision of what they want us to back, while communicating the risks and hurdles involved in bringing it to fruition. I know that I will be less less likely contribute towards a project if I don't have a clear idea of how the final product might look and operate.

      Please reconsider and adjust your new rules.

    39. Cw-avatar-2.small

      Creator Charles Waugh on September 21, 2012

      Once again I must state that it is the EXPECTATIONS of a small number of BACKERS that are the problem here.
      When I invest in a stock in the stock market I am asked if I understand THERE ARE RISKS!
      .
      KS has gotten bad press lately and instead of stepping up and saying "It is RISKY!", they are trying (in a counterproductive manner) to reduce risk for the backers and shift it to the CREATORS.
      .
      Lastly, It's a bad business move to piss off a bunch of creative folks who can creatively find a way to go around your business.
      Anybody up for building another crowd-funding site with better guidelines and more support for the creators? I wonder if we could fund it as a KS project? :-)

    40. Infinite-omega-man.small

      Creator M on September 21, 2012

      Drop the rule on multiple copies. With it in place, if I wanted to back a project and get one for a friend or have multiple pieces of hardware that would be useful—such as the Recoil Winders I backed earlier this year—I would have had to what? Create multiple accounts? Back each individually, and then send my info 3 times? That is asinine.
      Sure you do not wish KS to be just a pre-order store, but the very definition of project submission guidelines say explicitly that there must be a tangible benefit given to backers, whether it is recognition or schwag the finished item. So, what people should back projects but only take one. And if a campaign has 3000 backers with 20% wanting 2 of whatever is being pitched, but each can get only one of the item for a fixed price, and it realistically would need 3500 to fund it, it should fail? This is a huge disservice to people that make your site even possible. In short: “Limited to 1? get your collective heads out of your collective asses.”

      I have less of a problem with the renderings rule, but “renderings” is overly broad term. A rendering is a picture or interpretation of something, not the actual thing. You should redefine it to go with the spirit of the rule: If a rendering is photo realistic or could be mistaken as an actual picture, then it must be labeled as such and a picture of the current prototype must be shown in comparison.

    41. 552748_727135727735_72401040_34065478_1391877585_n.small

      Creator Zachary Z. Ordo on September 21, 2012

      Except for the new "risks disclaimer" rule, the new rules suck. It's important to see what the product will look like upon delivery, and it's important for backers to be able to support a project with a large sum of money, if they wish, in return for a quantity of product that they can resell. You're really going to hinder the success of projects if they can't achieve a minimum quantity to be able to send the product out to be manufactured.

    42. Missing_small

      Creator Eric Brown on September 21, 2012

      George Lucas used concept paintings of what scenes "could" look like to pitch Star Wars to 20th Century Fox. It was only after he employed the use of these renderings that his project got traction and was made. Before that, every studio in town was turning him down. Every architect, product designer, industrial designer, car designer, etc...use renderings to demonstrate what to expect for a final product. It's called having a "vision". This is something Kickstarter execs have clearly lost site of.

    43. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Kirk McGinnis on September 21, 2012

      This is Kickstarter's Digg (or Netflix) moment if it doesn't address these sensible concerns AND fast.

      - Renders and simulations should be allowed, but be clearly marked as such.
      - Project developers should be able to award as many products as they want. Supporters don't have to fund them!

    44. Missing_small

      Creator jodi akister on September 21, 2012

      I'm sorry kickstarter, but you have screwed up and screwed up bad.

      This just shows you have never been in the position of being a startup (which I have). My startup was a complex product that was grated funding by a much larger corporation based entirely on product renderings and their faith in my abilities. How did I get the funding? The kickstarted my company by purchasing 50 items. I then had to present them with multiple prototypes AFTER concept. My company lasted 12 years based on that initial product/concept before it had to evolve.

      Listen to the comments here, listen harder to those who show knowledge in the actual execution.

      If the problem is peoples understanding of risks, fix that problem and only that problem. Too many changes here do nothing to fix that problem and only hamstring the potential of Kiskstarter

    45. Sam_0189.small

      Creator Jason L Chapman on September 21, 2012

      HexLight wouldn't have been allowed after this... I'm sure Juices had a shre if people complaints...

      I am agaonst the anti-rendering change.

    46. Matuniak_photo_acp.small

      Creator Matt Matuniak on September 21, 2012

      I agree with what has been expressed here by many. While the risks section is a welcome addition and should be a consideration for backing of any project in general, the other limitations on product design, projections, and reward quantities and completely misguided and an attempt limit the scope of funding quality projects across multiple stages of a project funding life cycle. Take for examples someone who has created and secured preliminary patent patent protection on a better baby bottle. This project from a crowd sourcing perspective would warrant a mother of three seeking to fund the project for her own gain of multiple bottles and from a community perspective because she, more than most, would understand the need for such an invention. Your rules limit that creator's ability to connect with and monetize from the public in the most meaningful way by reaching the most at need potential backers. While this limitation primarily effects more established projects looking for funding, your limitations on projected design and capabilities hinder earlier stage creators who, lacking initial funding come to Kickstarter to sell a dream and build public consensus and validation for what they are attempting to achieve. If that type of a person cannot highlight their developmental plans, your platform becomes worthless to an entire subset of the early stage project community. Personally, I would seek to improve and expand upon the platform by making it more accessible to ventures rather than limit it in scope and function for a target demographic in a specified funding lifecycle. I would urge you to revise this position and put the onerous on the creators themselves who are pitching. Allow for recapture mechanisms for funded projects that cannot deliver on their milestones - incentivizing better founder budgeting and planning.

      I am personally amazed at the competitive sub-industry that has been established to create promotional products and videos aimed as securing funding through the Kickstarter platform. Raising funding through your system should not cost an indie developer, strapped for cash, several thousand dollars to produce a competitive commercial pitch. Let's bring things back to their roots - Projects We Love, without the pomp, misspent and misplaced capital, or limitations on the way in which people endeavor to create their projects. And lets be honest - giving out T-shirts and bottle openers as rewards for funding is not selling - no one wants to pay $60 to do it for the t-shirt. Prepaying for a product is also an important milestone in a project's development, while it is selling, it is also market validation for thousands of projects that can go on to capture larger professional capital for other projects or to continue their work. Let's not limit Kickstarter's ability as a platform to provide that type of market validation for its users who so desperately need it - even if only to temper their founder mentalities and insecurities.

    47. Photo-0329.small

      Creator Morgan Wick on September 21, 2012

      One potential problem with the Risks and Challenges rule is if someone would otherwise put that information in the description. By shunting it off to a separate page, you make it MORE likely that someone backs a project without understanding the risks.

    48. Fb_profile_picture.small

      Creator Susan Halbleib Manley on September 21, 2012

      Hate to say it, but one way you decide if something is a product or project you will like is by the direction of the preproduction work. Most kick starters are pre- prototype. They have not yet reached manufacturing phase. Its a pity to limit those projects to simply "words" to describe the product. No one likes to see over promise and under deliver but, when someone puts the stake in the ground of a visual, they do strive far harder to meet it and they show their greater vision. I think this is a mistake.

    49. Avatar143894_4.small

      Creator Kouture Crochet on September 21, 2012

      Can someone explain to me why people would rather have a render than a working model. It doesn't make logical sense to me. Given the choice of course I would take a working model. If a project doesn't have a working model, it's not ready for backing. Again that seems reasonable.

      Lastly, yes some models are expensive /time consuming to create. So what. If you want me to give you $100, I think it's reasonable for me to expect that you have already invested as much time and money as possible.

      Yes that means some products won't get seen or funded. Again so what. They aren't ready. Who exactly suffers by asking the creators to be more prepared? Who suffers by asking creators to *gasp* wait a month until a prototype is ready?

    50. Avatar143894_4.small

      Creator Kouture Crochet on September 21, 2012

      And remember this is only for the design and hardware sections (at least from my reading of it