Statistical success of a less than succesful campaign.
The current metrics for the campaign are sitting at 3,283 video plays and $2,590 raised. Roughly $2.50 for every three views. Statistically, not an insignificant number at all. At the start, if 100k people pledged a single dollar, the campaign would be funded. At the current rate, the campaign would be well on it's way... if 100,000 people had viewed it.
I've learned a lot from this campaign so far, and there are a lot of things I would like to have done better. A better quality video, more gameplay to show, more concept designs. But by the numbers, the biggest flaw in the campaign is still visibility, not the content. If every single person who viewed the video had pledged, at the current average pledge level, we would almost be funded. An unrealistic expectation if ever there was one, and still wouldn't be enough to counter low visibility and hype for the project.
Though I am sure click through rate is rather low because of that little green line under the campaign being non-existent.
So at this point I am looking toward the future and what can be done better next time. There are a number of options to pursue funding. I still believe crowdfunding is the best opportunity to make a project like this work. Whether on kickstarter or any of the 600+ other crowdfunding portals now in existence.
My original plan was quite different than this current campaign.
Traditional investment models seek out "First wave funding" from individual 'angel' investors to produce a workable concept, then pitch that concept to investment firms in "second wave" funding. If successful the angel investors get paid back and the company moves forward with product development.
Second wave funding never really ends, though. If you can get more funding, you do it. A startup never stops seeking more funding.
In that sense I considered a first campaign set to get just enough funding for me to work on the project for 1-2 years. Then to run a second campaign with the purpose of getting better equipment, software, and possibly hiring on more developers and artists. The second campaign would be running on the premise that the game is already going to be made, no direct 'risk' with it not being funded.
That's never been done before. As ambitious as this project is already, I was concerned about the negative impact such a plan could have if it not explained properly. In the public eye, asking for more funding is a bad thing. Even if it's standard practice in the business of investment.
There are a number of things I changed in light of crowdfunding advice, though, that I think were harmful. Running the campaign for 30 days instead of 60 is one of those things. Three days into the campaign there were already comments on other sites that the project looked like a failure for having 27 days left and "only" being %1 funded. I think there would have been better reception, and a better looking outcome if I had gone with a 60 day campaign.
So I am reconsidering my starting 'overly-ambitious' plan of a smaller campaign to get the project moving, with a larger one to come later. That will require reducing the scope of the game by a considerable amount to be practical. Though I can still potentially do a lot with what I've got if I can have enough funding to just focus my energies on development.
I want this to be a community minded, community driven project. So now's the time to start looking for and building that community. I'd like to get as much feedback as I can. The current campaign, the possibility of a future one. There is a lot I want to change, but what do you think could have been done better? What convinced you to pledge? What nearly convinced you NOT to? What would you suggest for the project moving forward?