Talk Fantasy Football

It's come up a few times in various miniatures threads based around crowdfunding release but some people prefer Fixed Funding over Flexible Funding and similarly prefer the Kickstarter method of taking funds only at the funding target date if it's met target as opposed to taking the cash straight away.

Some of the reasons for this have been touched on in other threads but I felt it was a discussion that would be better served separated from those threads so as not to divert from the shiny minis.

What are folks views on the different systems and why do they prefer that?




My personal preference is for Indiegogos taking the cash straight away approach because it is easier for me to budget in terms of spending the cash when I've got it after payday rather than having to ensure I have cash in my account for a specific target date. I've only pledged to 2 or 3 on both systems though and haven't seen many results yet, Greebo Ninja stuff and Dreadball stuff due this year but just the DB rulebook so far.

In the end all in comerce is a matter of trust. But that doesn't mean a trustworthy comapany can't get broke one day leaving colateral damage to his custommers/suporters.

I will go to a project that 1st I like.

2 nd is a reasonable ammount of money.

3 rd that I trust. Flexible or Fixed Funding? Is not a big issue for me.

I like the fact that with these newfangled funding methods new companies or people with good ideas have a possibility to get to the manufacturing stage.

This was not always possible before kickstarter and Indiegogo type funding. You needed a solid idea, a business concept and a bank willing to fund your business before you could even think about planning to have something manufactured.

This might be the big one. This might be what the world has been waiting for to break through the shackles of giants like GW, Lionel and Die Bahn.

Then again, it might not. Who knows? Time will tell and such.

If I see a project I like and have some change to spare I have no problem dishing out some money for a kickstarter or somesuch.

So far I didn´t find projects I liked. I almost jumped the boat with Dreadball though.

In an ideal World I'd like the funds taken as soon as I pledge (like flexible) but only passed on once the target is reached (like KS).

As that's not available, I prefer KS method over flexible.

Given a choice ... I prefer the KS method for two reasons.

1) Taking the money only at the end of the project means that if I find out information later that makes me not wish to participate that I can withdrawal completely or reduce my pledge (such as one project I was getting for a gift and found out the person had no interest for the item at all). On the flip side which I've often done, if the project adds on addition details or stretch goals, I can easily increase my pledge (like Dreddball).

2) Flexible Funding vs Fixed Funding. Flexible Funding is a pre-order system. Flexible Funding says for all projects ... we are planning to make these even if we don't get any pledges at all. Normally if I am pledging on a project it is because the project creator needs the money to make the new item and I want to help that happen. So for me ... a Fixed project is always better because I'm helping something get created that is not going to be created no matter what. Also Flexible Funding concerns me because when they set a goal at $5000 and only get $100 ... did they really need the $5000 to do the project? If they didn't ... where did that number come from. Did they not understand what Flexible Funding was and so now my money is gone and the product might not get made?

To date ... I've pledged on 31 Fixed Funding projects through KickStarter or Indiegogo. So far, not had a single one of those that hit their funding goal have a problem delivering the reward to me and I've been very happy that I was a backer of each of those projects.

Tom

The trust factor has been something that's come up more than once recently and it's something that is interesting to me as Crowdfunding started off as a way to get things started and establish yourself but has since been overtaken by already established companies.

Trust is a big issue I guess when folks are parting with hard earned cash so it's kinda understandable that they are more likely to jump on projects by people with an established track record. I think the only Crowdfunding project I have backed that wasn't from an established genre figure was This One which was partly because it was a local guy and partly because I liked the concept, I didn't feel strongly enough about the added value of full box art etc so went for the very basic set up.

The idea that something is more or less of a pre-order system is interesting as well as that's a type of trust issue. We know that folks who are enthusiastic about an idea will generally follow through on it, it might take them longer and the risk to themselves might be a lot higher but generally they will follow through. In the fixed funding projects there's generally been a large outlay already in terms of artwork, concept models, rules etc. Which I imagine will have already been spent and which crowdfunding will generally recoup whether Fixed or flexible. The Willy Chaos team and the Necrom Studios Amazons are actually interesting in that regard because they seem to be trying to lower the front end cost, the initial outlay side of things, by not producing physical results before securing funding. Willy is able to take slightly more risk because his name is more established and he knows there'll be a market for it. Necrom on the other hand is newer but seems to be listening strongly to feedback and is hesitant to disenfranchise his market which is cool.

Adding to pledges under Indiegogos system is something which confused me as well, fortunately for the Greebo Nippo Goblins he was smart enough to add extras as separate pledge levels and his questionnaire was then really simple to answer. I think the admin side of things is definitely something interesting.


Something I've always wondered though is how much does a successful crowdfunding project exhaust your market? How much is offering a good deal cutting your own throat down the line? Or is it more like a loss leader that generates buzz?

Darkson wrote:In an ideal World I'd like the funds taken as soon as I pledge (like flexible) but only passed on once the target is reached (like KS).

As that's not available, I prefer KS method over flexible.

That's actually a really interesting way of doing it, as presumably the crowdfunding website would be earning interest on the funds that were being held rather than taking a cut as it were.

Corvidius wrote: The idea that something is more or less of a pre-order system is interesting as well as that's a type of trust issue. We know that folks who are enthusiastic about an idea will generally follow through on it, it might take them longer and the risk to themselves might be a lot higher but generally they will follow through. In the fixed funding projects there's generally been a large outlay already in terms of artwork, concept models, rules etc. Which I imagine will have already been spent and which crowdfunding will generally recoup whether Fixed or flexible. The Willy Chaos team and the Necrom Studios Amazons are actually interesting in that regard because they seem to be trying to lower the front end cost, the initial outlay side of things, by not producing physical results before securing funding. Willy is able to take slightly more risk because his name is more established and he knows there'll be a market for it. Necrom on the other hand is newer but seems to be listening strongly to feedback and is hesitant to disenfranchise his market which is cool.

I have an issue with these being used by middle sized companies as a pre-order system. For instance I think Mantic were big enough to be able to put their KoW and Dreadball ideas into production without using Kickstarter. The amounts they quoted were pretty derisory so it was obvious just a way to generate extra interest in the project as well as nab some sales they may not have got once the actual models were out.

Now they did add a whole load of stuff in the stretch goals to make it worthwhile, but this could also cause problems. if this becomes the norm then small or independent kickstarters will be expected to do the same and may not get funded as these bigger companies can offer a better deal since they have economies of scale. This either means they risk not getting funded or will try and match their competitors and lose most of the profits on these sales.

For miniature companies these crowd funded projects seem to mostly be used to produce the models so can be sold at cost or even a loss to the backers with the profits being generated once the models go on sale to the general public.

Mind you it could be a way for big companies like GW to take a punt on risky projects such as Squats in 40k, Dogs of war in fantasy or a new bloodbowl set. If they put the target high like £1 million then it may allow them to find out if some armies are actually popular or just have a small and vocal fanbase who won't put their money where their mouths are.