Total pledged
$319,786,629
+221% from 2011
Total collected
$274,391,721
+238% from 2011
Total backers
2,241,475
+134% from 2011
Pageviews
709 million
+279% from 2011
Unique visitors
86 million
+252% from 2011
That design is gorgeous. Maybe not the most practical, but I couldn't stop clicking the arrow to see more. I don't remember being this excited about eye candy since the first time I saw Flash.
How is it annoying "managing" tabs? They really aren't that difficult. If you open the link in a new tab, then when you're done you close the tab, it will go back to the previous domain (because they undo in the order they were created) - in other words, exactly what you wanted.
I've heard, and thought, about all the bad rap they got for the worthless ideas that were presented. From what I've seen in the past couple years, it looks like Kickstarter is allowing the kind of change, the avenue to enable and realize, that was difficult or impossible to achieve in the past.
I should be more clear, I think it's good for positive change that couldn't have otherwise happened.
I honestly think that Kickstarter and crowd funding will be one of the most significant developments of the 21st century. It empowers individuals and strengthens the bond between artists/fans or makers/consumers in a quite dramatic way, and I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of its potential and its disruptive and transformative impact on the economy, society, and culture.
>about all the bad rap they got for the worthless ideas that were presented.
This is the kicker, if you'll excuse my pun. No longer are the angel/vc/suit-and-tie people the judge and jury of good ideas. I'm absolutely astounded at some of the projects that got funded on KS. Primarily because I think they're the dumbest projects ever. But its great to be wrong.
I know Kickstarter has been around for awhile, but 2012 seems like the year it really took off. I'll be very curious to see what percentage of funded projects see completion. I genuinely hope it's high, because I would like to see Kickstarter be a permanent fixture in the world of project funding.
Kickstarter (KS) always defined on their pages that a successful project is a "successfully funded" project.
It’s hard to know how KS can calculate a successful project by the way we understand it : a project that have at least delivered all its rewards and "shipped" the product advertised.
"KS's terms of use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."
But KS do not track those data. They are the responsibility of the creator.
Hence the column "successful" just mean "successfully funded". And the column Launched just mean "launched on KS and asking for funding".
I assumed that in this context 'successful' just meant 'met their funding targets', as opposed to 'successfully delivered the promised product/service in a timely manner'.
Thank you for pointing out the numbers. I guess I should clarify: I wonder if the spike in the volume of Kickstarter projects has any impact on the percentage of successfully completed projects. My prediction would be that the percentage of finished projects declines a bit in 2013. Again, I hope I'm wrong.
It was certainly a big year for Kickstarter videogames, with Double Fine starting a major trend early in 2012 that just grew and grew.
I don't think it makes sense to consider "Kickstarter projects" as a whole when looking at success rate. Hardware projects are very different from software projects, which in turn are entirely unlike most tabletop RPG books which have been funded. The method of funding is the same, but the paths to completion are nothing alike.
I've been curious about percentage of success as well. I've seen numbers on this for the first time in this slideshow. See this slide: http://www.kickstarter.com/year/2012#category
(Note that Kickstarter has a fairly selective application process, these figures pertain only to projects accepted on the platform. No idea what percentage of projects are accepted on Kickstarter)
You can check out Outgrow.me, a marketplace I created for successfully funded Kickstarter projects. While I haven't featured every project, I'm working on it!
Bravo! I wish you a lot of success and certainly redirect my friends to it.
I always thought a real shop was the missing link at KS.
I understand KS concern to stop their "service" at the funding level, but from a user point of view, it’s a bit short. And from a creator point of view, KS fees of 5%+taxes+etc. might be a bit steep.
One example is once the project has been funded, KS could at the very least display the link of the website creator without "nofollow".
To me it looks like KS is missing tools to help creators to really understand how they can manage their backers and their fulfilment after the funding. It would give KS so much data in this critical phase.
But it looks like KS is already working addressing this issue. In 2012 they’ve implemented the deadlines for creators and made clearer the refund for failed rewards.
On any case there is an opportunity here for third party services to KS projects that have been funded (and maybe failed as well).
I don't think it matters if it's high, I think what's more important is that it's comparable to other forms of funding. I'd rather see a few amazing non-traditional projects come to fruition and a high failure rate of funded projects than a high-success rate of mediocre and low-risk projects, though I suspect that's not a true dichotomy.
I've backed over 20 projects on Kickstarter & I check it daily for promising upcoming projects. I know of no other use of my money that delivers a better bang for the buck in terms of making a difference. I'm grateful it exists.
I just wish it would grow faster. Launch in more countries, accept other forms of payment, enlarge the scope of projects it accepts. It's such an amazing mechanism for raising money.
I've backed almost 30 projects on Kickstarter. I managed enough diversity to finished my pie. :-) However, I'd still like to see more projects that do big things. Like build a rocket engine:
I'm not rich, but I'm old enough not to have to worry about $25 here and there. For this project, I did give $250, which was the amount needed to get it across the line on the last day. Most projects are only $10-$50. Here's my list:
Personally, I find it very satisfying to give to a worthwhile project. I live near NYC where it costs $30-$40 for two people to go to a movie with refreshments. In many ways, Kickstarter is money better spent.
If you want to help fund open source rocket engines (and space capsules, launch capabilities, rockets, etc.) you should consider donating some money to Copenhagen Suborbitals.
They have a pretty good track record, and have actually managed to launch a life-size dummy in a homemade rocket.
This is amazing.
By the way - it seems they did around $14M in revenues.
From their help page[1] - they state they're charging a 5% of collected money from successfully funded projects.
Knowing that $274,391,721 has been pledged on successful projects.
You are completely wrong about what is precious about Kickstarter. If you expect projects to be on time you couldn’t have picked a worse thing than Kickstarter. That’s not what it’s good at. And it’s nevertheless completely awesome.
Take the Double Fine Adventure: It will completely overshoot the estimated delivery date by a long, long time. However, following its progress has been one of the most awesome media consumption things I have done this year. I don‘t even care if the game is ever released (well, I do, but only because I want Double Fine to do well, not for my own enjoyment).
At Kickstarter you give money to something that might or might not work out in the end, but that will most definitely overshoot its estimated delivery date – if it doesn’t it’s a fluke. That’s how you have to see it. Maybe that’s not something for you, but for me it’s great fun. And that’s all that matters.
I certainly understand the point of "crowd funding".
> If you expect projects to be on time you couldn’t have picked a worse thing than Kickstarter... Take the Double Fine Adventure: It will completely overshoot the estimated delivery date by a long, long time
This is a problem with estimation. It's way worse to overshoot a delivery time than deliver before it. This is poor project planning. If I would have known this, I perhaps would not have backed Double Fine Adventures.
> At Kickstarter you give money to something that might or might not work out in the end, but that will most definitely overshoot its estimated delivery date
I disagree fundamentally. If a project is funded, then it is funded. The backer rewards aren't qualified with "if we're successful". They're "you will get ___".
> if it doesn’t it’s a fluke.
If I didn't get my backer reward, then they stole from me. If I do, and I get it late, then they poorly managed their delivery date.
If people are not held accountable to deliver at all, which is what it sounds like you're proposing, then Kickstarter is not awesome but the biggest scam in history.
> At Kickstarter you give money to something that might or might not work out in the end, but that will most definitely overshoot its estimated delivery date – if it doesn’t it’s a fluke. That’s how you have to see it.
No, you don't.
Obviously there needs to be leeway given to projects that expand their scope after overshooting their funding, but shitty planning is shitty planning, no matter how you look at it. What possible positive effect is there in tolerating it? If anything it increases the likelihood of complete failure by removing sanity checks.
> Why do you care? I doesn’t sound like you would ever back anything.
Sure I would, but only if I was convinced that there was a realistic chance that it would actually be completed, that the people involved have the skills and motivation as well as a feasible project plan, and aren't going to dick around for a few months before they realize they promised more than they can deliver and give up.
> I will and enjoy it. No matter the outcome.
That sounds like you treat it like some sort of reality TV show, purely for entertainment value, without actually caring about the products. That's OK for you, but hardly the stated goal of Kickstarter. Besides, you said "I want Double Fine to do well" - if you want that, you should very much care about it meeting its estimated delivery date, because overshooting it a "long, long time" is A) bad for the product even if it is eventually finished, because potential players will lose interest, and B) a huge red flag that the developers don't know what they're doing and may not deliver at all.
> Don’t tell me how I have to feel.
That's funny coming from someone who just said "That’s how you have to see it."
Backer rewards are (if they meet their funding goal) "You will get ___". If I don't receive it, then they should refund me. I'm not throwing money away for the sheer whim of "backing" people who won't give me my reward - I expect the reward.
I care if they deliver or not! I paid money! If they don't deliver, then they stole from me.
That was poorly phrased. I meant, it's not about pre-paying for a product, it's about funding something you believe will be awesome if it's created, and if it is created, getting access to it in some way.
It's totally about pre-paying for a product or service. To think anything else is very naive. You really think all those people were just wanted to believe in something awesome - no they wanted that Pebble watch or that Dresden Dolls album.
I don't see Kickstater or its surrogate crowdfunding tool going truly mainstream until after someone devises a legal mechanism to hold projects accountable for taking the money and running.
In Chrome, you can just hold down the back button to get a list of recent urls - the referrer is at the bottom. Makes getting back to where you were after long slide shows easy.
I've backed several projects on Kickstarter and Indiegogo over the last 1 year and am happy with them. Most of the projects were successfully funded and I have received the products. Sometimes I wish there was more.
Kickstarter is a great organization and I think that this page, for the most part, nicely showcases its impact in 2012. That said, they might some lose viewers' attention by opening with several pages of stats.
As a public relations student specializing in social cause-related campaigns, I learned that it's usually most effective to choose a "killer fact" (or 1-3 facts) and to tether those facts to a memorable short story with visuals.
To be fair, the stats interest me and I'm sure that they appeal to other HN readers, who probably have an above-average ability to appreciate data. Just saying that all this info, when presented to a broader (non-technical) audience, is probably too much of a good thing.
I wish I knew how to do the kickstarter thing. And thank you to those folks who reposted some of the info here. My Android isn't coping so well with it.
It makes me grateful to be alive in the Internet era and reminds me of all the ways in which my life has been made infinitely better by the Internet and technology and the infofmation age.
1. make a cool thing[1]
2. make a pitch video
3. launch kickstarter campaign
4. promote kickstarter
5. make and ship the final products and various higher-tier perks
6. profit![2]
[1] alternatively:
0. spend a decade or two building up a reputation
1. promise to make a cool thing
[2] assuming you don't end up eating all your profits and then some on manufacturing and shipping those perks.
I have spent a decade or more building up a reputation. Part of that is a good thing. Part of that, I am still trying to live down.
If "make a cool thing" were easy, I wouldn't need to ask. I have done some very cool things. I don't know how to turn that into some kind of "product" (for lack of a better word, because it galls me to use that one since it was a favorite of someone incredibly disrespectful who liked spitting in my face about how my work is "worthless" and "not monetizable", though they found it personally life changing).
I am still trying to wrap my brain around a few things and I am very clear that there are logistical challenges inherent in some of my goals. In other words, some of this is not me, it is the nature of the beast of what I wish to do. I sometimes wish to god I could stop being me and just become some money grubbing type, and to hell with my personal values, etc. But after 47 years of being me, it seems I am very unlikely to stop being me. Besides, it seems sort of boring to take that approach. I think it would be fun to pull off my goals. :-)
It actually seems quite high, assuming participation follows a power law [1] distribution curve.
Take, for example, the recurrence of a given individual's contributions to open source projects - many have not contributed, but I'd bet quite a few only do so once.
Warning, it's a long one! Refresh and you'll see it, but I'll try and fix up the formatting too. Seems I mussed my double returns and a few other things.
Congress needs to allow "poor" people to become investors, that'd make Kickstarter 1000X more effective because you'd be able to purchase shares in these companies rather than merely being promised a one-time thing.
"
Kickstarter has no plans to get into equity crowdfunding — where small backers would get a piece of the companies they fund — despite legislative efforts like the JOBS Act to make such investments more accessible and legal.
“We think the most disruptive aspect [of Kickstarter] is the removal of the investment component,” Chen said. “People are supporting projects because they want to see them happen. It’s so different than giving money because you want to make a profit.”
"
I think they are right, that is where all information based media needs to head. It is a bygone concept to keep charging per unit for something infinite and have it funded by people trying to make money off the sales. Makes much more sense for people to put money into what they want and directly fund it.
If Kickstarter wouldn't support micro-investment then someone else would, and if they also supported the Kickstarter model, I see no reason why Kickstarter would prevail in the long term.
I've read that Valve Software would like to fund games on this model but as of now they can't legally do it.
They already have, and it should take legal force soon. It won't be all sunshine and roses though, there will be plenty of scammers who will abuse the system and take advantage of people. But that's true with every form and variety of investment.
If people have the financial resources, then they can be an investor. I do not understand why the government should subsidize investors, or give "'poor'" people investing power.
From your statement it doesn't seem as though you understand the law or the original poster's intent. There's nothing about subsidization here, only allowing people to use their own money how they wish.
Currently investment is heavily regulated. If you want to own part of a business then there are a huge list of conditions which must be satisfied by you or by the business or both. Publicly traded companies, for example, are extensively regulated by the securities and exchange commission. Smaller, private companies however cannot seek investment from just anyone. In order to be an "angel investor", for example, you need to prove that you have maintained an annual income of over $200k for at least 2 years. Only within the last year has congress changed these laws, and those changes have yet to go into effect in practice. And even then the new changes limit the percentage of one's annual income anyone can invest in a "crowdfunded" company.
Anyone can buy as many shares of a publicly traded company as they want, but investment in privately held companies is severely regulated and generally limited to only the very rich (in the top 3% of income earners). Even after the JOBS act goes into effect people making less than $40k/yr would only be able to invest 2% of their annual income ($800/yr) in such companies legally.
Not all ventures necessarily produce tangible products for everyone who might be interested in financing them. For example, I am not a coffee drinker but there was a very interesting kickstarter for an espresso maker (zpm espresso) that I made note of. The people behind it seemed to know what they were about and seemed to have an interesting and novel idea with a lot of potential. For me it would have been a good investment potential, but that wasn't an option. Similarly, someone might come up with a great new idea on how to manufacture carbon composites or build satellites and want crowd funding to help get it off the ground, but they will have more trouble using kickstarter and such-like because they can't deliver the fruits of their project to their supporters the way other projects could.
In some ways this is fine, and I think that kickstarter is and should be as much about helping to bring something to fruition as it is about buying things that don't exist yet. However, it is limiting, and it would be very beneficial to many projects if they could provide equity in a venture in exchange for funding.
Congress has passed a law which should enable just that, in a limited way, and time will tell how successful such things become.
Sincerely amazing. It's just unbeleivable. For me, Kickstarter is the startup of the year 2012. They did amazingly well as a company and by the way make possible so much good things for people and creators.
From groundbreaking projects to inspiring stories, 2012 was a year of many memorable moments on Kickstarter.
To celebrate the year that was, our team put together this look back at some of our favorite projects and moments. We hope you enjoy!
-----
Let's begin with some numbers
In 2012 2,241,475 people
pledged a total of $319,786,629
and successfully funded 18,109 projects
Backers pledged $606.76 per minute to projects in 2012
-----
Of the 2.2 million people who backed a project in 2012
570,672 people backed two or more projects
50,047 people backed ten or more projects
452 people backed 100 or more projects
-----
People in 177 countries backed a project in 2012
That's 90% of the countries in the world
-----
Of Kickstarter's 13 creative categories
Music had the most funded projects with 5,067
Games had the most money pledged at $83 million
Art, Film, Music, Publishing, and Theater each had more than 1,000 funded projects
-----
17 projects raised $1 million+ in 2012