Skip to main content

Crowdfunding Means Owning The Risk

 
PayPal's decision to remove its purchase protection scheme for payments made to crowdfunding services sounds like exactly the right thing to do for the company, but also should serve as a warning about what these services actually deliver.
 
First of all purchase protection. Backers putting their hard-earned cash into prospective products should be aware that there is a much higher element of risk in this kind of deal, compared to, say, ordering a product from a reseller online. That's because you're putting your trust in the ability of someone to get a prototype from an idea and possibly a prototype, into a mass production-ready solution that can be built to a price.
 
If you agree to take on the risk, passing it on to PayPal seems like the wrong thing to do. PayPal obviously agrees and has closed that loophole.
 
Kickstarter, by far the biggest and most successful crowdfunding site, makes much of the fact that 65% of its backers receive the product they backed.
 
65%? That's a one in three fail rate. And that's the best the industry has to offer...
 
Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't fly an airline that boasts that it reaches its destination 65% of the time; and I would undergo surgery by a surgeon who happily tells me two-thirds of their patients die in surgery.
 
The reason why many of these projects end up on Kickstarter is that no sane venture capitalist would risk a brass farthing of their own on such a proposition. The entrepreneurs generally risk none of their own funds to get the product off the ground, and on the occasions where one actually not only ships but becomes a success they reap all the profit too. Zero riak, maximum reward And that should be all you need to know.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…