The other software kickstarters I've backed have included a copy of the product for the lowest tier (usually $15), and then added swag like t-shirts at the higher tiers.
Something like this:
$15: Light Table license
$30: Light Table license and included in the list of contributors
$50: Light Table license, included in list of contributors, and early access to beta
$100: Light Table license, included in list of contributors, early access to betas, and t-shirt
Lowering the early access will get you more beta testers, and raising the t-shirt higher will make you have to ship less t-shirts.
I disagree, I think shopping is exactly what Kickstarter becomes. You can use the platform for a lot of different realities. But, really, I didn't back the pebble watch because I thought the guys were nice, or because I thought the world needed another watch, or another thing to charge at night. I backed it because I like having new shit, I wouldn't of done so if I didn't get something physical from the money. As much as kickstarter is the poormans way to vc projects. VC's want to see something for their money too.
Even if my only reason for backing projects was to see projects become a reality. I'd still be shopping in a way, shopping to find projects I wanted to push into a tangible place. But even at that point, I still think it's the minority.
Donation based projects are more than fine, i'd love to see light table exist. But don't underestimate affordable donations, or fair rewards.
Kickstarter isn't "supposed" to be an e-commerce site, but that's what the majority of its users seem to be using it as. That's the emergent use case that's become almost a standard for the site.
Regardless of how we might feel about it, pricing needs to accommodate this user behavior. Not the other way around. Expecting users to change how they use Kickstarter is a recipe for sub-optimal subscription, if not failure.
For the consumer electronics. I'd say it's absolutely about crowdfunding and supporting the creator for artist and artwork projects, which are the majority that I back, as well as many people I know.
However, if Kickstarter doesn't allow changes in pricing once the project is set, it might not be the best option. Why not simply set up a personal pre-selling page, accepting payments via PayPal or any other service?
Can not change current reward level's, at least not after they have a purchase. But you can always add more levels. So as much as that does not alleviate the fixed prices, I think if the prices are well thought out, then more reward levels were added based on demand of the market, at that point I think it becomes a pretty successful platform for a startup or commercial activities. Although there are definitely exceptions.
"Why not simply set up a personal pre-selling page, accepting payments via PayPal or any other service?"
Awareness. If I started a new company that sold shoes, set up a seperate page. I would not have the instant credibility or the traffic that kickstarter has. As much as there is a small chance if the market demanded what I had, that I could push it viral without kickstarter. I do believe that the kickstarter platform has proved itself over the last few months. Multiple projects being pushed over the million dollar barrier, projects spanning from pure hardware to pure software. I think there are plenty of cases where kickstarter should be a last option. You're still preselling product, instead of equity, all while gaining awareness/free publicity while not taking very much risk.
On top of that, with not using kickstarter, you're losing not only the traffic, but the impulse buys. At least a lot of them. At the discounted prices, people jump on bandwagons. For instance, if I see something that has taken off, I will in a lot of cases "back" the project, even projects where I didn't think I wanted or needed before logging on to kickstarter.
I agree with you in theory that kickstarter isn't a place to shop, but in practice it appears that offering 0 marginal cost rewards (e.g. software, videos, early access, media, etc...) at low tiers is a very successful strategy.
You're right that the tiers can't change much now, but the way it was structured and worded is indeed discouraging. I know I was certainly discouraged as a result, and I'm currently on the fence as to whether to contribute now or wait and see how it turns out. If this project doesn't succeed in making it's goal I would really recommend looking at the more successful software projects in detail and notice how they go out of their way to message and recognize backers in a way that makes them feel like their genuinely contributing, even if only in spirit, and orient their rewards accordingly. Adding buttons, logo stickers, t-shirts, posters, etc. are the kind of things that a community of supporters will desire and from what I've seen so far, go a long way in encouraging larger donations.
edit: removing suggestion to rollup rewards due to their potential for complicating things.
I must admit that I'm having a really hard time justifying donating to this project, if it really will be pay-what-you-want when it's released.
Looking at the kickstarter page, it looks like you're completely missing out on the low tier donations that many other kickstarter projects get the most money from
FYI, no data to base off, just guessing, hence the words "think", "would" in my post you're replying to.
I myself would have considered buying/donating, although I wouldn't use the first version (not doing any Javascript or Clojure projects). But I see value in what is planned here and would be willing to bet twenty or even thirty dollars on its success. It would be a bet that the final product, which I basically bought, is good enough that people implement plugins for it that I could use (ruby/php/java/actionscript/etc).
But $50 is a pretty high bet in this case, and I would bet that I am not the only one in the described situation...
"Kickstarter isn’t charity: we champion exchanges that are a mix of commerce and patronage, and the numbers bear this out."
Kickstarters are a bet: I expect 50% of them to succeed, so I have to be able to extract double the backing value per project for it to be worth backing.
I'm obviously not the only one, which is why the $15 price point is so effective..
This looks like such a cool idea. I think their primary concern must be to release a basic thing out first and then iterate over it. This way they will get both contributions and the product going.
Decide what your design goals are, define what code and quality goes in and out of your repo. Build something basic, release it and then iterate. Contributions and donations will follow. But if you are expecting mass adoption for a tool designed primarily for Clojure then, Clojure itself is in low adoption stage now. On top of that people who use clojure wanting to use will be fewer(Emacs + Slime really works well). So the initial payment model with only Clojure support may not bring them much money. This definitely has to be a platform like Emacs. And then the money can come from upgrades, major revisions.
Also it would have been nice if language used to extend this was Clojure itself.
We desperately need some modern GUI candy on an Emacs like editor which can be extensible by Lisp.
While in an ideal world, things like this could be free, in reality, the amount of time, effort, and people involved to build it in the time frame we're all wanting this means they need money and I'm not sure having rewards for $15 is going to accomplish that. That's the unfortunate reality of what is wanted, and what it takes to actually get there. :\
I know that a game and IDE are not directly comparable, but they do have some things in common: 0 marginal cost and expensive to implement due to skilled labor requirement.
However, neither do what Light Table does. I'm also certain that there will be plugins for practically every language with a REPL, given enough time and the fact that it's open source.
A high goal on Kickstarter /is like a high price/ and seems to trigger similar supporter/customer behavior.
When I saw the Light Table video on HN I flipped out. I want this! But when I saw this campaign something cooled my jets. I'm not sure I'd pay $50 if it was for sale right now. If I'm supporting its creation, and speculating at that, I need a more alluring price and/or a story that makes me forget about all price concerns.
If I were the creator, I'd seriously consider pay-what-you-want.
In this case, it's not a matter of presumption, it's a matter of knowing the reality of what is involved in actually building this thing.
Edit: I did't mean to suggest the goal is unreasonable or unattainable. I was just trying to explain the not-positive reaction I had to seeing it. Like shopping, not all price reactions are logical.
Saying "license" looks non-free. I guess it includes the closed-source plug-ins (?). Good to clarify.
For what it's worth, I agree, especially on the t-shirt. I stopped reading after $20 because (a) I sure as heck don't want a tshirt and figured everything else would include it, but that doesn't matter because (b) I have no desire to "invest" more.
That's obvious: Include a full copy of the product at that level. Call it "no support" or something, but if you're going to be doing pay-what-you-want, then go ahead and start now.
I think playing with support options or possibly upgrade paths ($20 get you free upgrades for 1 year, $50 gets you free upgrades for 2 years or somehting) might be a solution...though I'm not sure myself.
Being able to only pay the difference when buying a licence is another option.
The only tier, apart from a 15$ software tier(as its been standard), that would make sense to me personally(and financially) would be an option to vote on what language he creates support for first(after he's done with the initial Clojure version).
I don't know what percentage of backers are the kind that do it merely to "support" a project, but I would guess it's not more than 10-15% of all backers for a given project.
The rest want some value for their money beyond feeling good about backing. You state you chose $50 for a license because that is what you think it is worth. I think you'll find out that what you think people will pay you for something and what they are willing to pay differs by a factor of 2-3.
So most of the people that want what you are going to make, even a little, probably don't want to spend more than $20 or $25. The difference between that and $50 is made up from goodwill, but that's really asking a lot of people.
I would recommend making some more tiers between $5 and $50, where everything above $20 gets a license. This way you capture the people that just want the product, and give others the ability to show their goodwill as well.
This isn't the kind of project that really needs swag. Nobody really wants a t-shirt. If you do something like promise to list backers (and their associated tiers) in the "credits" of the app, that would probably be great for most people.
edit: typos, and wording