They are pretty explicitly not an investment, though, and the site is quite clear about that. I don't think an equity model would serve them well in most of the markets they're working in, either; it would attract a different audience that they aren't targeting. Kickstarter is modeled off some successful crowdfunding efforts in the arts from the early 2000s, like Trent Reznor's and Radiohead's, and aims to connect fans, not investors, with people undertaking projects.
Would it really be an improvement if, instead of getting a limited-edition box set and maybe access to preview chats/etc., fans got an equity stake in Reznor's label in return for crowdfunding his next album? Do the thousands of fans who kicked in for his last crowdfunding drive even know what equity is and what to do with it? That seems like adding a huge amount of complication for something few fans actually want.
If you are looking for an equity return investment worth picking your nose for then kickstarter projects simply are the right place to be looking.
What you put into KS projects is not an investment, you are essentially just helping the project out. If you are looking for financial return on the money you put down then you either need to properly invest in companies (though that is of course rather expensive and risky) or for smaller amounts you need to find a savings account with a reasonable rate of inflation. The medium amounts there are several "crowd funding" options that provide loans to individuals or small businesses - you'll likely get a higher return from this than a savings account but there is of course a risk that you could make a loss instead.
I've put money in the put for a couple of things on KS, not because I want some financial return on "investment" but because I want to see the thing happen or be made for one reason or another (a valid reason being just because I think it is a neat idea and even if I don't personally want it I think the world would be a little more "cool" on average if said product/service/show/what-ever got off the ground).
There are also projects on Kickstarter that will never be profitable, not because of failure but by design. People use Kickstarter for art experiments and to fund parties and special events that don't generate a product that will be sold after the initial funding. You'd be better off going on AngelList if your goal is to fund projects for high amounts of money and get a return on your investment.
That said, I don't think there anything explicitly stopping someone on Kickstarter from giving small amounts of equity to backers, and it might be something that people do for very high tier ($5K-$10K) reward levels.
A very little amount yes. But if I can invest $100 (or $1,000) into a Kickstarter project maybe I "lose" it all, maybe make my investment back + enough money to buy a pizza. Maybe I double my investment, which then I can pour into other kickstarter investments.
Where AngelList falls down is don't you have to be a qualified angel? So someone with only hundreds to invest, or a thousand dollars, is locked out because AngelList is looking for investors with tens of thousands of dollars? (Although, again, the JOBS act might change that dynamic...)
From: http://paulgraham.com/startupfunding.html
The SEC defines an "accredited investor" as someone
with over a million dollars in liquid assets or an
income of over $200,000 a year. The regulatory burden
is much lower if a company's shareholders are all
accredited investors. Once you take money from the
general public you're more restricted in what
you can do. [1]
You know what I want from my kickstarter investment? Equity.
Yes, rewards are OK ("yay a poster!") and there is something to be said about getting the satisfaction of early investment in a product... But I see kickstarter projects as an investment, and thus I want to see a (potential) return.
Perhaps this is an advantage of the JOBS act: let 100 "kickstarter clones but with community expectation that you're buying stock options instead of kudos." bloom.