Frankly, it sounds to me like he should consider himself lucky that, despite grossly mis-estimating the actual cost of printing and delivering his posters, he actually received enough funding to meet his obligations to his backers. If he had only raised the amount set as his goal, we'd be reading about yet another guy who's project was never delivered.

Maybe I'm being too uncharitable here, but I think his article is really a case study for why people should be wary of funding low-cost kickstarter projects that require delivery of physical goods.

The cost of re-printing, and re-shipping the posters came out to $7,073, or 9% of the total amount raised. I think we all make these large screw-ups occasionally, but rarely enough that they're not in budgets. I think I cost my last job 20k in an afternoon once.

I don't think this at all indicates people should be wary about funding projects: everything was delivered.

Less shipping supplies ($5,811)

Less storage lease for 5 months ($690)

Less postage ($4,701)

Less temporary help ($741)

Less charity: water contribution ($2,000)

$13,943 in addition to his $15,000 loan, as well as Kickstarter taking 5% and the 5% merchant fee, which would have come out to ~$1000. I don't think people would have received the poster.

    I'm not sure why anyways would set a funding goal of $10k for a project 
    they already spent $15k on if they actually expected profit.

You can't have it both ways.