The use of crowd funding for new photographic (ad)ventures

[Hassasin]

{Moderator note: this thread was split off of a thread about Intrepid's new LF shutter + lens, which involves a Kickstarter campaign. This involved a tangent about the desirability of the use of crowd funding by established firms, which started to lead its own life - so we decided to give it its own place, since it's interesting enough to discuss.}

This process of taking money from mere enthusiasts ahead of any product being released or, often, even shown in prototype, is getting old. While mamy kickstarters and the like have delivered a product, many went bust by either intent or final result.

When I signed on to Maya darkroom timer, I had limited expectations, but never expected years of effectively BS being put out by the initiator, mainly to keep hopes alive, showing what it appeared to be a finished product, yet none shipped to this date. And his BS lives on with „updates”, teaser shipping forms etc.

 

[koraks]

This process of taking money from mere enthusiasts ahead of any product being released or, often, even shown in prototype, is getting old.

I do agree with this bit - although I'd formulate it differently. Using crowdfunding to finance the initial series production of a new product (the R&D has apparently already largely been done) is IMO an unfortunate choice.

While mamy kickstarters and the like have delivered a product, many went bust by either intent or final result.

OK, but that's a different matter. Crowd funding per se is not a bad thing; it's one way of financing a new development/venture. And in those cases where it's really a "build new from the ground up" case, I can sympathize as long as the terms are transparently communicated. You've got to get the investment from somewhere in order to be able to get going and the type of ventures you generally see on kickstarter have zero chance of getting credit with a regular financial institution and often established venture funds are also not interested. Calling on the community of enthusiasts in a particular area then becomes a logical step. However, an established venture that has been in business for a few years you'd expect to be able to use other source of capital to fulfill their product roadmap.

this particular shutter the shortest time of 1/125s would be a dealbraker for me.

Yeah, that's possible. I don't think I've ever gone any faster than this on LF, but if you shoot wide open a lot in brightly lit places, it's a problem and you'd have to kludge around with ND filters etc.

 

[iseolake]

This process of taking money from mere enthusiasts ahead of any product being released or, often, even shown in prototype, is getting old. While mamy kickstarters and the like have delivered a product, many went bust by either intent or final result.

When I signed on to Maya darkroom timer, I had limited expectations, but never expected years of effectively BS being put out by the initiator, mainly to keep hopes alive, showing what it appeared to be a finished product, yet none shipped to this date. And his BS lives on with „updates”, teaser shipping forms etc.

Many products die between the prototype and production, especially when the inventor has no experience bringing a product into production. I worked in new product introduction at Xerox and Hewlett-Packard. These are companies that could fund new product development with the sale of existing products. Even with experience, many of these products were not successful. We can wait for some well-capitalized venture to start manufacturing these large format items the traditional way (don't hold your breath) or enthusiasts can share the risk. Although it may not be using Kickstarter in the way it was originally intended, the risk is lower for a company that already is manufacturing something, like Intrepid. In any case, I suspect Intrepid is using Kickstarter more for a way of measuring and building a sales pipeline, than just for the capital alone. When the product is ready, you want to start shipping right away.

 

[koraks]

I suspect Intrepid is using Kickstarter more for a way of measuring and building a sales pipeline, than just for the capital alone.

That's a good point. Given what they're showing, suggests that they've already done most of the R&D. This means they didn't need any kickstarter for the out-of-pocket investment involved in doing the development and engineering. The kickstarter may indeed give them some insight into how large of an initial production series they'd need to order, and at the same time it helps raise some capital to finance that series.
Still, I personally prefer to see an established firm like Intrepid to not finance that through its customers. Having said that, it's not unprecedented. Not too long ago, a major company in the semiconductor industry went to its customers basically pressuring them to give them a couple of billion dollars to advance their product roadmap. This is/was not a particularly badly capitalized company, either.

 

[halfaman]

This process of taking money from mere enthusiasts ahead of any product being released or, often, even shown in prototype, is getting old. While mamy kickstarters and the like have delivered a product, many went bust by either intent or final result.

When I signed on to Maya darkroom timer, I had limited expectations, but never expected years of effectively BS being put out by the initiator, mainly to keep hopes alive, showing what it appeared to be a finished product, yet none shipped to this date. And his BS lives on with „updates”, teaser shipping forms etc.

The most important thing to understand about crowdfunding is that you are not buying anything. You are funding a project that may or may not be succesful. Risk is inherent to any investment. About 5% of the credit given to EU private companies is not returned to the banks, why should crowdfunding be different?

Talking about Intrepid in particular, they have a long history of succesful projects, being the 8x10" film holder the only stain (some had light leaks if I recall correctly). So seems like a low risk bet to put your money in.

 

[Hassasin]

The most important thing to understand about crowdfunding is that you are not buying anything. You are funding a project that may or may not be succesful. Risk is inherent to any investment. About 5% of the credit given to EU private companies is not returned to the banks, why should crowdfunding be different?

Talking about Intrepid in particular, they have a long history of succesful projects, being the 8x10" film holder the only stain (some had light leaks if I recall correctly). So seems like a low risk bet to put your money in.

I respectfully disagree, even though just about any of crowd funded fine print says exactly that. Problem is that they go the charity route and „hey feel for us please, we really tried so not our fault project crapped out without results”.

 

[Angarian]

If they are they ought to remove public risk and fund it themselves

No, as Kickstarter is much more than generate funding. It is also a quite good way to measure demand (market research), and to do marketing for a new project.

 

[Hassasin]

No, as Kickstarter is much more than generate funding. It is also a quite good way to measure demand (market research), and to do marketing for a new project.

Ask on x not gouge money from people’s pockets then. How is crowdfunding not mostly about money? The fact they set a target to reach or deal is off has no meaning in the end.

Had anyone noticed in the days of New55 how that worked before deadline? I don’t remember the exact number, but some 100k were missing from the 400k target a week or two before deadline, then at last minute some multi-thousand $ ( unheard of amounts until that point) commitments came in just to reach the target. Then they announced they collected only 360k or something in that range due to some ” collection problems ”.

Not everyone sees what I see, but crowdfunding has an inherent ingredient of dishonesty built in, and fine print makes it legal.

Even if there are some genuine starters that actually have good idea, want to make things happen, but indeed have no funding to get going, it is not like going to VC asking for up front funding, where majority of these projects would fail due to vetting requirements.

It is also a bit ironic how some have become kickstarters as a way of doing business. They make first product that way, fine. Product hits the streets and is successful, then they go at it again, in spite of original success and ask for new money for another idea, and on and on. In essence they are in business of begging every time they get up in the morning with some new idea. It worked before, why not again. And if this new thing is a flop, oh well, we told you.

As you can see I am a true believer in how Kickstarter and similar work.

 

[Angarian]

Not everyone sees what I see, but crowdfunding has an inherent ingredient of dishonesty built in,

I look at what Intrepid has done so far, including their Kickstarter projects. That was all fine and fair, and without any dishonesty.
Period.

I am not their customer, I have never bought anything from them, and I have no contacts at all to them.
But friends of mine have bought their cameras and have been satiesfied, especially with the very good price-performance ratio.
Intrepid has done a lot for the Large Format community by introducing very attractively priced cameras, and by promoting Large Format to young photographers.
I just appreciate it. As simple as that.

 

[MattKing]

If I may, I would suggest that a discussion about the philosophy and ethics of crowd funding in general for photographic projects ought to have its own thread instead - in the Ethics and Philosophy sub-forum, found here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/ethics-and-philosophy.34/

{Fellow moderator edit: it is done!}

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I "crowdfunded" two photographic adventures through Kickstarter, Eugene Richard's photobook This Brief Life, and Paul Sng's film documentary on Tish Murtah, simply called Tish.

Both came out, and I'm proud to have contributed to both. Haven't seen Tish yet, but This Brief Life is now part of my book collection.

I also recently gave money through Kickstarter to a group building a community darkroom in Montreal.

 

[logan2z]

This Brief Life is now part of my book collection.

I supported that one as well, I love his work.

I've been anxiously waiting for Tish to be available to watch somewhere in the US, but nothing yet.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I've been anxiously waiting for Tish to be available to watch somewhere in the US, but nothing yet.

You can rent it or buy it on Apple TV (at least in Canada). I bought it, it's on my computer, but haven't had time to view it.

 

[Pieter12]

I funded several books, a rotary processor and the Maya timer. The Maya is the only one that has not materialized yet. And so it goes.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I did a kickstarter for a Klipsch book. I've yet to read it but it's a nice volume. Wait wasn't too bad maybe 4-6 months.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Crowd funding has risks, so read the documents carefully and evaluate the project carefully to see if you are interested enough for you to take on the risk for you yourself.

 

[reddesert]

I think except for large well-capitalized companies, begging for money to bring a new project into being has always been a necessity. The difference is that individuals or companies with a concept used to have to round up the investment from outside investors (angels, vultures, venture capitalists, hitting up your uncle for a $20,000 loan, etc). Sometimes that works and sometimes even after it works, the outside investors wind up taking over the company, for better or often for worse.

Crowdfunding spreads the money, risk, and reward over a much larger pool of people. For ex, recently, Harman announced a partnership with a bank to invest in new manufacturing capability. But Harman's volume is much larger than Intrepid, and it's pretty common that commercial lenders won't get involved with very small businesses, or on onerous terms.

Obviously, there are risks with kickstarters not delivering. With a company that has an established record of making things, there is somewhat less risk. There used to be even fewer controls at Kickstarter and similar venues, and I recall seeing projects that seemed totally impractical - a few CAD renderings does not make an engineering plan. For example, most "digital sensor you can drop into your film camera" projects.

One has to evaluate the project and one's tolerance of risk (just like if you are loaning your nephew $20,000 to open a restaurant). I don't think I've ever backed a kickstarter for a product, in part because I have too much stuff. I backed several kickstarters for art projects like documentary films or producing a record, and saw that as basically a donation. One of the documentary films took several more years to get over the finish line, but finally I was able to see it in a real live movie theater. That was more gratifying than getting some physical token.

 

[MFstooges]

I remember years ago at a lunch break my coworker proudly showed a phone accessory from kickstarter, around $25-30 if I am not mistaken. The morning on that day I already saw it on some Chinese online retailer for $12.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I remember years ago at a lunch break my coworker proudly showed a phone accessory from kickstarter, around $25-30 if I am not mistaken. The morning on that day I already saw it on some Chinese online retailer for $12.

Sometimes karma can be a bitch.

 

[MFstooges]

Sometimes karma can be a bitch.

For sure but it could also be the reason a lot of projects failed. Quite possibly people then learn to just make a quick buck by presenting project that won't go into production.

 

[warden]

For sure but it could also be the reason a lot of projects failed. Quite possibly people then learn to just make a quick buck by presenting project that won't go into production.

The kickstarters that I’ve seen don’t look like “quick buck“ scams. They look like passionate amateurs working hard to make their dream product for the most part, and then often failing for all the normal reasons. Maybe I’ve paid attention to the wrong ones and Kickstarter is full to the brim with scams. Seems unlikely.

I have been in the product development business for a long time and have seen my fair share of products that have never made it to the marketplace, from Mom and Pops with a dream and a shoestring budget, to pharmaceutical giants with detailed plans, big teams, and enormous budgets. Failure is common along the spectrum, and it would be ridiculous to expect Kickstarters to be any different. I have a lot of respect for those brave enough to put their name out there and make an honest go of it. Failure hurts. Public failure hurts more.

 

[Pieter12]

I believe if you run a scam kickstarter project, they catch on quickly and ban you from starting others.

 

[Pieter12]

I remember years ago at a lunch break my coworker proudly showed a phone accessory from kickstarter, around $25-30 if I am not mistaken. The morning on that day I already saw it on some Chinese online retailer for $12.

There was a recent article I read about Tupperware declaring bankruptcy. Once of the things pointed out is that once someone develops a successful product, as soon as it is possible cheaper and better alternatives hit the market. So if the innovator rests on their laurels, they are likely to be surpassed and left in the dust. Another example was the Toyota Prius, the first mass-market hybrid car. Toyota enjoyed their lead and lagged far behind in developing all-electric vehicles until recently.

 

[koraks]

Ah. The bleeding edge.

 

[Agulliver]

People need to understand that crowdfunding is not the same as ordering goods or services. It is effectively a donation or investment. There is simply nothing to be gained by saying "I disagree". Them's the terms and conditions. That is exactly what crowdfunding is. Donating to or investing in a new endeavour in the hope that it comes to fruition.

I am fully prepared to believe that some entities who organise crowdfunding projects are more honest than others. Some may be honest but naive. Some are honest but face bad luck.

As long as one reads the information carefully and understands that this is a donation and not an order, I don't have any issue with it. I have contributed to a few and seen at least something happen and make it to market, even if it wasn't the product initially hoped for. But I contribute what I can afford to lose, in the hope that my little bit will be joined by thousands of other small contributors and perhaps a handful of larger ones to give the project the best chance of success.

Whether you are an enthusiastic amateur, a start-up company or an existing company....you need to fund the R&D to bring a new product to market somehow. For those at the smaller end, the individuals and the small businesses a crowdfunding campaign may well be the only feasible way to achieve this. I know lots of musicians who crowdfund recording of albums because they don't have a record deal. It runs into thousands, can easily be tens of thousands even if the band is able to do the mixing and mastering themselves. These are guys who don't have the backing of record labels and the only way to get the music recorded and released is to gather up most of the associated costs in advance by a crowdfund campaign. It's the same with niche within niche photo products.

I do think that the people who complain they've been fleeced or conned are generally bleating. Except in a very small number of cases where the organiser was actually dishonest, took the money and ran without even trying to develop a product.