I read this today and thought people here might find it useful. The article is about computer games, but there are a lot of things that puppeteers would benefit from knowing: the need for constant communication with your donors, having someone to guide you through the process of campaigning, having milestones where you can test and present your work, the issue of including good rewards and how much they will end up costing you, etc. Really worth a read if you plan on using Kickstarter or Indiegogo.

http://indiegames.com/2013/09/postmortem_gods_will_be_watchi.html

Wow. Thanks for that, it's a pretty good read. I did find it odd that their strongest stage of fundraising was the first 3 days, on Kickstarter it's normally the other way around with there being a strong push in the last couple of days in the campaign. Maybe it's an Indiegogo thing. Kickstarter and Indiegogo have some really good resources of their own. They are a little broad but good information for anyone looking to start crowdfunding.

http://landing.indiegogo.com/iggfieldguide/
http://www.kickstarter.com/help/school/

On a side note, I'm really excited that Kickstarter is coming to Australia & New Zealand "soon".

I'd guess that they'd built up so much interest pre-launch of the campaign that once it finally opened they had lots of donors. Plus I think for many of the higher rewards they tend to be in limited amounts, so the sooner you get in, the sooner you get the reward that you want.

I was leaning towards using Indiegogo - mostly because I don't like the format of not being able to complete the campaign if you don't reach your goal. Personally I think it's annoying to have to remember to donate via someone's website after I've already (attempted) to donate via these campaign sites. However, after reading the article it's made me think I need to research them both a bit more.

Perhaps reaching their goal so early meant people wouldn't wait so long before backing. The average project doesn't normally reach it's goal in 3 days. And you're right, those higher reward tiers add up really quickly.

Although Indiegogo's flexible funding format can benefit creators, but I really don't like it as a backer. When I'm deciding whether to back a project or not I think that if it only raises 50% of it's goal then how is it going to compromise the quality of the finished product. Or if they could do it for $5,000 then why are they asking for $10,000? I think that all-or-nothing funding really shows that the creators have thought about the expenses and adds an extra level of credibility. Plus I think that having an all-or-nothing campaign really motivates people to donate to get it past the goal (meaning more money for the creator and better finished product for the backers).

That's just my opinion as a backer. There are many successful projects using the flexible funding format, it just really depends on what you're crowdfunding for.

That's an interesting point. For me, both as a creator and a backer, I don't take it as "they could do it for less but are asking for more". I take it as a sign that they can't do it for less, but are realistic at the problems of raising funds. Take a look at Andrew - Puppetvision. Despite being one of the best known, if not the best known English blog for puppets, he couldn't raise enough money via his own campaign. I can imagine it's very disheartening to see even a small percentage of the total disappear - and now you have to restart the process again, try to get funds another way, and all the while try to convince you backers to return and donate again.

Fans have short term memories, and unless seriously dedicated to the project, will likely donate and forget all about it. (I know I have a couple of times) When they don't meet their goals, I don't bother to donate again via other means. The advantage of not meeting a goal is that you can say "well, we only got 50% and it's not enough, so come to our website and do more". Whereas if it's all or nothing they have to hope on the goodwill for people to still be interested.

From my point of view: the project I'm interested in starting may have costs that are really low. I could ask for less than $5000 and still have enough left over for stretch goals. *But*, the stretch goals are almost just as important as the project itself. For instance, I'd be asking so that I could be a certain machine, and to purchase materials. I can most definitely complete the project just with that funding. But my stretch goals would include rent for a creative space to work in, or some extra marketing help. Ye, I can do it for less - but the extra money would actually get the project out there. I guess what I'm saying is that it all depends on what you include as 'necessary' in the budget.

I think the beauty of Kickstarter and the fixed-funding platform is that it's a proof of concept in itself. If people want the project then they'll back it, it proves that there is an audience/market for the project. If you can't raise a minimum goal than is the project really marketable or sellable?

When you look at Indiegogo, I really get the impression that a lot of the projects are done out of passion rather than marketability and are run by people who would do anything short of robbing a bank to get their project made. I'm sure Andrew's Puppetvision falls into this category. And I agree that and money lost through fixed-funding would have been a disheartening waste to have to raise those funds again and any money a creator can get from flexible funding is a plus.

The point here is it's definitely not Fixed vs Flexible funding, but rather they are both tools, and the best solution for one project might not apply to another.

Just a note on your project Na: I think if the stretch goals are just as important then they should be included in the original goal. That being said, the crowdfunding goal doesn't have to be total that you need to finish the project, you could look into other avenues to top up the stream of funding. I'm actually looking to fund my own project at the beginning of next year, I'm looking at crowdfunding, sponsorship, my wallet and other forms of funding to get my project made. Although the solutions I'm looking at may not apply to your project, I think that every problem has a solutions, you just have to find the right solution for your project.

If you can't raise a minimum goal than is the project really marketable or sellable?

There's a big problem with that assumption though: like many things in life it's more complicated than that. If the project raises below their goal, does that truly reflect the marketability of the project, or other things? For instance, off the top of my head: it could reflect the creator's inexperience with using such a platform and the issues of raising money online vs traditional methods. (Going back to Puppetvision, he has received funding from elsewhere, and is working steadily towards getting the film shown in festivals - he's already had considerable interest from many puppetry festivals to show it when it's finished. However, he couldn't get enough online donations to meet his goal) Does it reflect someone's inability to market the campaign itself? You are competing with thousands of other campaigns? Does it reflect a niche audience - as puppetry is - and therefore the interest in funding it is smaller?

Does the audience for the project use or feel comfortable with donating online? Some people are not happy handing over funds that way, and even more some people are not going to donate to a website (Kickstarter or Indiegogo) even if they are confident in the project itself. Does the audience have money? The people who are going to most likely donate aren't necessarily potential/customers, but fans, friends and others who want to see you do well. We've had a few Kickstarter creators post here, but I was never inclined to donate - despite being intrigued by their concept - because I have limited funds and to be honest would more likely give money to the friends I've made here, rather than those who drop by to advertise their campaign.

There are so many many reasons why a campaign might fail, and it has very little to do with how well thought out their project is. As an example I dare you to name any large theatrical company in Australia which does not require and rely on regular government funding; despite being in existence for decades if not longer, having numerous awards, famous faces, and so on.

The point here is it's definitely not Fixed vs Flexible funding, but rather they are both tools, and the best solution for one project might not apply to another.

I do agree with you there. I'm speaking mostly from an ignorant occasional donor perspective so I am more arguing out my own ideas than thinking it should be one way or the other.

Just a note on your project Na: I think if the stretch goals are just as important then they should be included in the original goal. That being said, the crowdfunding goal doesn't have to be total that you need to finish the project, you could look into other avenues to top up the stream of funding. I'm actually looking to fund my own project at the beginning of next year, I'm looking at crowdfunding, sponsorship, my wallet and other forms of funding to get my project made. Although the solutions I'm looking at may not apply to your project, I think that every problem has a solutions, you just have to find the right solution for your project.

Agreed. At this stage I'm only formulating ideas of how to structure a campaign. To me, the suggested stretch goals aren't such a big deal. I've gotten this far without marketing help and can go a little longer without it. It's more I guess that I don't want it to sound like I'm asking for money in a way that seems frivolous. The machine to cut out my designs is necessary; but I don't *need* someone to look for marketing leads, I just can't be bothered to do it myself... As for 'other funding opportunities'... I don't think there are any available to me at the moment. Which is why I need the online campaign actually.

What kind of sponsorship are you looking at?

I'm going to start by saying that most of the statements I've made in this thread are generalisations. Crowdfunding is relitively new (kickstarter and Indiegogo at least) and cover a rather broad range of categories so there's never going to be a one solution fits all. Also, I've never run my own campaign so my opinions are based on my experience as a backer and the research I've done on crowdfunding.

I still stand by my comment that crowdfunding is a great proof of concept. If you can raise your goal it can prove the worth of your project and that it's marketable and people want to see the project come to life. If you can't raise your goal then there's something wrong. Perhaps the concept is marketable but you haven't done it the right way. Maybe you're asking for too much and not giving value for money. Maybe your primary audience isn't tech savvy and can't use a computer. But some projects just are just flawed from the concept and it's better to know that then to waste a lot of money to only find out later once you've drained your bank account.

It's funny that you used the example of Andrew from puppetvision, because now he's running another campaign. I'm sure if you asked him he'd tell you the lessons he learnt running his last campaign and how he'll do it different this time around.

It's more I guess that I don't want it to sound like I'm asking for money in a way that seems frivolous.

...

What kind of sponsorship are you looking at?

Rewards or Perks exist so you don't have to beg for money. If you can offer something (anything) of value then they're not really donating, they're buying into your campaign.

My project is a Web Series, so it's probably very different to what you're considering. When I said sponsorship I what talking about Program sponsors and Product placement and other things you might see in TV land. It also extends to running ads, selling products and cross-promotion and anything else I can think of to get funding. I don't expect large amounts of money dropped in my lap, but any dollar that doesn't come out of my wallet is a good thing.

Many small streams add up to a river (hopefully ).

I'm going to start by saying that most of the statements I've made in this thread are generalisations. Crowdfunding is relitively new (kickstarter and Indiegogo at least) and cover a rather broad range of categories so there's never going to be a one solution fits all. Also, I've never run my own campaign so my opinions are based on my experience as a backer and the research I've done on crowdfunding.

I agree, and am in a similar position. I've only ever been an onlooker.

I still stand by my comment that crowdfunding is a great proof of concept. If you can raise your goal it can prove the worth of your project and that it's marketable and people want to see the project come to life. If you can't raise your goal then there's something wrong.

I agree, I just think that the "something wrong" isn't always the concept itself. Perhaps we're splitting hairs. I think what you're saying is "if the campaign fails the project that you're fundraising for is a failure", whereas I'm saying "if the campaign fails, then the campaign is the failure and not necessarily the project itself". Or maybe you are saying the latter and I'm just thick

I'd also point out that there have been successful projects (or at least semi-successful) which have been offensive and promoting violence:
http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/we-were-wrong
Likewise there have been successful projects that have been shown to be fraudulent. So I'm coming at it from the point of view that 'success' is not something easily defined. Indeed, my experience with websites suggests that there's no formula that works for everyone.

It's funny that you used the example of Andrew from puppetvision, because now he's running another campaign. I'm sure if you asked him he'd tell you the lessons he learnt running his last campaign and how he'll do it different this time around.

Yes, I saw that just before I came to this post. I already know some of his experience (see https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/school-of-puppetry-podcast/id600371728) with the campaign, and what I find interesting is that he's gone back to the same campaign site (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/puppetvision-the-movie). So I'd be curious to know why, since he didn't reach his goal - can Canadians use Kickstarter?

Rewards or Perks exist so you don't have to beg for money. If you can offer something (anything) of value then they're not really donating, they're buying into your campaign.

Never thought of it that way, but at the same time, the rewards may be "amazingly brilliant merchandise" but no one will donate IMHO if the money is still frivolous. Get amazing merch = pay me to have a vacation.... Just doesn't compute.

My project is a Web Series, so it's probably very different to what you're considering. When I said sponsorship I what talking about Program sponsors and Product placement and other things you might see in TV land. It also extends to running ads, selling products and cross-promotion and anything else I can think of to get funding.

We're definitely completely different in terms of projects. But I'm also guessing that you might have contacts you can pull on, and you can definitely offer advertising or credits. I can't do that, and have no one I can rely on as 'industry contacts', and for various reasons government funding is not an option. A lifetime of running theatrical performances on the smell of the whiff of a dried-up oily rag tells me that corporate sponsorship is usually a waste of time.

Fortunately for me, the online campaign is likely to be more useful as whilst I don't have contacts, my project does tap into a huge online community who might actually have an interest in it.

I don't expect large amounts of money dropped in my lap, but any dollar that doesn't come out of my wallet is a good thing.

Agreed - but it's also why I like no fixed goals. If I get $5 I'm ok with that, because I really don't expect anyone at all to give me anything

Yes, I saw that just before I came to this post. I already know some of his experience (see https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/school-of-puppetry-podcast/id600371728) with the campaign, and what I find interesting is that he's gone back to the same campaign site (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/puppetvision-the-movie). So I'd be curious to know why, since he didn't reach his goal - can Canadians use Kickstarter?

Canadians can, but only recently (within the last month). We (my Producer Morgan and I) actually attended the "Kickstarter School" that was held in Toronto in September and we were torn over which platform to use. We chose IndieGoGo because over the summer it was unclear for awhile when Kickstarter was going to be available to Canadians, because IndieGoGo has been a good platform for many films (to be fair, so has Kickstarter) and because of some of the issues with how Kickstarter pays out to Canadian projects, even if we hit or goal we wouldn't actually have the funding in hand in time to do some of what we wanted to with it.

If I was running an "all or nothing" campaign, or if there had been more certainty in advance about what Kickstarter was doing in Canada we might would have gone with them. But IndieGoGo is more flexible and was a better fit with our project.

Never thought of it that way, but at the same time, the rewards may be "amazingly brilliant merchandise" but no one will donate IMHO if the money is still frivolous. Get amazing merch = pay me to have a vacation.... Just doesn't compute.

I think this is very true. One of the things we really wanted to communicate with our campaign was that we are not asking people to fund a trip around the world for us. Our project's budget will come out around $60,000 Cdn and approx $44,000 Cdn of that we've either paid out of our own pockets or financed through various other means. We could complete the film without some or all of the financing if necessary, but it wouldn't be nearly as good and wouldn't represent as many artists or countries as we'd like it to.

For example, our budget for licensing film clips and other archival materials like photos is about $22,000 - more than 1/3 our total budget. So depending on how we spin the the numbers, every penny from crowdfunding is really going towards those hard costs that we don't have any control over (licensing is one of the areas that will have to take a huge hit if we fail to reach our goal).

We've talked a lot among ourselves about sponsors and product placement. I am less comfortable with the idea of product placement in a documentary, but our final film will probably involve sponsorship of some kind. We're likely going to tour the film in North America (and possibly the UK) next Fall and we're looking in to having sponsors for that.

One of our perks ($500 and above) is for a year of advertising on the PuppetVision Blog. I get approached five or six times every month by people asking to advertise and I've always resisted that (except for a brief experiment with advertising for around 2007 that I abandoned) because I like the blog being commercial-free and ads are sometimes time consuming to administer. For the campaign I decided that I could live with the compromise of advertising/sponsorship if it helped us get the film made.

I also think it's very important to realize that crowdfunding is not charity. Anyone contributing $10 to our campaign (as well as people who backed the first one) will be getting exclusive videos and bonus content several times each month for the next year. At $25 you get a digital download. The DVD is $50. The massive "Special Edition" DVD is $100. The $500 reward is a year of advertising on the PuppetVision Blog.

So we're not asking people to give us money for nothing. We're basically selling advertising, subscriptions to content and pre-selling digital downloads and DVDs of the film.

Great discussion!