Generally I agree with you here, though I once read that the majority (perhaps the vast majority?) of the best-funded projects in Kickstarter history presented themselves as product pre-sales. They showed tangible goods, linked those goods to donation levels, and in all but name only, gave the impression that users were trading "donations" for the goods they saw in the pictures.
Perhaps this says something about Kickstarter and its userbase, or about the way Kickstarter describes itself to its users. I am a big fan of Kickstarter, and I've funded about ten projects on the site. I realize that not everything I fund is going to ship me something, and I'm fine with that.
But I suspect I am not a typical user. Indeed, I suspect that the typical user funds a single project, which he or she believes will directly result in the shipment of a physical product. In fact, I would be very curious to know what the user stats tell us on this matter. If Kickstarter says it's X (a donation site), but a preponderance of its users believe it's Y (a pre-sales site), then it's got an interesting dilemma on its hands. A site that believes itself to be X will not be a good enough Y for people who think it's Y, and vice versa. Maybe Kickstarter doesn't want the Y people sticking around, or it thinks that a preponderance of Y people indicates that the site is still in its infancy and has yet to mature. Fine. But if that's the case, and the Y pipeline eventually dries up, is X actually a viable business model? To date, it seems that Y users have been keeping X afloat.
If I build a ski run, and the majority of my users show up to snowboard on it, do I still call it a ski run? Do I chase the snowboarders off? Do I try to reason with the snowboarders, and convince them to trade their snowboards for skis? Do I advertise for more skiers, hoping that their numbers will eventually outweigh those of the snowboarders? Or do I embrace snowboarding? There isn't a right answer, and obviously my analogy is a little silly, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
Perhaps this says something about Kickstarter and its userbase, or about the way Kickstarter describes itself to its users. I am a big fan of Kickstarter, and I've funded about ten projects on the site. I realize that not everything I fund is going to ship me something, and I'm fine with that.
But I suspect I am not a typical user. Indeed, I suspect that the typical user funds a single project, which he or she believes will directly result in the shipment of a physical product. In fact, I would be very curious to know what the user stats tell us on this matter. If Kickstarter says it's X (a donation site), but a preponderance of its users believe it's Y (a pre-sales site), then it's got an interesting dilemma on its hands. A site that believes itself to be X will not be a good enough Y for people who think it's Y, and vice versa. Maybe Kickstarter doesn't want the Y people sticking around, or it thinks that a preponderance of Y people indicates that the site is still in its infancy and has yet to mature. Fine. But if that's the case, and the Y pipeline eventually dries up, is X actually a viable business model? To date, it seems that Y users have been keeping X afloat.
If I build a ski run, and the majority of my users show up to snowboard on it, do I still call it a ski run? Do I chase the snowboarders off? Do I try to reason with the snowboarders, and convince them to trade their snowboards for skis? Do I advertise for more skiers, hoping that their numbers will eventually outweigh those of the snowboarders? Or do I embrace snowboarding? There isn't a right answer, and obviously my analogy is a little silly, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.