Is Kickstarter selling dreams?

By Felix Salmon
July 19, 2012
" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

My theory, when it comes to buying lottery tickets, is that if you have disposable income to spare, then often the dreams and fantasies that accompany your lottery ticket purchase are in and of themselves worth $1. This is true not because dreams and fantasies are wonderful amazing and valuable things, although they can be; it’s more true because $1 is a very small amount of money. All too many people spend a significant percentage of their disposable income on lottery tickets, and that is a tragedy.

Now Ian Bogost has come along with a similar theory, relating to Kickstarter. Funding projects on Kickstarter is in itself “another form of entertainment”, he says:

What if Kickstarter is more about the experience of kickstarting than it is about the finished products? When you fund something like OUYA, you’re not pre-ordering a new console that will be made and marketed, you’re buying a ticket on the ride, reserving a front-row seat to the process and endorsing an idea. It’s a Like button attached to your wallet.

Bogost is proud of a pen he spent $100 on but never uses: “it’s a memento of the excitement I felt after first seeing the product”, he writes:

When faced with the reality of these products, disappointment is inevitable–not just because they’re too little too late (if at all) but for even weirder reasons. We don’t really want the stuff. We’re paying for the sensation of a hypothetical idea, not the experience of a realized product.

This is a cute conceit, and contains more than a germ of truth. At the same time, however, it starts to fall apart when Bogost compares Kickstarter to QVC, saying that what QVC is really selling is “the excitement of learning about products for the first time and getting in early on the sale”. That might indeed be part of why people are so eager to pick up the phone and order when they’re watching home shopping channels, but it’s not what QVC shoppers think that they’re paying for.

A lot of the relationship between merchants and consumers, these days, is a kind of escalating cold war: as fast as merchants’ sales techniques become increasingly sophisticated, so do consumers learn to see through them and compensate for them. If we look today at advertisements from 50 or even 20 years ago, we’re astonished that they worked at all.

And so it seems to me that Kickstarter is in some ways much like QVC was when it launched: a state-of-the-art sales and marketing platform. It’s highly social: Jeanne Pi has determined that your chances of raising $10,000 on Kickstarter are just 9% if you have 10 Facebook friends, rising to 20% if you have 100 friends, and 40% if you have 1,000 friends. And it’s done a very good job of walking the fine line between do-gooding, on the one hand (charity campaigns are specifically banned), and overt commercialism, on the other. Many projects are rejected, and Kickstarter’s Yancey Strickler is keen that everything on the site be creative, in some way, rather than just being some superficially clever gadget that you might see in the SkyMall catalogue or in a late-night infomercial. He doesn’t always succeed, but if you strip out the outliers, the big million-dollar headline-grabbers, he’s doing a better job than you might think.

Or, to put it another way, the simple “you could win a million dollars” sales pitch works for selling lottery tickets only combined with a deeply-discounted $1 ticket price. Make something cheap enough, and you can sell just about anything. Kickstarter, by contrast, with a much more sophisticated pitch, manages to deal in much higher dollar amounts per transaction.

Here’s the problem: while “I’m buying a dream” makes a certain amount of sense for a $1 lottery ticket, it makes much less sense for $100 vaporware. Just speaking for myself, if I’m spending $100, I want significantly more than just a dream. That’s more money than I’ve spent on lottery tickets in my lifetime. And I’m rich — I’m reasonably sure that I have more money, and more disposable income, than the majority of the 40,000 people — and rising fast — who are funding Ouya.

Maybe that just makes me a tightwad, and maybe America has millions of people who are happy dropping $100 on the experience of funding some exciting new project, just for the way it makes them feel. But it seems to me that one of Kickstarter’s greatest successes is the way in which it has managed to change the way we think about cost. I funded Tomorrow magazine, for instance, to the tune of $15. (On average, the magazine’s 1,548 backers paid more than $25 each.) If some as-yet nonexistent magazine had sent me a piece of direct mail, asking $15 for its launch issue, I would never have paid that. Even if an existing magazine looked really good on the newsstand, and had a cover price of $15, I would similarly never pay that. But somehow the idea that by paying the $15 up front I was helping to create that magazine — that was enough to get me to pay. That, and the fact that the founders of Tomorrow magazine are in my social graph — I’m helping out friends as much as I’m buying a product.

I think that’s the real key here: I’m not paying for the sensation of a hypothetical idea, so much as paying to support the individuals whom I like and admire. And Kickstarter neatly wraps that charitable impulse in a commercial transaction, which makes it easier to ask for — and receive — more money than either approach would yield on its own.

The question is: how sustainable is this model? It’s common in capitalist societies for local merchants to be able to charge higher prices, largely because they’re more convenient. Has Kickstarter invented a new form of online commerce, where merchants who are close to you on the social graph, rather than in terms of physical geography, can thereby charge a premium for products which would never fly in the open market? (I don’t get many catalogues in the mail offering goods which don’t yet exist, and which might not ever arrive.) Or has Kickstarter merely perfected the art of sprinkling social fairy dust on what are fundamentally commercial transactions, and eventually, as other merchants do the same thing and the public gets wise, the effectiveness of the fairy dust will diminish?

I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle, and that Kickstarter is a bit like Groupon in its adoption profile. The early adopters tend to be the most zealous about it, and as the platform matures, the added value that it can generate per customer will necessarily diminish. At the same time, the customer base will almost certainly continue to rise pretty quickly. So the aggregate value being generated by Kickstarter is likely to continue to rise.

Over time, I think that fewer projects will be able to raise millions of dollars selling clever as-yet-nonexistent gizmos for $99 each. These projects nearly always tend to understate the risks involved, and especially the risk that the project will fail, and the funders won’t actually receive anything at all. That’s natural: the founders are in sales-pitch mode. But as consumers get wise to those risks, especially if one or two high-profie million-dollar Kickstarter successes end up producing nothing at all, then at that point we’ll realize that the funders weren’t just buying a dream after all. They really thought they were buying a product.

More From Felix Salmon
Post Felix
The Piketty pessimist
The most expensive lottery ticket in the world
The problems of HFT, Joe Stiglitz edition
Private equity math, Nuveen edition
Five explanations for Greece’s bond yield
Comments
11 comments so far

I never argued that Kickstarter is selling dreams. I argued that it’s entertainment. Some entertainment costs $100, and some costs $5, and both and everything in between is represented on Kickstarter. The “dream” argument is yours, although I agree that some KS projects feel like dreams in the way lotteries do. That’s one kind of entertainment, but not the only one. Oh, and about QVC. QVC is an analogy, and therefore an evocative comparison, not an equivalence.

Posted by ibogost | Report as abusive

I think Kickstarter is one of those things that becomes possible with really big populations, rich populations. You ask how sustainable, but I your mental model might be about “most” of us using the thing, like most of us going to Starbucks. In fact it’s working with “none” (to first approximation) of us. It takes very few, and they don’t really have to be explained rationally. The Winner’s Curse is enough. With really large and rich populations there will always be 100 people who want a pen, or whatever, and that’s enough.

Posted by john_on_i10 | Report as abusive

Thanks for taking the time to respond, by the way!

Posted by ibogost | Report as abusive

Why do people go to a local bar, or a bookstore, or even a restaurant? Sometimes the service is good, sometimes it’s convenient, sometimes they feel they are supporting a local economy. Oftentimes it’s a very bad deal.
It is silliness to pull aprt the why of these transactions from a purely logical, data driven approach. Buying a bottle of wine, cooking at home and reading a book from the library would be the most logical consumer actions.
Ouya has become wildly topical in the online world, in part because it’s audience, videogames and android users, has many outlets for discourse online. And those people are very aggressive in their opinions. I don’t think it represents kickstarter anymore than a single item represents any good or service. What kickstarter really is is a marketplace that connects people who otherwise have no means of connecting. And it is no more a fad than commerce itself.

Posted by thispaceforsale | Report as abusive

Let me wrap your “social” argument back to the lottery ticket example.

The only time I ever played the lottery was when a friend (an actuary) and I went in together for one of these 9-digit prizes while we stopped for gas on a road trip. We got a lot more than $1 worth of conversation out of that, but just as big a part of my inclination to play the lottery that day was the same reason I (usually) watch the Super Bowl or vote: I attach value to, every once in a while, joining together with millions of other people in some large shared event. The Super Bowl is best watched at a Super Bowl party, but if I’m watching it by myself, I enjoy it more because I believe that a huge number of other people are watching it, too, even if I’m not physically with any of them.

Posted by dWj | Report as abusive

I dunno, I don’t think that these theories are really getting at the heart of what Kickstarter represents, at least for specific projects such as Ouya. You made the comment about Tomorrow magazine and the idea that you wouldn’t pay $15 for the magazine at the newsstand. I think there are people, however, that would pay $15 for it. Or maybe even $100. But most people wouldn’t hence the actual newsstand price. I think that Kickstarter gives those people that are willing to fork over more for the product the opportunity to see that product get realized when it wouldn’t otherwise for lack of demand.

As thispaceforsale said, video gamers are an oddly passionate bunch (I know, I am one) and I know plenty of them that would be willing to fork over hundreds of dollars even for the chance that something as awesome as Ouya may actually get produced.

I know none of this holds true for pens or underwear or watches, but in specific cases, I think Kickstarter can be a great tool for more than just entertainment.

Posted by spectre855 | Report as abusive

The Kickstarter Project I contributed to “Back-country Boiler” was a product for a niche market, ultralight backpackers.

Our contributions gave the inventor the capital he needs to have contract a third party to do a large quantity production run which significantly reduced the overall costs and lead time.

It also moved all the risk from the inventor to the contributors since we were placing and paying for our orders upfront.

It might have been the ideal product for Kickstarter. I doubt the product would have come to market otherwise.

Posted by Tom_Murphy | Report as abusive

I really think this is an unfair portrayal of Kickstarter. One of the things I appreciate is that it gives independent producers a place to actually approach potential consumers. As a gamer of multiple stripes, it has been disheartening to me to see the video game world be overrun by companies like EA that only want sports games and first person shooters or Hasbro that is just looking for the next Pokemon. I want entertainment more diverse than that and the projects that I back reflect that. It is a perfect platform to this end and I think the lotto ticket analogy is ridiculous. I’m not looking for some cheap thrill, I’m looking for more of the same entertainment I’ve enjoyed for decades.

Posted by Cerridwen13 | Report as abusive

Think back a few days to your post about art institutions and their wealthy donors who want stuff named after them. These folks are looking for big public monuments to themselves, much like the pharoahs of old, only they want to be able to look at them from the outside while they’re still alive. Most of us, probably not even you, Felix, are going to be able to do that. But for a modest donation we can make a tiny mark, play patron of the arts and/or venture capitalist. Some of the projects might be scams or otherwise just fail. But as you said, you might get to help create something new and interesting that otherwise might not have happened. Which, these days, is hardly the worst thing you could do with your money.

Posted by Moopheus | Report as abusive

@Cerridwen13, I agree. With the enormous costs involved with the arts today, video games and movies especially, there is a huge amount of homogeneity. Kickstarter’s ability to socialize the risk is, hopefully, a great way to encourage some new life into industries that are overrun with sequels.

Posted by spectre855 | Report as abusive

I’m not paying for a hypothetical idea, I’m paying for the experience of watching someone else’s idea manifest. Ten of the ten projects I’ve contributed to, I either knew the person doing it or someone who knew them. They weren’t the best projects on KickStarter but I had a friend who had a dream and I wanted to see them go after it. Getting a small memento in the form of a purchase is of a much smaller value then seeing someone with a big idea go after it.

Posted by danvoell | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/