Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

The Muddy Truth About Kickstarter 'Staff Picks' 50

Posted by Soulskill from the dartboard-method dept.
szczys writes: Crowd Funding is the wild-wild west of business financing, and it's not just the people starting campaigns that are playing without many rules. One of Kickstarter's sort algorithm triggers is the "Staff Pick." Research indicates being featured by Kickstarter staff is a huge predictor for success. But there is no published benchmark for how these are chosen. Oddly, Kickstarter only discourages users from falsely labeling their campaign as a Staff Pick. To protect backers and ensure the crowdfunding ecosystem isn't sullied by scammers, Kickstarter needs to boost their transparency starting with this Staff Pick conundrum.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Muddy Truth About Kickstarter 'Staff Picks' More

The Muddy Truth About Kickstarter 'Staff Picks'

Comments Filter:

  • It's...a staff pick. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Tuesday August 25, 2015 @02:40PM (#50390207) Homepage

    When things are chosen by a "staff pick", the staff of a particular organization picks things they think look interesting. That's...the whole deal.

    It's not a subjective process. It's also not a new process. Your local book, record and video stores, back when such things still existed, did this. Your local liquor store does this. This has concept has been around for ages.

    The only thing that Kickstarter has to do with this entire concept is that they're one of countless organizations that do this.

    • Re:It's...a staff pick. (Score:5, Informative)

      by KeithJM ( 1024071 ) on Tuesday August 25, 2015 @02:47PM (#50390267) Homepage

      When things are chosen by a "staff pick", the staff of a particular organization picks things they think look interesting. That's...the whole deal.

      It's not a subjective process.

      I think you mean it's not an objective process.

      • I do, yes--thank you.
        • But you are wrong. It is an objective process. They seem to pick ones which they know will be successful, not just in raising the funds, but in actually delivering to backers. Of course they have a vested interest in funded starts being successful, otherwise backers will leave and have on confidence in the system. Giving away how they pick would be like Google giving away its search algorithm.

          • They seem to pick ones which they know will be successful, not just in raising the funds, but in actually delivering to backers.

            Bullsh*t

            If they KNEW which ones would be successful, they would be (very rich) venture capitalists, and not working as staff in a crowdfunding company.

            The staff pick here only appears to have that quality. It is largely a self fulfilling thing. Those projects that get promoted will get the funds and media interest which will greatly increase their chances, and plenty of staff picks still don't deliver.

            • I supported more than 40 projects on Kickstarter. Almost all were successfully funded and almost all of those have delivered or are clearly on their way to deliver.
              But my success rate has nothing to do with self fulfilling things. It's just that I do not just support projects because I like the idea, but because I check the details and ask myself if the project seems reasonable and the project leads know what they are doing.

              Now if I can do that, somebody with a lot more insight in this process, like somebod

    • Obligatory Seinfeld [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      When things are chosen by a "staff pick", the staff of a particular organization picks things they think look interesting. That's...the whole deal.

      It's not a subjective process. It's also not a new process. Your local book, record and video stores, back when such things still existed, did this. Your local liquor store does this. This has concept has been around for ages.

      The only thing that Kickstarter has to do with this entire concept is that they're one of countless organizations that do this.

      While I agree, occasionally I have seen "staff" picks where it was obvious the vendor either paid the store to display the item or the store was having trouble moving an item and decided to provide some boost to get it off of the shelves. My guess is the staff picks at kickstarter are probably legit but I wouldn't be surprised if there was money exchanged for the extra boost.

    • Do any of your local stores let you go into their place of business and put a large red sticker that says "Staff Pick" on something that isn't actually a staff pick?

      No?

      Then you missed half the point of this article - that they only discourage people rather than forbid them from falsely claiming something is a Staff Pick.

      The other half is that this is NOT a small local business, it is a very large corporation, and large corporations rarely leave things as loose as local stores do.

      Kickstarter is not one

      • Or do you go up to a small kid selling lemonade on the side of the road and ask if they have a license to sell drinks?

        Actually, cops are doing that all over lately.

      • Kickstarter is not one of countless organizations that do this, they may very well be the single LARGEST organization that does it, and we expect more from the big guys than the little guys.

        Oh, unlike Vimeo ($40 mil annual revenue in 2013), Hulu (worth multiple billions of dollars), Powell's (market cap ~320 mil) or Redbox (tough to tell actual value of Redbox, but let's assume it's a few bucks north of nothing, shall we?), all hits that come right up on a quick Google search for "staff picks"?

        And if you want to expand past the strict verbiage of "staff pick", there's the New York Times Editor's Choice list, Amazon's Editor's Picks, Google Play's Staff Picks, Apple's Featured Apps...

        I mean, ra

    • Re:It's...a staff pick. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Tuesday August 25, 2015 @04:31PM (#50390907)
      The problem with "staff picks," in general is that they aren't picked by the staff anymore. In the old days of indie music and book stores, the staff was typically comprised (at least partially) of people who were enthusiastic about the product being sold and the staff pick meant that a self-proclaimed expert really liked something. You could often trust these recommendations in the sense that the staff genuinely liked the things that they picked. Now it's a label used to trigger that nostalgia but the picks are now done by profit-maximizing algorithms and the staff has nothing to do with it.

      • profit-maximizing algorithms and the staff has nothing to do with it.

        pedantic, but some of the staff (staff includes everyone up to CEO) either worked on or at least signed off on the algorithm, so it has something to do with them

        • Fair enough, but they didn't "pick" it in any normal sense of the word. I mean sure you could argue for a "staff pick" where everybody picked their least favorite. I think we both agree, though, that the current labeling of "staff pick" is deceptive.

  • Kickstarter wont do anything that'll cost them free money.

  • ... albeit not a sure thing, but probably the most that a project creator can do on their end to become a staff pick is to create a project that looks like it has a good chance of meeting its funding goals. That means that you generally either have to have a pretty solid marketing plan, or else it has to be something that is either so outstandingly useful or simply so strongly desired by its target demographic, that the first thing they will think of after seeing what it will be is "I want that", and they

    • So you are saying... If you want to succeed you should create a successful looking product.

      That's some good advice.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )
        I am saying that people shouldn't think that a staff pick or the lack thereof can somehow magically make or break a project. The staff pick happens as a result of the exact same things that are likely to make people back the project in the first place. If you make a good enough product in the first place with high enough demand, as long as you have an effective enough marketing strategy to get the word out about the product, then it will get the support that it needs. If a sudden influx of backers happe

  • a legal morass (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday August 25, 2015 @04:01PM (#50390715) Journal

    I think the entire Kickstarter thing is a legal morass that will only be settled after a great deal of arguing, posturing, and lawyers making ridiculous sums of $.

    I believe - if anything - the game Star Citizen (around $90 mill KS funding) will be the trigger.
    Derek Smart has rightly raised a number of awkward questions about the scope, expanse, shifting goalposts, and (lack of any) due diligence on this project. I suspect that with $90 million in the pot, enough lawyers might find it interesting to pursue on a contingency-fee basis (meaning they may be seeing easily 8 figures).
    Numbers that large may even make politicians take notice, and 2016 is an election year (not that any politicians would even understand the context or how it would work over them tubes).

    DS is a colossal egotist, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Let's not forget that the Reformation was also started by an astonishingly self-centered egotist too.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Boronx ( 228853 )

      Kickstarter was a scam from the beginning. It shouldn't take Star Citizen to realize that, though I notice it's still taking millions.

    • Don't worry, a wave of people that desperately want Star Citizen to be a success are going to come in and downvote you to hell and make a bunch of anonymous posts shit-talking you.

      I would be happy if it succeeds, and would probably buy it if it does; but I did not put any money into the kickstarter as I suspect it will at best woefully under-deliver.

      My guess is that it will be the 38 Studios of 2016. It could have been good, but was consumed by it's own funding success.

      • Just looked... no updates since April? Ok, make that the 38 Studios of 2015, my guess is they have already ran away with the money.

        • Actually the most recent "update" (if you mean software release) for Star Citizen was August 6th: 1.1.6a.

          If you mean the most recent news release, it was August 22nd...

          There's plenty of reasons to criticize RSI w/o making stuff up.

          • I just looked at the page, and yes, I was wrong, it was April 2013.

            Not sure where you get August 22nd at, but I am looking at the updates tab [kickstarter.com] of the kickstarter. And that was talking about stuff from the cancelled FPS mode. The entire last page of comments was from people asking if this is a scam.

            • Why would they post updates on the Kickstarter page? They have their own website [robertsspa...stries.com].

              The current patch notes and development status can be found here [robertsspa...stries.com]. The FPS mode was never cancelled. Again, there's plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize RSI (like, for instance, why it seems every patch requires downloading ~27GB of data) without making crap up.

    • I would say kick starter doesn't really have a down side. People just get what they deserve. I back projects that clearly have an actual working product and final design, and they are seeking money only because they need to buy parts in bulk to get the price down. By sticking to those minimum requirements, I haven't been burned at all. However many kickstarters don't really have a product at all. They have a completely unproven idea. I have no problem with this - if they are honest about it. However mos

  • Perhaps most of the time, staff pick success prediction is just a self-fulfilling prophecy? You tell people a project is interesting, and therefore they donate.

    If that is the case, opacity may be useful: if it was not opaque, people could challenge the prediction.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close