Anmelden
Marketable vs Aspirational Funding Goals
In regards to several recent crowdfunded games that either relaunched after an initial cancellation or are struggling to move far past their funding goal, I’ve heard some concerns about trust from potential backers.
For example, if a project has a $10,000 funding goal but after the first few days they only have a few hundred backers and $13,000 in funding, is it a mark of dishonesty if they cancel the project, reconfigure, and relaunch?
Personally, I do not begrudge anyone from learning from a mistake, oversight, or shortcoming and trying to do better. Nor do I consider it dishonest to showcase a marketable funding goal…as long as the creator is transparent about their aspirational goal.
Here’s an example from a related article:
If you want to make a hypothetical game with a landed cost of $20 (manufacturing plus freight shipping) with a trusted long-time producer like Panda, you’ll have a minimum order quantity of 1,500 units (or 2,000 if plastics are involved). Ideally you’ll make more, but that’s the bare minimum you need to cover that MOQ. So that’s $30,000.
Of course, you’ll need to pay artists, graphic designers, playtesters, and proofreaders–those costs can vary greatly based on the complexity of the game and the quantity of the art. At Stonemaier Games, I would say that those costs add up to around $75,000 on average. Added to the landed costs for the 1,500-unit MOQ, that’s $105,000.
I might list the funding goal at $30,000, but somewhere else on the project page I might discuss that I’ve already invested $75,000 in the game and that the funding goal is based on the MOQ of 1,500. So there I might note that we’ll make the game if we reach the funding goal, but my hope is to eclipse $105,000, perhaps marked by a stretch goal.
A creator could also just outright say, “We chose $10,000 as a marketable funding goal, but our aspirational goal is to make at least $50,000. Reaching that aspirational goal will help us cover our sunk costs and will enable us to pay for the first printing without dipping into our savings. If the project has not reached $30,000 a few days after launch, this is a strong indicator the game and/or the campaign are missing something important, and we may consider relaunching to best serve the audience for this game.”
This is essentially what Siclen Studio announced on a recent video about their current Kickstarter, though they took it a step further: They said that as long as they stay above their $10,000 funding goal (as of this writing, the project is at $13,535), they will make the game even though they had much higher hopes for it. I admire that, though I also worry that backer accusations of dishonesty backed Siclen into this corner instead of offering them the grace to relaunch.
I understand that this is a contentious subject, and I also understand that a creator risks losing backer trust if they relaunch. However, we are talking about crowdfunding here: Nothing is etched in stone. Crowdfunding gives creators the opportunity to learn from the crowd while the product and the project are still pliable.
Also, is it not an inherently human trait to set a lower goal with the hopes of surpassing it? I can certainly relate to that.
What are your constructive thoughts about marketable vs aspirational funding goals?
Also read:
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.
