Crowdtilt launches Crowdhoster, a WordPress for crowdfunding(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Crowdtilt launches Crowdhoster, a WordPress for crowdfunding
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/crowdtilt-launches-crowdhoster-a-wordpress-for-crowdfunding-to-let-anyone-create-and-customize-their-own-campaign/
6 comments
Sidenote: it's interesting to see Perl out there in the wild. Crowdtilt website is built on Dancer [1] which is a Perl web framework.
[1] http://perldancer.org/
[1] http://perldancer.org/
I was excited at first because I thought it's a WP plugin, and it could allow anyone with a Wordpress site to integrate it into their site and ask their readers to help them build certain features/products/areas of the site that they would like, and get them to donate for it. But apparently it's not a WP plugin.
I thought the same thing. WP plugins do exist already - here is one example of many: http://ignitiondeck.com/id/
I think I would trust the Crowdtilt version more for some reason. A lot of these crowdfunding plugin providers seem "shady" and I guess I trust a YC-backed company more in this case (not sure why)...
I think I would trust the Crowdtilt version more for some reason. A lot of these crowdfunding plugin providers seem "shady" and I guess I trust a YC-backed company more in this case (not sure why)...
Co-founder of Virtuous Giant, creators of IgnitionDeck here. We're not shady, I promise.
We've been doing this for 2+ years, built the platform that Chris Roberts used to raise 13+ million for Star Citizen, and have a few additional case stories on our blog: http://ignitiondeck.com/id/blog
We believe that self-hosted crowdfunding is the future, are aware of the concerns with self-hosted cf, and are working hard to address them.
The only reason we're here is because we wanted to raise money in a way that didn't require a KS application, and we funded the plugin with itself. Believe me when I say that we are heavily invested in the success of DIY crowdfunding.
We've been doing this for 2+ years, built the platform that Chris Roberts used to raise 13+ million for Star Citizen, and have a few additional case stories on our blog: http://ignitiondeck.com/id/blog
We believe that self-hosted crowdfunding is the future, are aware of the concerns with self-hosted cf, and are working hard to address them.
The only reason we're here is because we wanted to raise money in a way that didn't require a KS application, and we funded the plugin with itself. Believe me when I say that we are heavily invested in the success of DIY crowdfunding.
My apologies - I didn't mean to insinuate that IgnitionDeck in specific was shady. In fact, yours looks to be the least shady of the bunch that I have seen (which is why I mentioned it in my original comment).
I was just trying to point out that in my past searches for WP crowdfunding solutions I came across a fair number of "questionable" looking plugins from people seemingly looking just to capitalize on a trend.
I was just trying to point out that in my past searches for WP crowdfunding solutions I came across a fair number of "questionable" looking plugins from people seemingly looking just to capitalize on a trend.
No worries, thanks for linking us, and appreciate the sentiment.
You're absolutely right that there are a lot of people jumping in for other than noble reasons. When we first started, there weren't any other WordPress plugins doing what we're doing, and now it seems like there is a new one every day.
The downside to this is that it hurts consumers and builds resentment and distrust, but it's my hope that eventually, the buzz will wear off and the field will settle.
You're absolutely right that there are a lot of people jumping in for other than noble reasons. When we first started, there weren't any other WordPress plugins doing what we're doing, and now it seems like there is a new one every day.
The downside to this is that it hurts consumers and builds resentment and distrust, but it's my hope that eventually, the buzz will wear off and the field will settle.
Stay tuned.
Crowdtilt (and by extension, Crowdhoster) sets the standard for crowdfunding commercial projects and represents a maturation of the of crowdfunding movement.
When we launched the Lockitron campaign last year we had no idea if going off platform (i.e. not using Kickstarter) would work. What we found is using a self-hosted crowdfunding solution has a number of benefits which make it a better option than using Kickstarter or Indiegogo.
1) You capture long tail traffic. Launch day press directs to your site, and you can continue making sales after your campaign closes. For customers not willing to provide payment information you can still capture leads with an email signup. I won't disclose numbers here but this is hugely significant. There is a reason it is point number 1.
2) Order creation dovetails nicely into account creation. Managing shipping and payment information after a campaign closes is hugely stressful but can be even more so if you have to go through an intermediary that limits access. Getting people to create an account independently and as a second action months after they purchased the product but before it ships is unnecessarily painful.
3) You control look and feel. Not just important for establishing brand, but also for A/B testing, retargeting, and meaningful analytics.
4) Mitigate risk. You select your payment processor or can use multiple if necessary. A handful of crowdfunding campaigns have been torpedoed for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Kickstarter capped Lifx's raise a few days into the campaign after a few negative media pieces saying the company could not deliver what it promises, citing Phillips $5 million R&D expenditures as proof. At this point in time it appears Lifx is on track to deliver, but it is unfortunate that they had their knees cut out from under them. It is not unimaginable that your own campaign could be threatened by a spurious patent troll.
5) No arbitrary guidelines. In order to make an honest effort to be a donation site and not a pre-order site, Kickstarter prohibits you from "selling" items or offering "rewards" in bulk. These linguistic gymnastics get in the way of clear communication and prevent you from capturing multiple purchases. Lifx for example was only allowed to "reward" backers with a single lightbulb rather than allowing them pre-order multiple as most people would expect to do when buying lightbulbs.
6) Less risky than you would think. At this point there have have been a number of $1 million+ self-hosted crowdfunding campaigns. See Lockitron, Soylent, MYO, and Tile.
When people ask about building their own crowdfunding solution I point them at Crowdhoster. They have taken the work we did when we released our Lockitron crowdfunding code (Selfstarter) and turned it into the standalone solution it needs to be.
If you are crowfunding a company which needs to capture long term users and not launching a weekend project, self-hosting your campaign is the way to go.
When we launched the Lockitron campaign last year we had no idea if going off platform (i.e. not using Kickstarter) would work. What we found is using a self-hosted crowdfunding solution has a number of benefits which make it a better option than using Kickstarter or Indiegogo.
1) You capture long tail traffic. Launch day press directs to your site, and you can continue making sales after your campaign closes. For customers not willing to provide payment information you can still capture leads with an email signup. I won't disclose numbers here but this is hugely significant. There is a reason it is point number 1.
2) Order creation dovetails nicely into account creation. Managing shipping and payment information after a campaign closes is hugely stressful but can be even more so if you have to go through an intermediary that limits access. Getting people to create an account independently and as a second action months after they purchased the product but before it ships is unnecessarily painful.
3) You control look and feel. Not just important for establishing brand, but also for A/B testing, retargeting, and meaningful analytics.
4) Mitigate risk. You select your payment processor or can use multiple if necessary. A handful of crowdfunding campaigns have been torpedoed for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Kickstarter capped Lifx's raise a few days into the campaign after a few negative media pieces saying the company could not deliver what it promises, citing Phillips $5 million R&D expenditures as proof. At this point in time it appears Lifx is on track to deliver, but it is unfortunate that they had their knees cut out from under them. It is not unimaginable that your own campaign could be threatened by a spurious patent troll.
5) No arbitrary guidelines. In order to make an honest effort to be a donation site and not a pre-order site, Kickstarter prohibits you from "selling" items or offering "rewards" in bulk. These linguistic gymnastics get in the way of clear communication and prevent you from capturing multiple purchases. Lifx for example was only allowed to "reward" backers with a single lightbulb rather than allowing them pre-order multiple as most people would expect to do when buying lightbulbs.
6) Less risky than you would think. At this point there have have been a number of $1 million+ self-hosted crowdfunding campaigns. See Lockitron, Soylent, MYO, and Tile.
When people ask about building their own crowdfunding solution I point them at Crowdhoster. They have taken the work we did when we released our Lockitron crowdfunding code (Selfstarter) and turned it into the standalone solution it needs to be.
If you are crowfunding a company which needs to capture long term users and not launching a weekend project, self-hosting your campaign is the way to go.
Do we need more of these?
Much more of this is needed, crowdfunding has a lot more potential to change business but kickstarter and cohorts are getting fees while offering little value.
The huge opportunity for startups currently is in planning, campaign analytics, and prediction markets for campaigns. Crowdfunding needs to be quantified like the financial markets so that information is more readily accessible to buyers and sellers to drive efficiencies (as a buyer it's hard to evaluate the trustworthiness of the seller, and as a seller it's hard to evaluate what the unexploited opportunities are).
Eventually crowdfunding might overtake the ownership industry and we can live in a real open source economy.
The huge opportunity for startups currently is in planning, campaign analytics, and prediction markets for campaigns. Crowdfunding needs to be quantified like the financial markets so that information is more readily accessible to buyers and sellers to drive efficiencies (as a buyer it's hard to evaluate the trustworthiness of the seller, and as a seller it's hard to evaluate what the unexploited opportunities are).
Eventually crowdfunding might overtake the ownership industry and we can live in a real open source economy.
"kickstarter and cohorts getting fees while offering little value."
If a site has a vibrant community with a popular (or even household) name, handles funding transactions, provides a stable experience when you get traffic, and basically lets you worry about the project itself more than the technology of running a crowdfunding campaign, I believe that's worth a 5% cut.
Saying: "Come fund my new project on Kickstarter/IndieGogo/other crowdfunding site" has a lot more trust behind it than saying, "I set up crowdfunding on my own website, donate here."
If a site has a vibrant community with a popular (or even household) name, handles funding transactions, provides a stable experience when you get traffic, and basically lets you worry about the project itself more than the technology of running a crowdfunding campaign, I believe that's worth a 5% cut.
Saying: "Come fund my new project on Kickstarter/IndieGogo/other crowdfunding site" has a lot more trust behind it than saying, "I set up crowdfunding on my own website, donate here."
Does it provide a community effect? I know they say that, but they've never really released convincing data that it exists. Over 50% fail, and the average raised for successful campaigns is something like 105%. As for the funding transactions, Amazon handles them, and when you speak to successful project creators, their biggest gripe is that Kickstarter owns their customers and the communication with them (my pebble updates still come from Kickstarter a year and a half after the project ended), so I think there is a concern regarding the technology.
I agree with you arkonaut, there are advantages and disadvantages for everything. But I think there's a reason why big names like Kristin Bell and Zach Braff used Kickstarter. However a platform to build it on your own site might make sense for some people.
While I don't know the exact stats, I'm pretty sure Kickstarter released stats about the Blockbuster effect of big names bringing money to the platform (bringing in X number of new backers who went on to back X number of other projects).
I've only backed a few projects on Kickstarter and Indiegogo, but I would be much less likely to back those same projects hosted on their own site (because I would be less likely to discover them or less willing to go out of my way to fund them).
While I don't know the exact stats, I'm pretty sure Kickstarter released stats about the Blockbuster effect of big names bringing money to the platform (bringing in X number of new backers who went on to back X number of other projects).
I've only backed a few projects on Kickstarter and Indiegogo, but I would be much less likely to back those same projects hosted on their own site (because I would be less likely to discover them or less willing to go out of my way to fund them).
Celebrities and big brands already have the audience and distribution network to spread the word about their campaign, so it would seem that advantages of discovery through the Kickstarter community would be comparatively minimal compared to the fees, branding disadvantages, and loss of ability to re-engage those fans and backers post-campaign.
I've backed quite a few projects on Kickstarter, and most of the time I've heard about them through press or because people I know backed them (not by browsing through the listings on KS). I'd imagine that the vast majority of people who ended up backing Kristen Bell or Zach Braff discovered them similarly. Projects like Pebble, Ouya, and Double Fine experience the same effect.
The "hosted on wordpress.com" approach would take care of the tech stability/overhead while still giving those interested in more control a way to self-host. Look at guys like Louis CK, who've been able to do millions of dollars in sales through their site - a Crowdhoster type option seems much more attractive.
I've backed quite a few projects on Kickstarter, and most of the time I've heard about them through press or because people I know backed them (not by browsing through the listings on KS). I'd imagine that the vast majority of people who ended up backing Kristen Bell or Zach Braff discovered them similarly. Projects like Pebble, Ouya, and Double Fine experience the same effect.
The "hosted on wordpress.com" approach would take care of the tech stability/overhead while still giving those interested in more control a way to self-host. Look at guys like Louis CK, who've been able to do millions of dollars in sales through their site - a Crowdhoster type option seems much more attractive.
"loss of ability to re-engage those fans and backers post-campaign"
Agree with this aspect. You have more control self-hosting, and that might be the differentiating factor for some people. However I disagree with the promotional aspect. A lot of tech coverage happens because press likes to say: "So-and-so is doing a Kickstarter" rather than "So-and-so is raising money."
Agree with this aspect. You have more control self-hosting, and that might be the differentiating factor for some people. However I disagree with the promotional aspect. A lot of tech coverage happens because press likes to say: "So-and-so is doing a Kickstarter" rather than "So-and-so is raising money."
Yes they provide value, but as consumer I'd like to see that 5% drop, and Kickstarter being a household name benefits them, giving them leverage to keep prices high, and a net loss for the consumer.
Kickstarter don't have full international coverage and they don't provide an api or a data feed, two things crowdfunding desperately needs.
Kickstarter don't have full international coverage and they don't provide an api or a data feed, two things crowdfunding desperately needs.
James really needs to do an AMA of some kind - his story is awesome. His original idea was a microloan site for impoverished areas, but the tightened regulations around the 2008 market crash made that idea completely infeasible and he lost ~$20k in software investment. He pivoted to this as a way to re-use his (horribly messy, and - as he would later find out - completely unusable) codebase he'd paid so much for.
I still have the picture of the cup of coffee he bought me when explaining all of this and asking if I would be employee #3...