I’ve just completed a 35 day successful Kickstarter and my first pearl of wisdom to share; don’t run a 35 day Kickstarter.

It’s a great deal more work than you would imagine. Take our Comments section for instance. In the end we had just over 1500 comments. That’s roughly 43 comments a day! I wasn’t even close to being the biggest contributor. I had some awesome Backers who were more than enthusiastic. Keeping up with the Comments section was a large task, let alone creating updates, new ads, tweets, posts, updates to rules and the Kickstarter page… I digress. It was a lot of work, but worth every hour.

I have a few reflections I’d like to give based on, my now second, successful Kickstarter boardgame campaign. The first of which came to me even before it began.

When you start figuring out how you want to run your Kickstarter, you begin to run into questions like, “Should I use Early Birds”, or “Should I have a deluxe version”. My thoughts were bouncing back and forth on issues like these, so I stepped back and examined why I was struggling for an answer. I boiled down each question to, “who does the answer benefit?”

Asking for Trobils Early Bird

The Early Bird

The Early Bird is when a project creator makes a cheaper, but limited tier. An example would be, if you allowed the first 100 Backers to your campaign a tier $5 cheaper than what the rest of the Backers would pay. The idea is that it will drive people to back your project right away instead of revisiting and considering it.

Who does this benefit? Certainly not the Backer. It’s a marketing ploy designed to benefit the project creator. If anything, it makes the Backer feel rushed and pushed into a corner. More importantly, it’s not fair to the other Backers who didn’t happen to check Kickstarter that day. You’re creating a class system in your Backers; those who got there first and those that did not. Even worse it’s not a well-functioning class system. If any of those first 100 Backers cancels, it opens up their spot. It then becomes a luck draw to see if a Backer can get the game cheaper or not when they arrive.

Deluxe Editions and Add-ons

Some projects set up a tier with the “basic game”. The next, more expensive tier have a “deluxe game” with more pieces, add-ons, or materials. There could be more editions after that.

Who does this benefit? Again, not the Backer. This reminds me of why I stopped collecting comics in the early 90’s. In 1990, as a kid I was excited to hear about a new Spiderman comic being released. I rushed to my local comic store and bought a copy of the first issue! I was so excited. I still have it today actually, but it serves almost as a reminder of what marketing can do to a hobby. A little bit after getting the comic, I heard there was a platinum cover. Later I learned there were all sorts of variant covers and “misprints” all designed to drive attention to the comic and all that were more rare and expensive than my copy. Nine different variants in all. What did it do to the issue I held in my young hands? Well, not only did it become pretty worthless for a collector, it became a lot less awesome to a kid.

That’s a long, sad story, but it’s the one I think of when I see deluxe versions of games. Yeah I can get the barely playable version of the game, or I can shell out more money to get the real version, or even more money to get the bragging-rights version. Guess how important it is to me to have that barely playable version. Not very. Again, a class system amongst your Backers is being made. If a Backer has the money, they can have a game better than what the less-fortunate can get.

Note: Some types of games are, of course, immune from this observation. Living card games, miniature-battle games, and other games that are designed to be expanded upon are built from the beginning to have multiple levels and add-ons. These are immune because the Backer knows that these sorts of games are designed to work this way. They don’t see their beginning copy as a lesser piece, just a start to a collection.

Now the only question I had to ask myself was, “Do I make decisions to benefit myself, or my Backers?”

trobils_fundedIn the case of Asking for Trobils, I decided to make decisions based on if it benefited my Backers, not just my margins. No early birds, no deluxe editions, no decisions that were based on my benefit and not the Backers. I would make sure that every Backer getting the game felt equal. Each one having my equal attention and appreciation for their support. Moving forward I made every decision like that. Sometimes the decision would benefit us both, and those were the best.

Here’s the idea, if you take care of the Backers, they’ll take care of your goal. Sometimes you’ll make a promise, later to find out that, if you break that promise, you could benefit from it pretty well or that it might hurt you financially if you follow through. That’s when your brain starts trying to find workarounds, but if you keep firm in your mind, that the Backer is First, then you will always make the right decision. Always design your Kickstarter so that it benefits both you and the Backer.

The Big Companies

There are a lot of large companies and bigger groups using Kickstarter now. Every month it seems like there’s a Queen Games, Funforge, or CoolMiniOrNot project going on. As small, often first-time publishers, how do we compete with those? Put Backers first. I’m not saying that these companies don’t have good intentions, but they aren’t one or two individuals who can talk to a person’s needs. When Backers go to those large companies, they’re preordering a game, pure and simple. When they’re backing a small publisher’s game, they’re backing a person. If you treat them like the large companies treat them, you won’t last long.

If you have confidence in your game, that it’s truly a great game that people will love, then you won’t need these marketing centered paths. Put the Backers first, and they’ll make your game successful. And be sure to thank them!


Next Reflection: The Micro-Goal

The following two tabs change content below.

Christian Strain

Game Designer at Kraken Games

Christian is a co-founder of Kraken Games. After releasing their first game, Evil Intent, Christian is currently working with Kraken Games on three other projects including their upcoming title, Asking for Trobils.

Latest posts by Christian Strain (see all)

36 Readers Commented

Join discussion
  1. Norv Brooks on October 3, 2014

    Chris – “Deluxe Editions and Add-ons
    Some projects set up a tier with the “basic game”. The next, more expensive tier have a “deluxe game” with more pieces, add-ons, or materials.”
    I don’t think you’re including in this category where an upgraded version offers wooden or metal components for cardboard components, are you? Game play is not affected by this kind of an upgrade and backers realize there’s a higher cost in producing the upgraded components.

    • Christian Strain on October 3, 2014

      I would include that yes. It’s still creating a deluxe version of the game and causing a “class system” to be made with your Backers. If your Backers feel that they aren’t the most important version of your Backer, they won’t be as engaged or care as much about your project.

      • Dan on August 23, 2016

        I mostly agree with this, but I think there are exceptions where you are actually thinking of the backers. For example, I was involved with a campaign for a $99 board game. It was, in effect, a “deluxe” game, because of the high quality components throughout, including miniatures, lots of thick components, and some costly stretch goals.

        We actually got emails from a lot of people asking for a “basic” version of the game that was cheaper. We even had people asking for a version with cardboard standees instead of miniatures, because people couldn’t afford the cost and wanted it at half the price.

        We ended up creating a basic version that didn’t include some of the more expensive to produce stretch goals. But at $79 it was a compromise and not super popular. But I’m confident that if we’d started with a a $59 version of the game as well as the deluxe version we would have sold a lot more total copies and had a lot more happy players.

        But I agree that deluxe versions including exclusive content that people can’t upgrade to later in the form of expansions is a jerk move.

        • Christian Strain Author on August 24, 2016

          I think you hit it right there, Dan. You need to make the deluxe or add-ons available later. Take Scythe for example. I wasn’t going to spend $100 on a deluxe version of a game before playing it, so I went with the “basic” version. The reason why I didn’t feel left out or in a sub-class, was that I could buy those pieces later. And I will. Giving backers choices makes the exception.

  2. Jamey Stegmaier on October 3, 2014

    Christian: I really, really like this philosophy. When planning and executing a Kickstarter, I ask myself every step of the way, “Is this the best thing for backers?”

    For me, the answer to that question is the opposite of yours when it comes to basic versus premium versions of games as long as the premium versions do not include Kickstarter-exclusive components. Here’s why: By creating two different tiers, you give backers choices. Giving backers choices is absolutely a way to put backers first. For backers who might have a tighter budget or don’t need the special upgrade, they get the game at a lower price point. And a year down the road, if they want the special upgrade, you can make it available on your website. For people with more disposable income and/or who really care about the special component, they can spend a little more. Options are good for backers.

    I’ll use Tuscany as an example. For $45, a backer could get the full version of a $70 MSRP game with all stretch goals, OR they could get that exact product with 72 custom metal lira coins for a total of $59. Are the metal coins needed for the game? Not at all. Some people might already have metal coins or don’t care about them. So they have the $45 option.

    Let’s look at what would have happened if I thought that having those two options was somehow bad for backers. I would have either had a single $45 level (no coins) or a single $59 level (coins). I’ve made the exact mistake you mention above–I’ve forced backers into a corner where they no longer have a choice. I think that’s much more of a class system than what you describe above, because you’re not giving people who can’t afford the $59 version of the game to the choice to get a version that’s a little lighter on their pockets.

    At heart, I agree with your philosophy. But I think that giving backers a few reward options is in line with that philosophy.

    • Alan Scott on October 4, 2014

      Strongly agree with this. As long an my low-tier pledge gets me all of the game in terms of play value, I’m more than happy if people with disposable income get to buy a prettier version of the game for more money. It means the Kickstarter is more likely to fund and I’m more likely to get my game, I know I’ll do just fine with the carboard chits, and hey, maybe I’m friends with a guy who got the version with the cast resin pieces, so I might get a chance to play the game with them once or twice anyway.

      As a customer, I’m happy with things that put other people’s money into the hands of the project creator, because it means that creator can afford to keep on making awesome games, and they’re doing it with money that’s not coming from my slim wallet.

      As for early-bird specials, I think you have more of a point. I almost never see the kickstarter for a game until the early-birds are sold out, and even if the success of those early-birds is the only reason I’m seeing the kickstarter in the first place, I’m less likely to pledge because I feel like the first price is the “real price” and I’d be paying extra.

      I think a better solution is rather thank give early backers $5 off, charge full price but give them something trivial but limited that you might otherwise charge an extra $5 for, such as signing their copy of the game.

    • Christian Strain on October 5, 2014

      Those are good points Jamey, but you’re only mentioning the people at the lower tier that “already have metal coins or don’t care about them”. What about the people at the lower tier that want the coins, but can’t afford them? Maybe I’m stretching my wallet a bit already just to get this awesome game. Now I know I have a game that isn’t as great in some way as others are getting and I don’t have a practical choice.

      You’re correctly pointing out that creating add-ons creates choice, but only for those able to afford that choice. Thus, a class-system.

      I’m aware that this is a fuzzy line. There are those projects set, like Tuscany, that have a very nominal effect. Fancy coins aren’t really that big of a difference and yes, having them be something a person can purchase later through you makes up for that. But for every one of those projects, there are those that go to the other side of the extreme and offer a barely playable game hoping to make people shell out more money to get a real game through their add-ons.

      I think, maybe, that a good way to mitigate or even nullify that class-system would be to do what you’re offering and have a way for those at lower tiers to someday upgrade to the higher tiers or add-ons through other means.

      • Jamey Stegmaier on October 5, 2014

        Christian: Sure, I address that point in my first comment: “And a year down the road, if they want the special upgrade, you can make it available on your website.” That directly addresses anyone who can only afford the lower price tier. With Tuscany, the only difference between the two reward tiers are a set of 72 custom metal lira coins. They’re not exclusive, so they’re available through our website any time for someone to order. I’ve removed any possibility of a class system by making everything at those core levels available to anyone at any time instead of pigeonholing everyone into something that I’ve predetermined to be the “best” option for everyone. Because that isn’t a thing.

        I think the point here isn’t that the core premise of normal/deluxe reward tiers is wrong or somehow bad for backers (it isn’t). The point is that sometimes creators offer unfair rewards (i.e., KS exclusives) or don’t give backers the choice they deserve (normal + deluxe options, plus the option at a future date to purchase the deluxe upgrade).

        • Christian Strain on October 5, 2014

          I agree. Making those add-ons available at a later when convenient fixes any issues I have with add-ons in typical boardgames.

    • Peter Vaughan on October 6, 2014

      I’m so glad this discussion came up because it made me realize that there has been one time when I a) wanted a game very badly and b) did not back due to deluxe tier options. My example is Tokaido collector’s edition from Fun Forge.

      I may be alone, because they got 5K backers, and 650K+ funding, but I believe with some emotional manipulation. Here’s my beef. The main game level was $75, but the unlocked stretch goals was $115 at the “shogun” level. First – $75 was a big deal. I have only ever spent $75 or above on a KS pledge three times (and ironically 2 of 3 have been for the creators having this discussion ). So, as I was considering Tokaido, I can say that at least all character cards were thrown in at 75, just the stretch minis at 115. I’m sure too that the extra shogun minis will be available for purchase some day, as there’s no mention of exclusivity. It’s fine then, right? No, I argue the $75 was a lessor product, not a choice.

      Imagine dealing out character cards to all your friends and saying, “You get a mini Joe, but I’m sorry Sally, I didn’t buy the copy with that mini.” It’s not a comfortable or welcome feeling I ever want to have owning a game. Some folks were fine with that I guess, but I thought it was horrible. I did pledge $1 to voice my feelings and plea that they change it, but nobody replied. Done and done, Funforge lost me that day.

      So I say this, if you’re going to offer tiered choice, it has to be an entirely complete option A.

      • Jamey Stegmaier on October 6, 2014

        Peter: This is a good example, but I think the key takeaway from Tokaido isn’t the reward levels (which are a mess), but rather some pretty standard Kickstarter advice: All stretch goals should be included with every core level (i.e., every reward level that has the game should be the game with all stretch goals). It’s confusing and often manipulative to include some stretch goals at some levels but not others.

      • Christian Strain on October 6, 2014

        I was a backer on that campaign and I messed up horribly. Knowing that I already had the game, I didn’t read much more than all the cool stuff they were adding. There was a tier for those of us with the game already to just get the new stuff and add it to our game. I was thrilled since I really enjoyed the game. I backed it immediately.

        I was happy to see the updates unlock more and more stretch goals. All kinds of new characters, minis, painted minis, etc. I thought, “wow, what a great deal”! Then shortly after the campaign ended, I went to go see what the final inventory was of everything I was getting. I saw then that my tier didn’t get stretch goals. I would then, just have the bare minimum. Not even a mini for all of the characters I currently have.

        I contacted Fun Forge and asked if I could add money or do something to get all of the stretch goals. No. I couldn’t do anything. I even offered to buy it and they refused. They don’t care. They’re a big corporation and I’m a mindless consumer.

        I’ve been thinking about making a video of me setting the figures on fire and shooting them with a bb gun. It makes plastic figures go “splat”. lol.

    • Jim McCollum on April 21, 2016

      I think this is totally reasonable. As a backer, I like choices, and often opt for the non-deluxe versions. I only mind it when there are functional differences (extra characters/pieces, etc.), but to me, let the fat cats get their metal coins and custom meeples. I think there are people like CoolMiniOrNot who only do “just the game” rewards, that works, and is probably the cleanest, most straightforward. However, I think people get excited about projects and want to make their copy of the game special, or feel invested in the game somehow through upgraded components, or their likeness in the game, and that is something game makers can allow without crossing some moral line.

      The other thing is that board games now have a rather robust secondary market. If I really want the deluxe version of a game after the KS, it’s usually not too hard to acquire.

  3. Trevor Kindree on October 6, 2014

    Christian: I’ve been involved in more Kickstarters than I should have (and that number fluctuates wildly depending on the person, but for sake of argument let’s say it’s my wife’s opinion and leave it at that). There have been numerous Kickstarters which had confusing tiers, addins, and tiers with addins bundled within them. The best of these had a clear chart indicating what you did, and didn’t get with what tier. That’s not to say that I agree with 10-15 tier campaigns, but if one HAS to for whatever reason (Minis mainly, teams of minis) one should make it blatently clear with a single infographic what you get with what tier.

    Any KS which has the backer digging through the page to identify what they do, and don’t get with any particular pledge puts the onus on the backer to find out what they’re getting. The backer shouldn’t have to do work to find what they’re getting for their money, it drives people to the bare minimum to get JUST the basics, or it pushes those with more disposable income to simply say “Meh, screw it, I’ll get it all”.

    With Asking for Trobils: You had one key pledge for one copy, one key pledge for two copies, and that’s it.. No shirts, no extras, no “you need more dice / cards / expansions / extras”. The focus is on the main game, not acting like a marketplace, not selling half a game and then upselling the components to make it great. As a backer, I appreciate it immensely, it puts the focus on the game for everyone. Even Kickstarter vs Retail, there’s no difference. Hell, you threw in the 6-7 player option after thinking about it, simply because it made the game better for everyone involved… You overshot your funding, and it worked out in the end, but that was a chance you took, and that speaks volumes for your intent: get the game made for the backers. People were backing you and your goals as much as they were the game (OK, so it’s more the game than you for rewards, but …. you know what I mean).

    Don’t do something stupid with the Tokaido. If you’re really upset: Donate it to a school, a hospital, a shelter, Ronald McDonald house, somewhere that it can bring people the joy that you were hoping to get from it. Removes all bitterness in a heartbeat, rather than leaving you work of having to clean up the mess (more bitterness).

    • Peter Vaughan on October 6, 2014

      Great sentiments, Trevor! Thanks for chiming in on the blog!

    • Christian Strain on October 6, 2014

      Hi Trevor!
      I was kidding about what I’d do with the Kickstarter for Tokaido, but I do have to at least thank them. The response I got from them made me acutely aware of how I DIDN’T want to run a Kickstarter.
      Thanks so much for your support Trevor.

  4. Gamer Dave on October 6, 2014

    Great discussion with good points on both sides. I agree with Christian though. When I can’t afford to back the top tiers, it makes me feel like I’m missing out, or my game is a sub-standard version. This is a poor experience for me. However, I understand that businesses need to make money (to make more great games) and if it works, why fix it? I think it comes down to that. If you’re a designer who is just about getting a game out, without plans to make a business out of it, it makes sense just to make it one game period. If you’re using the money to launch a business or more game, then make more money, people will spend it. Maybe it isn’t size so much as the purpose for the money. Put the backer first is a simple, but powerful concept. It will probably always mean less money, but I thnk it is a better way to go. Also Jamey, I love your blog and am a fan of what you’re doing!

    • Jamey Stegmaier on October 6, 2014

      Dave: Thanks for your comment. I want to try to understand this better. Let’s use Tuscany as an example (since I obviously think that’s the “right” way to do a normal/deluxe reward structure). Tuscany’s a little weird because it’s an expansion pack, but say it were a stand-alone game with the following rewards:

      $45: Full game with all stretch goals.
      $59: Full game with all stretch goals and 72 metal lira coins. The coins can also be purchased separately after the project from Stonemaier Games for $20.

      Does that type of reward structure create a poor experience for you? I’d like to understand why so I can make sure I’m doing the right thing for backers.

      • Gamer Dave on October 6, 2014

        Hey Jamie, I think your example is fine because the difference is so little, and I hesitate to disagree with the kickstarter king! Even your campaign with Euphoria, deluxe and supreme was $10 difference and wasn’t bad and it was for more flare than better components. When I back a game, though, I will put down the extra $5-$10 down more out of not wanting to miss out rather than the “ooooh I want” reaction. I guess it is how I’m hard wired, and maybe others too. I don’t want to show up to a game night where someone pulls put the same game but with more sparkle. I think it is a problem if the difference in versions is in the 20 to 30 dollar, or more, range. Now my budget is broken. For six bucks though, would your campaign be unsuccessful if you only offered the $59 level? Would producing more coins make it a buck cheaper? Also, I want to buy expansions for more content, not better components (unless, like an anniversary edition, the components are not manufactured yet).

        • Jamey Stegmaier on October 6, 2014

          Dave: These are some great points and questions. I definitely agree that the price difference between normal and deluxe would have been a big factor.

          Would Tuscany have been unsuccessful if I only offered the $59 level? No, it would have been fine. Strictly by the numbers, I would have lost 207 backers (or maybe more, as people would have been “forced” into the more expensive option without even knowing it). Even more important is that $45 establishes an anchor price for the game that helps them compare the various reward levels to one another. I talk about that here: https://stonemaiergames.com/kickstarter-lesson-54-reward-levels-the-premium-option/

          Would producing more coins have brought down the production cost? Maybe a little (not by $1). But I don’t think that those 207 backers would have backed the game at $59, so we would have made the exact same number of coins anyway.

          Your last comment about expansions is interesting. So you would prefer a reward structure something like this:

          $45: Full game with all stretch goals.
          $59: Full game with all stretch goals and the expansion (also available post-KS on our website for $20)

          I think that’s probably just a matter of personal preference (some people like fancy components, others like expansions), but I’m curious if that reward structure would appeal to you.

          Also (this is more for Christian), I think this article might be worth reading for the debate about normal vs normal/deluxe reward levels: https://stonemaiergames.com/kickstarter-lesson-103-there-is-no-perfect-pickle/

          • Gamer Dave on October 7, 2014

            I would like base game with all the nice components and stretch goals, and then base game + expansion (more content). But that is pretty much what you have. I just think aince component, right next to art, is the primary way for putting someone in an experience it would be the same. I suppose you can never know what backers you lose, but I’m sure your guesses based on your experience is the best there is. That also goes back to the point of the campaign to make a game possible or to make a game possible and keep a business going. I appreciat you responding. I really enjoyed Euphoria with the shiny gold pieces!

      • Christian Strain on October 6, 2014

        As I said, this is a fuzzy line. I think your Tuscany structure is free of creating a class-system. One because it isn’t a game mechanics difference, and two because (and this is most important) it can be bought later.

        If I take my game to game night and someone has the Lira in theirs, I can buy the Lira from you at a later time and have the same thing. That fixes any class issues in my book. That’s giving people choice, as you put it.

        • Gamer Dave on October 7, 2014

          True. However I’d perfer to make one purchase versus two. Also the coins are $20 bucks and at the point that upgrades cost the same as a game (a small one here) I have to think REAL hard before I do. I only will upgrade a game if I play it more than 10 times a year, so I have to really enjoy it to make that choice. Otherwise I’d buy a new game.

          • Jamey Stegmaier on October 7, 2014

            Right, I think your response illustrates my point: Each backer wants things in different combinations. As a creator, you can be empathetic to different types of backers by offering more than one reward level (but not dozens of reward levels).

            Thanks for offering your perspective!

  5. Trevor Kindree on October 6, 2014

    Back on topic… You view some KS projects as having a class system… Upgraded components are “rewarded” to those with deeper pockets, early backers are rewarded with lower costs (either first X backers, or backers before Y date), and backer exclusives are rewards for backing (as opposed buying at retail). With all these items NOT coming into play, what incentive remains to back vs wait for retail (with more reviews, less risk on an uncreated product, at potentially a lower price, yet only a month or so delay)?

    • Gamer Dave on October 6, 2014

      Existence of the game. Wait and there is no game made, at least with smal first timers.

      • Christian Strain on October 6, 2014

        I agree with Gamer Dave’s answers there. Plus, as a small creator and not large company, I like to think that my Backers get a first hand feel at the design of the game. i try to engage them, let them make decisions that would influence the design like voting on what ships are created, becoming a card in the game, etc. By making these things a simple product of being a backer, as opposed to charging a higher tier, you make all backers feel like they have input at the same level.

        Do you miss those backers that are just using KS as a preorder system? Probably some. I’d love to make a business of this someday, but I want to do it the right way. If that takes growing small and slow with backers who are really excited about being part of the project, then I’m in.

  6. Sean Geraghty on October 6, 2014

    Christian – Thanks for the article; I really enjoyed it. I definitely agree with your points on early birds. I think the initial hype while kind of good for a handful of backers, it ultimately is bad for Johnny-Come-Lately. And as you know, most games are funded by J-C-L than Early Bird Johnson.

  7. Jeff on October 7, 2014

    I’ll throw out my two cents since I see things a little different than both of you (Jamey and Chris). I have decided not to do any more “deluxe” versions or “add-on” versions not because it is unfair to backers but because it is a nightmare for me as a creator. Having 3-4 different products to manage is extremely difficult so we at Cosmic Wombat Games will no longer be doing what we did with Stones of Fate. We will be structuring our reward levels much like Chris did for Trobils, just having the game and maybe a 2 or 3 copy of the game tier.
    Now, if we want to add some kind of deluxe component that will be done through stretch goals that go into all copies of the game so that all backers (at levels that get the game) get those components. We are looking at that right now for Campaign Trail. One thing we want to do is upgrade to custom wooden pieces instead of wooden cubes. We will be looking at the economies of scale needed to make that happen and setting the price point of the stretch goal so that all copies get it.
    This way will alleviate the pain on the creator end in that we will only have one product to deal with. It will also eliminate the class structure that Chris is talking about by creating an avenue for every backer to get the “deluxe” version of the game for the same price. Backers are more than welcome to still pledge over the requested amount for their pledge in order to help activate these stretch goals so those with extra disposable income can still use that income to get those deluxe pieces.

    • Jamey Stegmaier on October 7, 2014

      Jeff: That’s a great point to consider from the creator perspective. Even though I advocate for no or few add-ons in general, I have a few of them on the Tuscany project. They’re bar-coded, so I don’t have to ship them by hand, but they’re still quite difficult to manage and organize!

      I mostly agree about stretch goals, but there are some components that are simply too expensive to use as a stretch goal (like metal coins). A creator could just not offer that option, but I wanted to offer something special and unique to backers.

    • Christian Strain on October 7, 2014

      That is a big bonus as well Jeff. Sometimes the simplest little thing can trip up a project. The more you add on, the more complex and easily broken the project becomes.

  8. Thumper on October 7, 2014

    “don’t run a 35 day Kickstarter.”

    So how long should you run it for?

    • Christian Strain Author on October 7, 2014

      Heh, that was more comedy than any sort of rule. My point was, that running a Kickstarter is a full-time, all-the-time job. Doing it for 35 days straight is killer. Everyone has different circumstances though, so I’d never say that 35 days should never happen. Just be careful of it if you’re running the campaign as one person. There are some concerns about keeping up excitement for that long too, but I’m covering that in the next Reflections Article. 🙂

  9. Derik@Lagniappe on October 17, 2014

    That’s for the insight Mr. Strain! Great post.
    Funny, too: I think you and Mr. Stegmaier were arguing for the same point but from different points of view. And I have to agree: nothing makes me angrier at a project creator than to have the game OR the game with stretch goals. Component upgrades? Eh. . . they’re cool if I can afford them (or care). But you go changing the content?! Forget that! Same as you both have said regarding Early Bird tiers AND KS exclusives: it’s not the same game.

    Speaking of Early Bird: check out this projects idea of a reward which can still be purchased separately instead of a bologna tier. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1011744044/532299197?token=45871cd2

  10. Benjamin Merrill on February 21, 2019

    Thank you all for the great advice! I am an aspiring project creator, and the takeaways I’ve gotten are to make sure the pledge levels are fair to everyone, avoid early birds and add-ons as a pledge exclusive, and always put the backers first. I have heard that last bit several times, so hopefully it sticks. Great content!

Have something to say?