Sector32 wrote:Wow, Charles. That's a whole lot of feedback. Fantastic!
Not a whole lot, from my perspective, but if it is helpful to you, then it doesn't matter.
Sector32 wrote:Can't you see the project video? That's strange, I can. Maybe because it's a preview page? You can check it at Vimeo:
https://vimeo.com/123507868. Password = "yada". If you don't mind, please check it out, I think it's the most important part.
It could have simply been that the page didn't load fully in my web browser, last night. The video is there, and I did watch it. It maintained my interest, all of the way through it.
Sector32 wrote:1. and 3.: Thanks!
You're welcome.
Sector32 wrote:4. This is a difficult one. We are building a mobile game (which will also be ported for desktop computers later on). We will sell it for a small price, as the market demands. A $5 reward seemed like a bit to low for a tier including a copy of the game, a $10 tier a bit too much. That's why I decided for a $8 reward that includes the game. The other 7 first rewards and on multiplications of 4 for that reason.
Does it bother you a lot?
It doesn't bother me a whole lot, in any event, but that is a separate matter from the feedback that I provide.
You miss the point about the lower tier rewards, however. Typically, I couldn't care less about the actual rewards being offered. Granted, some do. But, if the objective is to maximize funding, then you might want to consider that reward tiers are not simply about rewards. More fundamental than that, they serve as mechanisms to attract attention, and to bring to fruition the achievement of backers.
Lower end reward tiers are less about generating funds than they are about generating backers. If you have two backers, and one pledges one hundred dollars and the other one pledges one dollar, then the one pledging a hundred times as much as the other is of far greater value to your campaign.
But, that's only if you are focused upon funding generated, directly, on a per-backer basis.
For the sake of illustrating a point, which would be better for your crowdfunding campaign? One backer pledging one hundred dollars, or one hundred backers pledging one dollar each? It is only by looking past the fact that a dollar pledge by one backer equates to one additional dollar in your campaign's pocket, that one can better appreciate that there are multiple dynamics in play, where a given backer is concerned.
Is it better to have one share of your project, or a hundred shares? Not that everyone will share your project (most likely won't, in fact), but if you are considering possibilities, which is the better prospect to be faced with?
What is the potential network capability, in terms of human-to-human connections, comparing one large funding backer to a multitude of low finding backers?
Ideally, a given crowdfunding campaign will go viral. That tends to require more than just reaching - or exceeding - your funding goal. To accomplish that requires human numbers, more so than money numbers.
The vast majority of crowdfunding projects don't go viral, and have no hope of going viral. A large bulk of crowdfunding projects tend to have relatively small crowds that they achieve. As long as the project is successfully funded, then you're fine, regardless of your overall number of backers.
How many of your potential backers do you think will fund you with large pledges? Will there be more pledging large amounts, or more pledging small amounts? It might end up being somewhere in the middle, but at launch, you don't actually know. There's no way to quantify it in actual numbers, either way.
Number of backers helps your project to achieve momentum, and to make its way onto various lists. It is a point of data, after all, and it matters to those who create such lists - particularly if they have software doing all of the work for them.
Additionally, while reaching increments of funding can provide a talking point for your crowdfunding campaign, so can reaching increments of backers. A lot of people that encounter your project either won't pledge large amounts, or they can't pledge large amounts. Yet, do you still want them to buy in to your project?
The more backers that your project gains, aside from just helping you on the momentum front, it can also boost you on the self-confidence front. Confidence beats doubt, every time. Plus, confidence can be a primary catalyst for achieving - and growing - enthusiasm across your campaign.
Sector32 wrote:5. Ok, good advice. I'll talk to my team to expand the rewards under $10.
Again, don't think of it simply in terms of rewards. Each reward tier is an opportunity to engage prospective backers. It tends to be beneficial, when people feel as though they are being given actual choices. An actual choice does not have to translate into a physical reward, one that costs money to create and to ship.
Sector32 wrote:6. Happy you clicked on the social media buttons! As most people here, I suppose, I am struggling to build a big community. So I'm happy they help.
So, the desire is to build a big community, huh? Think about that, and then ponder anew the importance of low tier reward pledges. Each backer is a part of that big community. I would also point out that a community for a given crowdfunding effort isn't necessarily limited to just and only the individuals who actually back the project, although that's often the way that project creators have a tendency to measure their project's community.
Sector32 wrote:7. I agree, I didn't care too much about that one. Was too busy with the 'important' stuff on the page. Let's call it tunnel vision ^^. Will change it.
OK.
Sector32 wrote:8. In the page, I have focussed more on the project, not a lot on the team. In the video I quickly introduce the team (at about 2:30). You can also see plenty of me, and the story is introduced. But I do admit, the team is a bit in the background. After you've seen the video, do you still feel as strong about this?
Also, I've made some video's for my devblog:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9V_QZ ... 8Uiry3y0mA. Do you think it's a good idea to add them to the page?
The Polaroid type photographs that you posted of the team are great, as is the method that you used to post them. They look like the ones in the video, only displayed differently on the project page. On the team page on your website, however, no photograph corresponds to the caricature images of each team member.
Do I think that you still underplay the team aspect? Yep, I sure do. I still don't think that the personal connection is there to a very strong degree.
Sector32 wrote:9. Fair enough! I will add more detailed art from the game. And/or screenshots.
I can't say that I am a fan of those animated pieces that you added. Why? They get annoying at that size, pretty fast. There's a reason that animated GIFs are not so "in vogue," anymore, as they were once upon a time ago.
Sector32 wrote:10. True. Will rethink that one.
I see that you've changed the spiel to:
An action packed video game inside of a dirty human body.How very.......drab. The concept is accurate, but the impact is lacking.
Sector32 wrote:Apparently, it's in two words. English is not my first language. I would let a pro proof read my texts, but I think my bad euro English makes me more human. (I really don't, I'm just trying to sweet talk my laziness)
Your English is fine - and your accent is a plus. Nice socks, also, by the way.