RSS
More Evidence That Legacy Gatekeepers Just Don't Understand Modern Business Models
from the it's-not-that-hard dept
For a while now, we have written about how legacy gatekeepers need to adapt to modern culture and business models if they want to survive. The primary point of contention that keeps many of these companies from adapting is one of control. Many of them don't want to lose what remnants of control they have left in order to become enablers. This mindset is what will be the death of many companies as the world moves on without them.
Some companies are making at least a half-hearted, if not completely misguided, attempt at trying to be hip. However, it seems to have been about as successful as a 60 year-old trying to use modern slang in order to connect with kids. Take for instance this recent comment by Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart in which he describes an exchange he had with a publisher about Kickstarter.
While it is great that this publisher had become aware of Kickstarter and its potential for success, the fact remains that those in charge do not understand it in the slightest. The draw of Kickstarter and other crowdfunding services is to help creators fund their works and bring them to market. Few potential backers will be willing to support a project in which the creator loses all rights and control of the work after creation. These services are about empowering creators. A deal, such as the one above, in no way empowers the creator.
Hopefully, this is just a simple misstep as the publisher learns to walk the unfamiliar path of a new business model. We can hope that this publisher learns from this mistake and will take the time to better understand the culture behind crowdfunding and can find success by adapting itself to this culture rather than trying to shoehorn crowdfunding into its current business strategy. Because if it isn't willing to adapt, it might as well give up now.
Some companies are making at least a half-hearted, if not completely misguided, attempt at trying to be hip. However, it seems to have been about as successful as a 60 year-old trying to use modern slang in order to connect with kids. Take for instance this recent comment by Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart in which he describes an exchange he had with a publisher about Kickstarter.
We were actually contacted by some publishers over the last few months that wanted to use us to do a Kickstarter.If you can't see the huge glaring flaw in the unnamed publisher's approach, let me elaborate. This publisher wanted to use Kickstarter as the funding source for an as yet unidentified project, while still keeping every other aspect of the traditional publisher/developer relationship intact. This means that the publisher would pay no money upfront, limiting almost all risk for the success of the project, while reaping all the rewards. Seriously.
I said to them ‘So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for, using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don't get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits’ They said, ‘Yes’.
While it is great that this publisher had become aware of Kickstarter and its potential for success, the fact remains that those in charge do not understand it in the slightest. The draw of Kickstarter and other crowdfunding services is to help creators fund their works and bring them to market. Few potential backers will be willing to support a project in which the creator loses all rights and control of the work after creation. These services are about empowering creators. A deal, such as the one above, in no way empowers the creator.
Hopefully, this is just a simple misstep as the publisher learns to walk the unfamiliar path of a new business model. We can hope that this publisher learns from this mistake and will take the time to better understand the culture behind crowdfunding and can find success by adapting itself to this culture rather than trying to shoehorn crowdfunding into its current business strategy. Because if it isn't willing to adapt, it might as well give up now.
I’m looking for policy...
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Policy Resources: Software Patents
I have an idea...
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
I’m looking for research...
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Well...
After all, if they don't try, they'll never learn, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Trying to learn from SACEM?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Modern slavery
Totally compares to what the Irish went through when immigrating to the US working in coal mines.
Also did you know they cant pay the royalties on some of the Star Wars movies because they didn't make money? Yeah... slavery indeed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The object is to maximize your profits as much possible while minimizing your risks as much as possible.
And as Wall Street bankers at places like WaMu would tell you, who cares about future revenue when you can make LOTS of money NOW! So you make $50 million in a few years and then your company goes bankrupt, you still made big money during those years, and can go work for some other 'sucker', erm, 'company', once the last one goes bust.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trying to learn from SACEM?
"We cannot compete against a government monopoly. The only way to solve this problem is to give us the same kind of monopoly tools!"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Tactfully yours...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tactfully yours...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tactfully yours...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
More From Obsidian
http://techland.time.com/2012/09/21/project-eternity-chris-avellone-interview/
Som e highlights about publishers:
And this one:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Tactfully yours...
=P
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Tactfully yours...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Modern slavery
The idea that slavery is gone is a myth, it's just been integrated into our very culture so well that we don't see it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Which is funny because that was the only part that kept them from being chopped out of the process.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is sort of hard to say. Most software teams consist of a few dozen to a few hundred individuals that come and go. By having the investor hold the IP, at least one developer can't just take the project and run off. Where it becomes detrimental is after the project is over, that publisher retains the IP and causes headaches if the developers want to bring the project back or do an off-shoot.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment