Techdirt. Stories filed under "bjork" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "bjork"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:01:00 PDT Kickstarter Projects That Don't Meet Their Goal Are Not 'Failures'; They Help People Avoid Failures Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20130228/00041522145/kickstarter-projects-that-dont-meet-their-goal-are-not-failures-they-help-people-avoid-failures.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20130228/00041522145/kickstarter-projects-that-dont-meet-their-goal-are-not-failures-they-help-people-avoid-failures.shtml featured a comment that someone made anonymously, in response to a story about Bjork's Kickstarter project that was taken down before it ended, after it did not look like it was going to get anywhere near the required threshold. However, the comment has stuck with me and I think it deserves a post. In particular, the commenter called us out for saying that her project "failed."
This was not a "failure!"

Platforms like Kickstarter have changed the way the market is functioning, and our ways of thinking about it (even here on Techdirt) have to catch up.

Bjork's campaign did not fail, even though the results were not what she was hoping for. She successfully learned that the market was not interested in this product.

Spending £375,000 of her own money? Now THAT would have been a failure.

Using Kickstarter is more like running a science experiment than it is like selling a product. It increases the efficiency of the market by orders of magnitude, and apparently beyond our ability to think about it clearly.
This point -- even if it was calling us out -- is so true, and it's so important for people to understand. It's easy to use the word "failure" for those projects that don't meet their goal. Hell, just in writing this post, I repeatedly had to consciously stop myself from using the words "fail" or "failure" in describing projects that don't reach their goal. But, the commenter is right: those projects are not failed projects once you realize what Kickstarter really is: a platform to judge the market for products, and to build commitment and funding around them. If a project doesn't reach the goal, that's actually valuable market research, suggesting that if they had gone ahead, without going through the experience, they likely would have "failed."

So, in actuality, it makes sense to look at such projects and recognize that they were saved from a dismal failure, in which large sums of money may have been spent, but at the same time clarifying the market's reaction to a product before it's even been introduced. With so many people thinking of Kickstarter more as a store, than as a platform for supporting people trying to turn cool ideas into reality, it's important to be careful in how we choose our language. Putting up a Kickstarter project that doesn't reach its goal shouldn't be seen as a failure. It should be seen as a useful bit of data, which helps one avoid failure, and also to (hopefully) sharpen up their product and pitch so that the next time, it is more likely to be funded.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> remember-that http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130228/00041522145 Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:41:15 PST It's Fine For The Rich & Famous To Use Kickstarter; Bjork's Project Failed Because It Was Lame Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130214/03052121969/its-fine-rich-famous-to-use-kickstarter-bjorks-project-failed-because-it-was-lame.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130214/03052121969/its-fine-rich-famous-to-use-kickstarter-bjorks-project-failed-because-it-was-lame.shtml complain when the "rich and famous" made use of platforms like Kickstarter. That story was about Tom Hanks' son Colin looking for funds to complete a documentary. As we noted, it made perfect sense to use Kickstarter, since it's also a nice marketing platform and a way to connect with fans. I don't understand why this seems to get people up in arms, but it continues to this day. You may have heard about the high profile failure of Bjork's Kickstarter campaign. She sought £375,000 not for a new album, but to make a port of her last album's app, Biophillia, from iOS to Android and Windows 8. The original Biophilia won some rave reviews for pushing the boundaries of what an album was... but also was widely criticized for being platform specific to iOS. When it came out, Bjork said she hoped that those on other platforms would just "pirate" it, but we never understood why she didn't release it on multiple platforms.

Apparently, the answer was that however the app was designed, it would be insanely expensive to port to other platforms. That seems like much more of a design mistake than anything else. It seems likely that her project failed for a few key reasons, including that it was just about porting an app that came out years ago, rather than anything new. Also, the "rewards" were somewhat unimpressive. And, of course, Bjork fans who were iPhone users had little reason to contribute as well. There's also the big one: unlike some other stars, Bjork really hasn't embraced connecting and communicating with her fans. That's her choice, of course. No one says she needs to. But, it's much harder to raise a ton of crowdfunded money that way.

Still, many are saying that the project failed because she's rich and famous and could have just paid for everything herself. But that seems silly. There are plenty of ways that the rich and famous can make use of crowdfunding and plenty of reasons why it makes sense to do so. The project failed because it was a bad project for crowdfunding, and because Bjork isn't necessarily connected with her fans in a way that makes sense for crowdfunding.

Amanda Palmer, who remains an example of "doing Kickstarter right" has weighed in on this issue, making some really good points about why anyone should be able to use Kickstarter, even the rich and famous. Here are a few snippets, but the whole thing is worth reading:
crowdfunding should, by its very nature, be available to EVERYBODY....

here's what i think: THE MARKET IS EFFICIENT.

if ANYBODY wants to give a go at having the community help them with a project, that’s the ARTISTS prerogative. if it fails, then the interest wasn't there.

it should't matter if it's justin bieber, obama, the new kids of the block reunion project, lance armstrong, oprah, or the friendless 18-year old down the street who's been hiding in his bedroom making EDM music.
ANYBODY CAN ASK. that's democracy.

and since crowdfunding is – by definition – in the hands of the community: THE COMMUNITY WILL DETERMINE WHETHER A PROJECT IS SUCCESSFUL.
And yet, people still get upset. To some extent, this feels a bit like "hipsterism." People feel that these platforms are special because the rich and famous haven't necessarily discovered them yet. But why is it so wrong if they do find them and do use them? If people want to support the projects they will, and if they don't, they won't. That's what makes these platforms so useful.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> moving-on... http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130214/03052121969 Fri, 5 Aug 2011 01:07:34 PDT Bjork Hopes Pirates Crack Her New Music App, But Perhaps She Should Have Made It More Widely Available Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/01405015352/bjork-hopes-pirates-crack-her-new-music-app-perhaps-she-should-have-made-it-more-widely-available.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/01405015352/bjork-hopes-pirates-crack-her-new-music-app-perhaps-she-should-have-made-it-more-widely-available.shtml only as an app -- and only for Apple's iOS platform (iPhones, iPads and iPod Touch), meaning anyone who wants to get the music in another format is out of luck... unless they get it through unauthorized means. In response to some of the criticism, Bjork has now said that she assumes those who want the music on other platforms will "pirate" it:
“I’m not supposed to say this, probably,” she told Drowned in Sound, “but I’m trusting that the pirates out there won’t tie their hands behind their back.”
Two thoughts on this:
  1. At least she doesn't seem upset or annoyed that people will get these tracks through unauthorized means -- in fact, she almost appears to be encouraging it.
  2. However, it seems like it's still a pretty short-sighted move. She clearly knows that other people will want the music who don't have access to the platform -- and while she calls them "pirates," most people would just call them fans, who aren't being well served by Bjork. So rather than "embracing" the unauthorized cracking of the iOS app, why not release the music in a format others can use so that they can pay for it if they want to?
It's always nice to see artists not freak out about unauthorized access, but in this case it seems like much of it was entirely avoidable.

Update: Someone in the comments claims that the album will be released in a bunch of different formats. That's not what the original article claimed, and I'm at a loss as to what people are complaining about if it will be released in a variety of formats.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> why-wait? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110802/01405015352