RAD Colin wrote:
I have yet to see any OSR Kickstarter or IndieGoGo campaign be sapped of momentum by virtue of having 15 days more time, and I fail to see how having less time to hopefully meet stretch goals is a good thing. All of the projects I mentioned succeeded very well indeed, and even met many stretch goals due to having that extra time. Dwimmermount, ACKS, the ACKS Companion, ad nauseum, all did well because they had extra time and even met stretch goals during said extra time. If you're going to convince me that having less time is a good thing and that all of those projects would have done so much better if they'd only had a couple weeks less for folks to pledge in, I'd need to see some evidence please. Give me some solid examples so I can lay my pessimistic side to rest.
This assumes that the amount of revenue raised is primarily a function of time. The evidence is that you need a certain amount of time to raise awareness and direct folks to your project, but donations also relate highly to a sense of how much was donated the day before. If your core audience would raise $5,000, it looks more impressive to do that over 30 days than 45.
I haven't found the data on 45 versus 30 days, other than that the KS folks suggest 30 days. But it is clear that more isn't necessarily better. In fact, there used to be an option for even more time to raise money and they axed it because the evidence was that it actually may have been hurting projects. http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/shortening-the-maximum-project-length
In any case, we both want the same thing, which is to see these DCC 3rd Party projects be as successful as possible. That means, with 30 days to promote it, anyone who is really excited about these stretch goals should get out on their personal networks and promote, promote, promote!