I can't recall a lot of the other stuff you could get away with, including have no proof of concepts and just using renders and being fully funded already and such, but I had to unsubscribe from their emails it was so disgusting. You can tell if you look at their site overtime which kinds of things just stay up forever or how they instantly are over the goal and whatnot. One item stayed up for like 8 months, constantly over the goal.
Subject: Your Indiegogo Innovation Award
We're excited to inform you that your project is eligible to receive an Indiegogo Innovation Award this January!
To honor your crowdfunding achievements, we cordially invite you to reserve your award, available for pick-up at this year's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
Our theme at this year's CES is "Indiegogo Means Business," and your campaign is proof that creative ideas indeed grow into successful businesses with Indiegogo. As only 100 entrepreneurs will receive this gift, we hope you enjoy it as much as the Indiegogo community has enjoyed your ingenious ideas.
Thank you for being a pivotal part of Indiegogo!
I have never run a campaign on Indiegogo.
They allowed the same business to run multiple campaigns concurrently, opening new ones when the old ones were not even fulfilled. Turns out these scammers were using new funds to fulfill old campaigns and since a ponzi scheme always collapses...
I could go on and on like this with Kickstarter.
I studied their business model a bit, and came to the conclusion that these businesses are actually B2B with the appearance of B2C. These are marketing platforms,selling marketing services to you, paid by fees and the client is you, the project creator, not the backer since they successfully claimed they have zero contractual obligations toward backers. But backers are still billed by Kickstarter, at no point the project creator issues a bill or is forced to issue one. This is extremely clever from a legal perspective and it is what sets them apart from ebay and likes. But what are backers billed for then? that's the most interesting question, they they are not billed for the good they "backed"...
I was raising funds for a project, it was going OK (not great but OK... I had two or three backers after a few days), it was climbing the ranks of active projects, and then suddenly it disappeared from the search results entirely. It wasn't a slow descent into irrelevance; it was sudden and total.
Multiple emails and phone calls to Indiegogo resulted in zero response from them. The project close, the funding was sent to me, and I had to manually refund my few backers because I couldn't possibly fulfill their expectation with so few supporters and so little money.
I suspected foul play but had no proof. Now I'm thinking this is much more wide spread than I ever realized.
I really don’t get how you could consider them helping to promote popular campaigns shady. I mean it’s the very point of the entire platform, and how both they and their users and the backers of projects gain value.
Stop, Drop, & Retro has some really good YouTube videos calling out IGG/KS campaigns (focused on the retro gaming scene) and he does a decent job breaking it all down.
What do you mean by "working prototype"? I ran a successful software Kickstarter last year and all we had going in was a mockup (created in Keynote) of what the app would look like.
I expected that it would take hours/days after I "submitted for review" for the campaign to be approved, but it was instantaneously approved and went live.
The oldest one I saw got almost this much funding and that was back in 2012! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zioneyez/eyeztm-by-zion...
Every time one of these projects fails to deliver, I'd guess that another set of people get put off crowdfunding.
Personally my approach has been never to back a project by a first time creator, unless I already know their work from elsewhere, doubly so if it's for a physical product.
Graduating from there usually means you are set and don't need to scam anyone for a _very_ comfortable life.
That seems like what might be a more attractive thing to do / better pay off, without a lot of work.
Wired, CNET, and all these prominent outlets, when was the last time they issued a follow up when something turned out to be a scam? when did they ever put a disclaimer about the risk of crowdfunding in their article? and let's not even talk about the fact that they don't even state clearly that the product doesn't exist and they never even tried it. Without shills, scams can't be successful, they are the shills, literally by the definition of that word.
They actually do protect their backers better than Kickstarter sometimes:
this ongoing scam on Kickstarter:
the same project was actually closed by Indiegogo as the creator is a notorious scammer:
Kickstater doesn't protect anybody at all. Kickstarter doesn't get involved in anyway after funds change hands and they take their cut.
FWIW I do not participate in kickstarter, but that is because I like having things I spend money on. I know plenty of people who do. So, I think it's in general a good service.
Crowdfunders are exposed to risk, but they aren't going to profit. Real investment comes with the prospect of an actual upside for the investors, but if I can just buy the product later when it actually exists (crowdfunding discounts aside) why not just do that?
It absolutely will.
I have a very close acquaintaince in the process of doing hardware (and I have experience with this myself).
Getting the first production run is brutally difficult, and the operating captiol requirement just doesn't exist.
VC's don't want to pay for it, and neither do business development banks.
Though I think there is a lot of scamming ... 'hardware is hard'. Really hard.
I actually believe a lot of it is 1/2 way - they raise money with good intentions, but then are just stupid and lazy in getting production up, and then can't afford it. Once a team has 1 million - if they get production up, maybe they get 100K in profit. But if they 'fail' to get production up ... they can keep maybe $700 in 'profit' i.e. what they didn't spend on units.
Maybe a better solution would be to have escrow and pay on delivery, with partial payments or something like that.
Maybe you'd agree with that. I just never was a fan of the "oh, it's those people who are doing it wrong" as we ourselves indulge in a different set of the same thing.
I assume this is a typo? Or did a blanket raise almost a billion dollars?
so in total $1,266,728
Do the platforms get a percentage from each backing? If so, we can see why they don't care if the product is real or not...
>Update: A previous version of this article said the Zen blanket raised $1,2 millions, the amount they did raise was $800.000.
A consequence of this is that defendants in criminal cases are very rarely named by the media until convicted, if even then.
It would have been _very_ weird to see this person named on Breakit.
The Scandinavian concept of privacy is… interesting.
At least something obviously physically impossible should've been cancelled.
They are burning their credit of trust.
In order to do card payments the merchant (IGG) need to be able to refund. It they cannot, the acquirer must do so. Anyways, one of the purposes of Visa and MasterCard is protection from these scams. If you don't get 100% of what you bought, you can get refunded by the card issuer, which will collect acquirer/merchant.
An airplane can reduce the risk of falling down, but if you want to be protected(!) against falling down from the sky you shouldn't enter a big piece of metal that lifts off from the ground.
Indiegogo seems to not have such statistical intelligence.
The fact that a house-fly already has the statistical intelligence for funding Indiegogo projects doesn't mean that there isn't any
If you demand protection by the law against being taken advantage of, the law should strip you on a gradient of your rights & obligations as a adult for the return of your "investments". Somebody who is not capable to evaluate a product and believes in magic, shouldn't have the guardians right to decide against vaccination for their kids.