[boredguy8]

As a consumer of Kickstarter projects, I don't see why I care that they hide their unfunded (I wouldn't call them 'failed') projects. I can't contribute to them AND those projects don't hurt me anyway: if they don't get funding, I don't lose money.

I much rather wish there were a way to know what percentage of funded projects fail to deliver their product. Are some categories more risky than others? Would there be a class action if, say, the Pebble folks just walk away with their 10 million dollars?

[samineru]

This article isn't directed at you then, it's directed at people considering starting Kickstarter projects of their own. I believe the author's thesis is that the current Kickstarter policy of hiding failed fundraising efforts is detrimental to the capacity of future Kickstarters to run successful fundraisers.

[michaelbuckbee]

Considering that Kickstarter only makes money if a project is successfully funded[1] I have a hard time seeing how it is in their interests to deliberately undermine future Kickstarters.

Also, of tangential interest on that same page Kickstarter states that the number of successfully funded projects is 'a little less than half'.

[1] - http://www.kickstarter.com/start

[larrys]

"current Kickstarter policy of hiding failed fundraising efforts is detrimental to the capacity of future Kickstarters to run successful fundraisers."

Agree. No question there is something to be learned from projects that have failed by reverse engineering or seeing and analyzing patterns of what didn't work.

This is a problem also with the business press. Sure, you hear about spectacular failures (if it bleeds it leads as they say in the news business) but you don't hear about less than spectacular failures and therefore you can't learn from the mistakes of others.

The raw numbers of success and failures are helpful, but I'd additionally like to dig into the specifics.

[jyu]

More transparency also gives more data points into gaming Kickstarter. Although not 100% effective, obfuscation is a first step to prevent gaming the system and ruining the whole experience.

[ja2ke]

If you are starting a new Kickstarter campaign http://www.kicktraq.com/ may be a useful research tool. They're fairly new so their data doesn't go back too far but what's there is a good resource.

[boredguy8]

But that depends on who you think Kickstarter is ultimately serving. I'm pretty sure Kickstarter cares more about the funders than the products that get displayed. This seems patently true, though obviously they need some people to post projects. But the number of people looking for money is always going to be non-trivial.

Second, if that is the thesis, it's silly. We learn more from success than from failure http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/successes-0729.html; http://hbr.org/2010/01/success-gets-into-your-head-and-chang.... And you can see all the successful projects you want.

[TDL]

"We learn more from success than from failure..."

This might very well be true, however, if failed tactics/strategies are obscured it is possible that said tactics/strategies will continue to be employed.

Furthermore, even if we do learn more from success than failure, both are necessary lessons for individual success.

[gonzo]

I'm not willing to predict that Pebble walks away with their $10M...

but I can tell you that it's nearly certain that Pebble is going to slip the schedule by months.

and what happens then is anyone's guess.

Rumors are in the air that Kickstarter is now refusing to host any more 'hardware' plays, due to the huge overhang on Pebble. I have no idea how to find out if those are true or not.