[jonathanjaeger]

"kickstarter and cohorts getting fees while offering little value."

If a site has a vibrant community with a popular (or even household) name, handles funding transactions, provides a stable experience when you get traffic, and basically lets you worry about the project itself more than the technology of running a crowdfunding campaign, I believe that's worth a 5% cut.

Saying: "Come fund my new project on Kickstarter/IndieGogo/other crowdfunding site" has a lot more trust behind it than saying, "I set up crowdfunding on my own website, donate here."

[arkonaut]

Does it provide a community effect? I know they say that, but they've never really released convincing data that it exists. Over 50% fail, and the average raised for successful campaigns is something like 105%. As for the funding transactions, Amazon handles them, and when you speak to successful project creators, their biggest gripe is that Kickstarter owns their customers and the communication with them (my pebble updates still come from Kickstarter a year and a half after the project ended), so I think there is a concern regarding the technology.

[jonathanjaeger]

I agree with you arkonaut, there are advantages and disadvantages for everything. But I think there's a reason why big names like Kristin Bell and Zach Braff used Kickstarter. However a platform to build it on your own site might make sense for some people.

While I don't know the exact stats, I'm pretty sure Kickstarter released stats about the Blockbuster effect of big names bringing money to the platform (bringing in X number of new backers who went on to back X number of other projects).

I've only backed a few projects on Kickstarter and Indiegogo, but I would be much less likely to back those same projects hosted on their own site (because I would be less likely to discover them or less willing to go out of my way to fund them).

[liuhenry]

Celebrities and big brands already have the audience and distribution network to spread the word about their campaign, so it would seem that advantages of discovery through the Kickstarter community would be comparatively minimal compared to the fees, branding disadvantages, and loss of ability to re-engage those fans and backers post-campaign.

I've backed quite a few projects on Kickstarter, and most of the time I've heard about them through press or because people I know backed them (not by browsing through the listings on KS). I'd imagine that the vast majority of people who ended up backing Kristen Bell or Zach Braff discovered them similarly. Projects like Pebble, Ouya, and Double Fine experience the same effect.

The "hosted on wordpress.com" approach would take care of the tech stability/overhead while still giving those interested in more control a way to self-host. Look at guys like Louis CK, who've been able to do millions of dollars in sales through their site - a Crowdhoster type option seems much more attractive.

[jonathanjaeger]

"loss of ability to re-engage those fans and backers post-campaign"

Agree with this aspect. You have more control self-hosting, and that might be the differentiating factor for some people. However I disagree with the promotional aspect. A lot of tech coverage happens because press likes to say: "So-and-so is doing a Kickstarter" rather than "So-and-so is raising money."

[unz]

Yes they provide value, but as consumer I'd like to see that 5% drop, and Kickstarter being a household name benefits them, giving them leverage to keep prices high, and a net loss for the consumer.

Kickstarter don't have full international coverage and they don't provide an api or a data feed, two things crowdfunding desperately needs.