This is a terrible analysis that fails to understand why veronica mars was so successful.
As discussed here when the VM kickstarter succeeded, there was a very loyal fanbase to the series and there hadn't been a new show or movie in years (since 2007). There was a ton of latent demand for a product.
If I were doing this analysis, I'd try to separate established brands from new concepts. Bell's project to a great extent was driven by the brand and Braff's project leveraged Garden State. Since Spike Lee's project was entirely driven by his name, I'd look at his with a different lens
The best part of this article is the quote "Judging a trend from 3 data points isn’t the wisest thing to do"
That's a fair point on VM's loyal fanbase that was lingering since 2007. But Braff's project leveraged Garden State as much as Lee's Leveraged Malcolm X and others of his past films.
Your argument is biting its own tail: You're saying Lee's project was entirely driven by his name, but that's because Lee made it so. He could have made a more convincing video or written a better text giving more info (just like Braff did) but he didn't. My point is that he could have been more successful if he had put in more effort.
That's the whole point: Spike Lee's past films should outweigh Braff's effort with Garden State when it comes to convincing people about their respective ability to make good films, but it didn't.
Braff pitched "Wish I Was Here" as a spiritual successor to Garden State:
> I was about to sign a typical financing deal in order to get the money to make "Wish I Was Here," my follow up to “Garden State.” It would have involved making a lot of sacrifices I think would have ultimately hurt the film.
Maybe it's a language thing on my part, but for me "my follow up" means "my next project after", which doesn't imply any continuation when it comes to the movies' contents. (It's possible I got that wrong but at least you know where I'm coming from)
But when Kickstarter’s founders have to defend their own platform, a platform that once was nominated idea of the year by TIME, you know something must be rotten in Denmark.
The fuck kind of logic is this? When somebody defends their company, you know something must be wrong? That's some astute analysis there.
Judging a trend from 3 data points isn’t the wisest thing to do, and this descending slope may only be coincidental.
"So, naturally Strickler won’t pull the plug on celebrity projects, and he’s going to defend their right to exist for as long as he can."
Just because it's a big direct revenue source, that doesn't mean Kickstarter can't pull the plug on something. They recently banned hardware projects that just showed simulations without an actual product built yet. They're playing the long game and don't want to hurt the trust the community has in the platform -- so they're not in it for a quick buck at any chance, and they reject a lot of projects that don't meet their somewhat strict guidelines.
That being said, where do you draw the line on 'celebrity'? At some point, if hypothetically they banned celebrity projects, who determines the level of celebrity? It's so ambiguous to the point where it doesn't make sense to address it. I think the celebrity stories are a non-issue and the press always wants "controversy" to talk about even if it's drummed up by them.
These are two excellent points you're raising here.
About the 1st one: My intent with the sentence wasn't just to focus on the added revenue these projects provide, but also on the increased visibility they give to Kickstarter as a whole, which very much carries a long term impact for Kickstarter (SEO benefits, better brand awareness, etc).
But I see what you mean: If these projects were truly hurting Kickstarter as a platform for everyone, they probably would have figured a way to make them stop.
Which brings me to your second point. It's true that the celebrity status is extremely tough to define and even tougher to measure in order to apply fair rules for everyone. But if there's a need for it, that is: if the existence of some projects start being detrimental to others, then I trust Kickstarter will work on it, crunch some data to figure out a way to prevent that from happening while remaining fair to project creators. Maybe by blocking projects a-posteriori, as they already did in the past.
I see a pattern - it is the level of quirkiness. I think the more quirky a show the more likely it is to generate major fan loyalty. The show has to be good as a baseline.
Veronica Mars fans are legion, there is even a slight overlap with Joss Whedon (of Buffy, etc fame) as he had a very rare bit-part in one episode. Braff is known for somewhat quirky stuff too, Garden State was offbeat. Spike Lee is very mainstream hollywood nowadays, working with a-list actors and directing some very profitable movies.
So from the perspective that good-quality quirkiness generates fan enthusiasm it makes sense that these three particular projects would draw interest and dollars in the proportions that they did.
As discussed here when the VM kickstarter succeeded, there was a very loyal fanbase to the series and there hadn't been a new show or movie in years (since 2007). There was a ton of latent demand for a product.
If I were doing this analysis, I'd try to separate established brands from new concepts. Bell's project to a great extent was driven by the brand and Braff's project leveraged Garden State. Since Spike Lee's project was entirely driven by his name, I'd look at his with a different lens
The best part of this article is the quote "Judging a trend from 3 data points isn’t the wisest thing to do"