[jonathanjaeger]

"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.

[thibautdavoult]

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.