Core77

Product visualization is the base of ID and I understand that maybe some people can do great renders and can't deliver their goods at the end like they showed first, but geez product development need this!

This sort of heavy handed moderation goes directly against what I thought kickstarter stood for; realizing ideas.

Renderings are a step towards making ideas come alive and are made/shown at every stage of development. The only difference between a napkin sketch (which I assume is OK with KS) and a CG render is the level of resolution of the idea.

Maybe a component of their project selection should be to ask if the project is for a product and what does the roadmap for production look like. It may take more rigor on their part but to ban a fundamental visualization technique does a great diservice to the communication of an idea.

I figured I should weigh in on this post, since I bashed the Lifx post yesterday.

I agree that ID needs renderings. However, renderings should serve as strictly aesthetics. Showing color options, or potential mods etc...

I think what kickstarter has chosen to do is great. Projects like Enclave eyewear deserve to reach their funding. He showed us working samples. He demonstrated the product and explained his next steps.
No AfterEffects editing or "fake" product shots.

I showed Lifx to one of our electrical engineers and right away he asked how well the wifi works with a large heat sink. I guess only time and Paul Bosua will tell....

Visualization certainly helps bring home the "bacon" for me, so it's a bit of a bummer to hear that. Though, I didn't really interpret this as a bad thing for Kickstarter. Seems like there is a lot of room for miscommunication in the relatively passive relationship between creators and funders. That being said photorealistic renderings have become incredibly easy (Keyshot) and much less time consuming. So in the typical design development world, its still a really nice option to have and I don't see it going away. In my experience, most of the time hand drawing and linework are enough to move onto engineering and manufacture. Less of the time photorealistic renderings are requested, but I love it when they are.

This really needed to be done. Too many people (sadly, some are designers) believe anything can be made if it can be created in a computer. I do hope that renderings will be allowed for those who also have physical models and realistic plans for production. The same for simulations.

My issue with the new rules. I have a project on the back burner but I cant get the money for the prototype. The designer I'm working with wants over 50K for 1 working prototype.

50k for a working prototype?
If your prototype is going to cost 50k. and you cant afford that, or you dont have investors lined up..
maybe you need to re-think your concept.

Starting a business or in this case, launching a product isnt for everyone. Do you honestly think you will be able to afford any other aspect of production if you cant afford the prototype?

devlopment costs are always high, however manufacturing, logistics, marketing and taxes are going to be much higher.

Photo-Realistic renderings provide a method of enhancing design presentation to clients & customers. That is the way it works in the real world every day. I just drew a part design that is less than 2mm and photographs are almost impossible, so for my client I made full screen 360 view photo-realistic simulation video rendering of the item and they loved it!! Product model renderings really are no different than an architect's concept drawings. Prospective Kickstarter investors should be award the Photo-Realistic renderings are there to help them understand the product concept and if Kickstarter wishes to require notations on every computer rendered image then that is their choice; however, if investors see them as a promise they should not be investing in the first place. It is unfortunate if Kickstarter really has banned all rendering from their site... one can only hope the intelligent folks at Kickstarter will clarify that they meant computer generated renderings must also be accompanied by real photographs of items and/or more detailed descriptions of manufacturing hurdles & timelines. In some ways it is sort of fun to view photographs & videos of crudely built working prototypes, it shows the passion of the entrepreneur ... but only if that same entrepreneur can also see concept Photo-Realistic renderings of what the FINAL product COULD look like with the proper funding... What is the purpose of Kickstarter if not to assist ground level designers & entrepreneurs?? We certainly have been informed they are NOT A STORE now. Wasn't Kickstarter created to allow investors to become involved at the ground level and help designers fund their items to become all they can be?? How can a designer show ALL their idea can be if they can't show a future concept images?? NOTE: You can still fix this Kickstarter and save face ... Allow renderings but require the words 'Photo-Realistic Rendering' to be printed on every rendering image and watermarked in video simulations. Then let investors invest at their own risk... if you are not a store, then make that your tag line all over your website... KICKSTARTER - We Are Not a Store We Connect Entrepreneurs with Investors ... Let the design process flow and the better projects will rise to the top and show more real photographs because if real photographs helps them gain more funding, then they will do it. You can fix this Kickstarter with a simple clarification. You made your point.. you woke everyone up... but go back to your cutting edge idea that you started with... just require a disclaimer on Photo-Realistic renderings and don't let legal scare you into making Kiskstarter common.

I suspect that this is a little wedge... precision-guided to hit the gap between designers and engineers... the relationship between which is often a bit testy, ie:

designers are mildly contemptuous of engineers because they create ugly monstrosities

engineers are mildly contemptuous of designers because they create impractical fantasies.

Massive generalisation of course... but it's there. Same as the unease in music between sound and lighting people, or in film between visual and sound people.

It's a gradient I suppose.... and I'm a little closer to the engineering end. I think "No Simulations" is a good thing because it creates a bias dissuading people after "something for nothing". Not that a 3D rendering is "nothing" exactly, but it is a fuck of a lot easier than physically getting something to work. In my experience it takes less time to create a drawing than it does to find suppliers... let alone make a working prototype.

That said, I think Kickstarter as the go-to place for crowd-funding is a bad thing. We don't need more Facebook-like centralisation, we need the opposite. Maybe this will drive more people to other platforms, or just go for pre-sales off their own site.

Still a good thing then.

Dear KICKSTARTER,
Your intentions are in the right place. However, respectfully, your strategy is flawed.
As a professional Industrial Designer with +25 years experience in product design and development, I can assure you (and reinforce the MANY comments above) that disallowing renders and other types of representations of the final intended product is NOT the way to go.
The power of Kickstarter is that EVERYONE can witness, and participate, in the behind-the-scenes-process of product development.
Renderings or other simulations are a fundamental TOOL in this process!
Any Designer will tell you: with any first-time client, a certain amount of education and expectation-management is required.
Kickstarter is new! Many people who pledge are "first-time clients" in effect. They need HELP to understand the RISKS, but ALSO THE POTENTIAL, of the project! Renderings can help with BOTH of these things.
It's ALL of our role to RESPONSIBLY manage expectations in order to help improve the overall quality of the service.
HOWEVER we don't have to eliminate one of the single most powerful tools we have at our disposal.
It would be better to:
a) require the "Risks and Challenges" assessment, as proposed.
b) require clear labeling of renders/simulations when/if the intended final result is represented.
c) require a cv or biography of the Project Team Leader - to help people evaluate the project's potential for success.
ALSO, I would suggest some further pro-activity on the side of Kickstarter:
d) redesign the KICKSTARTER HOME PAGE and PROJECT PAGE TEMPLATE to CLARIFY the RISKS involved!

Your efforts are well appreciated and needed: Yes, Kickstarter is NOT a store! What it IS is very new, and bound to cause some confusion.
Surely it will require some finesse, experimentation and iterative development going forward to understand how to communicate, and deliver, it's maximum potential in an effective way... Indeed: as with the projects themselves, we are ALL living the "product development cycle" of Kickstarter!!!

We don't have to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" to solve this problem.

This feels like a step in the right direction according to Kickstarter. Their post was titled, "Kickstarter Is Not a Store." It's a spot on description to what I think it has become. (Note, I'm not familiar with all projects listed on their site.) This creates transparency in the funding market place because backers know where a project stands.

I see this as a good thing. A working prototype would come right after a final rendering, so they are basically asking you to take your project forward one more step before releasing it to the world. Not a bad thing. It will make designers think a lot harder about the different challenges they will face.
I recently had a successful Kickstarter project, and I had to deliver silk screened and printed posters to 185 people. I am going to deliver all of my rewards on time (finishing this weekend), but I am one of few project creators to do this. It has been so much more work than I initially anticipated, and taking my thinking one more step forward may have made my experience that much easier and that much more efficient.

So glad kickstarter decided to go in this direction. I believe the intent of this decision is to stop people from using renders and simulations to make it appear as though the project is much closer to completion. As a backer of three projects, elevations iPhone dock, Hidden Bluetooth speaker and the pebble smart watch I've found that these three projects made the claim that there projects were ready for mass production by showing renderings or simulations, most times avoiding the most difficult part of the project to implement or simulating it. Then once backers paid in we found out not one single prototype had been made and they where having problems creating a working unit ready for production. I believe kickstarter should be for projects that are 80% complete and need a little help for the last 20, not the other way around.

As a Designer that also manufactures his products I can say that from a rendering to a real item there is a very long way. I have encountered serious problems when mass production started, let alone when we made working prototypes or after cutting the molds. Sometimes a flaw only shows up after first productions are made a a user starts to experience with the product extensively. To create and develop a new product and bring it to market is a risky business. Not allways ends up well. Kickstart pledgers should understand that failure is an option...

No, dear God No. Very wrong idea Kickstarter.

I can see how this makes sense if Kickstarter isjust some shopping site for people to buy cheap and early versions of products - a very narrow and twisted view of the site. But this site is (was?) mainly about crowd sourcing help to people who want to start something or do something new, and generally we're helping them with a step or cost that most other sources would not fund them for. We're helping creation happen by reducing risk while they figure things out.

I'm a backer of over 100 projects, some in the arts, textiles, music, video, gastronomic, etc. where this requirement clearly does not fit.

This decision seems to say that the KickStarter owners saw where the money was, sacrificed the core idea behind the site, and opened a trendy shopping channel.

Shame on you...

It's quite possible the rule changes were prompted by the lawsuit regarding the Seth Quest's (failed) Hanfree project. After Seth declared the project a failure that would never deliver, but did not refund any money ($35000), and then basically ignored all his backers while either a friend or Seth himself (via a sock puppet account) disparaged and antagonized them, his 2 of his backers, Neil Singh (an attorney) and Chris Thompson, sued.

I'm not going to post a link here, since any link would probably send this message to a moderation queue or spam filter. But if you search for "Hanfree", it's easy to find. The comments are the most interesting reading.

In particular, Neil's comment from July 27 contains a description the suit, which probably sheds some light on Kickstarters "Not A Store". It would be nice to believe their primary interest is protecting backers, but perhaps they are more concerned about being party to a dispute where ordinary contract and consumer protection laws/rules might apply?

A quote from Neil's July 27 comment:

... my legal action .... seeks 3 things from the court: ..... (3) a judicial declaration that we, as backers, were simply customers who purchased a pre-ordered unit, as opposed to the fuzzy "backer/pledger" nonsense that has been peddled here in the comments by various individuals.

It's a good thing! If you can't make a model or a working prototype of your concept you probably shouldn't be on Kickstarter anyway. Renderings are just eye candy!!!!! Oh, It's great for business if your a designer working on a concept for a customer who is going to launch on Kickstarter! I could go on but I will hold back.... :-)

As a design graduate I am eager to hear this. Hopefully this will stimulate more designers to get their butts off their chair and start prototyping their ideas. You CAN'T make good design by just sketching and rendering. I need to see proof that you've though this through and actually tested all vital features and interaction.

In my opinion, 3d rendering is the driver of having useless products all over the world. People get persuaded but both designer and investor have no idea whether it works properly. Prototyping and testing it is the only way.

Through iterative prototyping all the major malfunction should've already been filtered out before going to production. It's what Eddie said, Kickstarter should be for products that are 80% complete. I'm not going to invest any money in products that have not been prototyped.

There are so many brilliant points on this thread which could inform Kickstarter's thinking and show them that they only had to ask and we would happily collaborate to create guidelines that are far more effective.

If you haven't already, I ask you Please to post your comments on the Kickstarter page, if you have an account with them.
http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store

or reach them through their 'contact us' section.

At its best this could start the conversation about developing the rules and inform backers about how the industry works.
It would be a crime if all of this information, engagement and ideas was left undiscovered.

Do these new rules not make KS closer to the "store" status they seem to be so desperately trying to avoid? I interpret this as the entirety of the Product Design category becoming a pre-order for an existing product. Alternatively, these rules make no distinction for a photograph of a well-crafted "looks like" model. If a computer rendering is false advertisement does that apply to such a photo? Requiring a working prototype is one thing (and, honestly, something i thought they already required), but disallowing ANY form of supplemental "the end product will look like this" media seems awfully heavy handed.

I'd be interested to see if this effects the amount of funding certain projects get. I guess Kickstarter is banking on fewer donations in favor of more successes.

I have a feeling part of the issue with using renderings is that not everyone on Kickstarter is a designer, or even aware of what a rendering is. It is easy, as a designer, to forget that there are a lot of people who see a rendering and think it is a finished product. To then discover that this isn't the case can seem (to them) as though the designer is lying to them - I'm not saying this is always true but look at some of the recent criticism of 'simulated' images in advertising.

I know that not everyone can afford to produce a working prototype - I know I never could - but for backers it makes more sense if the designer can prove that the thing will work rather than still being an idea. Some items won't need rigorous testing, whilst others will require several prototypes. It is unfair to expect people to invest in a product when they are misinformed and when the designer also doesn't know how long it may take to reach market.

I think that this is a great idea. Not too long ago the founder kickstarter stated in an interview that he wanted to stray away from it becoming a store. So many designers are now coming up with new ideas mainly to market their product, not necessarily to ask for backers of an idea.

If you can market your idea and dreams with a prototype and working models, all the more power to you. I think this will just get people working with their hands more, realizing what is and isn't feasible about their project.

Good idea kickstarter!

With regards to the Hanfree project, these new rules seem as though they would not have protected against failure. They clearly had a working prototype and were not relying on renders in their presentation video.

Can I show marker renderings?

This seems counterproductive. I guess now you gotta put a sketch filter on your renderings, or have a link to another site where the images are shown...or you can just make sure your renderings are photo-realistic. I don't understand what they are trying to accomplish, other than "don't invest in people who know how to use modern software". Stupid.

This is a good move by Kickstarter. With the digital revolution in full swing, people still need to realize that ideas are a dime a dozen. Unless you have a physical prototype, you have a notion and don't think you are the only one to have had it ... (most likely). If you can't get funding or help locally (i.e. family, friends, colleagues) to develop a prototype, I don't think you have any business asking strangers for money with a pretty picture.

I have some thoughts. Some company's exist today by funding from otherwise untouchable sources. ID is an entry point to these sources. Visualizing is a means of storytelling and idea generation. Another company will pick up where Kickstarter has left off and they will be left behind. Sorry, sad, and broke. Its unfortunate as there was so much support coming from the design side of this company, emphasizing on the roll that creatives play in business, this was the top of the pyramid.

I'm just trying to imagine showing up at the product meeting without any renderings. CAD made ideation a very inexpensive process for my company relative to having a physical prototype made. Managers and engineers were able to make their own decisions and ask their own questions about manufacturability. Are investors in need of protection from themselves in regards to these decisions? If so, I would worry about the other decisions of such investors. I've seen how that goes too.

Unfortunately, these changes will not address the real issue with design projects, which is failure to manufacture. If Kickstarter really wanted to address this issue, then greater resources related to manufacturing should be made available.

Support project creators, don’t hobble them.

This is a good thing. Having analysed a lot of ID KS projects out of interest, I had to conclude there were quite a few that were nothing more than a napkin sketch rendered in glossy plastic or aluminium.
By asking physical proto's, you can both get a good indication of the skill of the project starter and how far the design has been developed.
It's just too easy to make a slick rendering. Considering the amounts at stake, it's only fair to ask a little more.

For all those saying "it's too easy to make a slick rendering" consider this. To create said rendering, you still need some CAD data of some description. That CAD data can also be used to create a prototype on a 3D printer. There does not need to be any manufacturing design intent built into the prototype, so therefore this is just as evil as renderings if you apply kickstarters logic (or lack of). I think they need to make more of an effort to communicate the process of concept-production to anybody who is willing to pledge money, whether that be case studies or some other way. Do they also provide mentoring to people trying to develop products via their site?