More Evidence That Legacy Gatekeepers Just Don't Understand Modern Business Models
from the it's-not-that-hard dept
For a while now, we have written about how legacy gatekeepers need to adapt to modern culture and business models if they want to survive. The primary point of contention that keeps many of these companies from adapting is one of control. Many of them don't want to lose what remnants of control they have left in order to become enablers. This mindset is what will be the death of many companies as the world moves on without them.Some companies are making at least a half-hearted, if not completely misguided, attempt at trying to be hip. However, it seems to have been about as successful as a 60 year-old trying to use modern slang in order to connect with kids. Take for instance this recent comment by Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart in which he describes an exchange he had with a publisher about Kickstarter.
We were actually contacted by some publishers over the last few months that wanted to use us to do a Kickstarter.If you can't see the huge glaring flaw in the unnamed publisher's approach, let me elaborate. This publisher wanted to use Kickstarter as the funding source for an as yet unidentified project, while still keeping every other aspect of the traditional publisher/developer relationship intact. This means that the publisher would pay no money upfront, limiting almost all risk for the success of the project, while reaping all the rewards. Seriously.
I said to them ‘So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for, using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don't get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits’ They said, ‘Yes’.
While it is great that this publisher had become aware of Kickstarter and its potential for success, the fact remains that those in charge do not understand it in the slightest. The draw of Kickstarter and other crowdfunding services is to help creators fund their works and bring them to market. Few potential backers will be willing to support a project in which the creator loses all rights and control of the work after creation. These services are about empowering creators. A deal, such as the one above, in no way empowers the creator.
Hopefully, this is just a simple misstep as the publisher learns to walk the unfamiliar path of a new business model. We can hope that this publisher learns from this mistake and will take the time to better understand the culture behind crowdfunding and can find success by adapting itself to this culture rather than trying to shoehorn crowdfunding into its current business strategy. Because if it isn't willing to adapt, it might as well give up now.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, middlemen, publishers
Companies: kickstarter, obsidian
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well...
After all, if they don't try, they'll never learn, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to learn from SACEM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to learn from SACEM?
"We cannot compete against a government monopoly. The only way to solve this problem is to give us the same kind of monopoly tools!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modern slavery
Totally compares to what the Irish went through when immigrating to the US working in coal mines.
Also did you know they cant pay the royalties on some of the Star Wars movies because they didn't make money? Yeah... slavery indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modern slavery
The idea that slavery is gone is a myth, it's just been integrated into our very culture so well that we don't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The object is to maximize your profits as much possible while minimizing your risks as much as possible.
And as Wall Street bankers at places like WaMu would tell you, who cares about future revenue when you can make LOTS of money NOW! So you make $50 million in a few years and then your company goes bankrupt, you still made big money during those years, and can go work for some other 'sucker', erm, 'company', once the last one goes bust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tactfully yours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tactfully yours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tactfully yours...
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tactfully yours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tactfully yours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More From Obsidian
http://techland.time.com/2012/09/21/project-eternity-chris-avellone-interview/
Som e highlights about publishers:
And this one:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is funny because that was the only part that kept them from being chopped out of the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is sort of hard to say. Most software teams consist of a few dozen to a few hundred individuals that come and go. By having the investor hold the IP, at least one developer can't just take the project and run off. Where it becomes detrimental is after the project is over, that publisher retains the IP and causes headaches if the developers want to bring the project back or do an off-shoot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]