cua cà mau cua tươi sống cua cà mau bao nhiêu 1kg giá cua hôm nay giá cua cà mau hôm nay cua thịt cà mau cua biển cua biển cà mau cách luộc cua cà mau cua gạch cua gạch cà mau vựa cua cà mau lẩu cua cà mau giá cua thịt cà mau hôm nay giá cua gạch cà mau giá cua gạch cách hấp cua cà mau cua cốm cà mau cua hấp mua cua cà mau cua ca mau ban cua ca mau cua cà mau giá rẻ cua biển tươi cuaganic cua cua thịt cà mau cua gạch cà mau cua cà mau gần đây hải sản cà mau cua gạch son cua đầy gạch giá rẻ các loại cua ở việt nam các loại cua biển ở việt nam cua ngon cua giá rẻ cua gia re crab farming crab farming cua cà mau cua cà mau cua tươi sống cua tươi sống cua cà mau bao nhiêu 1kg giá cua hôm nay giá cua cà mau hôm nay cua thịt cà mau cua biển cua biển cà mau cách luộc cua cà mau cua gạch cua gạch cà mau vựa cua cà mau lẩu cua cà mau giá cua thịt cà mau hôm nay giá cua gạch cà mau giá cua gạch cách hấp cua cà mau cua cốm cà mau cua hấp mua cua cà mau cua ca mau ban cua ca mau cua cà mau giá rẻ cua biển tươi cuaganic cua cua thịt cà mau cua gạch cà mau cua cà mau gần đây hải sản cà mau cua gạch son cua đầy gạch giá rẻ các loại cua ở việt nam các loại cua biển ở việt nam cua ngon cua giá rẻ cua gia re crab farming crab farming cua cà mau
Skip to main content

Too big to flop: Inside Indiegogo's plan to circumvent crowdfunding failures

indiegogo fighting crowdfunding fails hq
Indiegogo
Crowdfunding has a failure problem.

Over the past couple years, platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo have been host to quite a few high-profile flops. Just last month, the once-super promising Lily camera drone project crashed back to earth. Having collected $34 million in pre-orders from a massive 60,000 customers, it closed shop before entering production.

Before that, there was the Coolest Cooler debacle: an ongoing) predicament in which the most successful Kickstarter project of all time (over $13 million in pledges) failed to deliver to thousands of its backers.

Before that, it was the Zano Drone: a failed UAV project that left over 14,000 orders unfulfilled. The list goes on and on.

Crowdfunding feeds into the “couple of guys (or gals) building something in a garage” dream that Silicon Valley is built on.

Thing is, these aren’t isolated incidents — they’re just the most widely-publicized ones. Spend just a few minutes Googling your chosen category of crowdfunding project (video game, desk toy, drinks cooler, UAV) and you’ll find hear about so many crowdfunding disasters that you’ll want to get memories of Kickstarter and its ilk surgically removed from your brain.

In some of these crowdfunding horror shows, refunds are thankfully given out. In others, creators are never heard from again, and the idea that you’ll get your hard-earned money back is as likely as a friendly resolution to an argument in a YouTube comments section.

Unpacking all of this isn’t easy. Most crowdfunding entrepreneurs we speak with harbor the fear that nobody is going to pay any attention to their campaign; worrying about what will happen if people pay it too much attention is like seeking an advance restraining order against Mila Kunis on the off chance that she might one day start stalking you.

From a subscriber perspective, it’s no less complex. Part of what we love about crowdfunding is the DIY ethos behind it. If a company is too established, if it’s a millionaire movie star raising money for a project they could pay for themselves, people understandably bristle. Crowdfunding feeds into the “couple of guys (or gals) building something in a garage” dream that Silicon Valley is built on. You’re along for the ride. Delays are commonplace and, so long as they’re not indefinite and backers are kept informed of progress, most don’t get too upset.

After all what’s the alternative: turning crowdfunding into platforms geared only at the pros, rather than the kind of democratized market place it was envisioned as?

So what’s the answer?

As crowdfunding continues to develop, these are questions that need to be addressed, not willfully ignored. This is a conundrum Indiegogo is trying to help solve. As the one of the top two crowdfunding sites (alongside Kickstarter) Indiegogo has hosted more than 700,000 campaigns over its 8.5 years of life — and helped raise over $1 billion in pledges along the way.

However, with more and more stories of failure among crowdfunding entrepreneurs, Indiegogo is trying to change its service to resolve some of the frequent problem users and entrepreneurs face.

Axent Wear Cat Ear Headphones.
Indiegogo
Indiegogo

For Indiegogo CEO David Mandelbrot, the campaign which alerted him to the problem was a 2015 project on the platform called Axent Wear Cat Ear Headphones.

“It was created by two design students at UC Berkeley who had the original goal of raising around $250,000, and raised over $3 million on Indiegogo,” Mandelbrot told Digital Trends. “But they were design students: they’d never done manufacturing of a consumer product at scale. Their story was the inspiration for our lifecycle strategy.”

“They have a good idea of what they want to build, but they don’t necessarily know how to do it at scale.”

Mandelbrot said that Indiegogo was able to introduce the folks behind the Axent Wear Cat Ear Headphones to Brookstone, a retailer which also had connections in the Chinese manufacturing industry. With an introduction made, the product was subsequently successfully manufactured and became a bestseller. A follow-up pair of headphones was made last year.

For Mandelbrot, it was a new way of thinking about his job — and the role of platforms like Indiegogo.

“Usually a campaign runs when the entrepreneur has a prototype,” he continued. “They have a good idea of what they want to build, but they don’t necessarily know how to do it at scale. The ones who are really successful suddenly find themselves in a situation where they have to manufacture thousands of one product. But they don’t yet have a relationship with a factory in China, or they may have made errors in designing their product. Those entrepreneurs will start to be challenged almost immediately.”

With that in mind, Indiegogo is currently reconfiguring its services to act as a helpful facilitator to entrepreneurs. Rather than simply taking a cut of projects for the privilege of letting them use the platform, like a barber renting out a chair in their salon, Indiegogo is building partnerships with other groups to help entrepreneurs cope with challenges like scaling.

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

One such partnership is with electronics company Arrow.

“What we did with Arrow was to form a partnership so that every single electronics entrepreneur on Indiegogo has the opportunity to have their project reviewed and certified by an expert,” Mandelbrot said. “That means proving that an entrepreneur has thought through all of the components that will be in each product, and that it has been designed in such a way that it will enable it to be manufactured. The entrepreneur can then offer their campaign knowing that they are on the right path, and that their product is manufacturable and, ultimately, shippable.”

“We think entrepreneurs who don’t succesfully ship products have a pretty pronounced impact on our entire industry.”

Last month, it announced another partnership; this time with Riverwood Solutions, which will consult with entrepreneurs about where to manufacture their products.

The goal of all this, Mandelbrot said, is to give entrepreneurs the tools to be “successful all the way through [a product’s] life cycle.”

Indiegogo’s solution is just one possible answer to a bigger question. But it’s a good one. Collapsing a funding platform into an erstwhile accelerator program will help entrepreneurs learn, make the growing number of crowdfunding platforms earn their keep, and — perhaps most important — provide some measure of reassurance to customers.

Because crowdfunding is, simply put, too good a concept to let fail.

“We’ve actually been surprised that other companies who are in this space have been slow to move in this direction,” Mandelbrot concluded. “We think entrepreneurs who don’t succesfully ship products have a pretty pronounced impact on our entire industry. It’s a big part of why we’ve tried to move forward so quickly.”

Luke Dormehl
Former Digital Trends Contributor
I'm a UK-based tech writer covering Cool Tech at Digital Trends. I've also written for Fast Company, Wired, the Guardian…
Range Rover’s first electric SUV has 48,000 pre-orders
Land Rover Range Rover Velar SVAutobiography Dynamic Edition

Range Rover, the brand made famous for its British-styled, luxury, all-terrain SUVs, is keen to show it means business about going electric.

And, according to the most recent investor presentation by parent company JLR, that’s all because Range Rover fans are showing the way. Not only was demand for Range Rover’s hybrid vehicles up 29% in the last six months, but customers are buying hybrids “as a stepping stone towards battery electric vehicles,” the company says.

Read more
BYD’s cheap EVs might remain out of Canada too
BYD Han

With Chinese-made electric vehicles facing stiff tariffs in both Europe and America, a stirring question for EV drivers has started to arise: Can the race to make EVs more affordable continue if the world leader is kept out of the race?

China’s BYD, recognized as a global leader in terms of affordability, had to backtrack on plans to reach the U.S. market after the Biden administration in May imposed 100% tariffs on EVs made in China.

Read more
Tesla posts exaggerate self-driving capacity, safety regulators say
Beta of Tesla's FSD in a car.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is concerned that Tesla’s use of social media and its website makes false promises about the automaker’s full-self driving (FSD) software.
The warning dates back from May, but was made public in an email to Tesla released on November 8.
The NHTSA opened an investigation in October into 2.4 million Tesla vehicles equipped with the FSD software, following three reported collisions and a fatal crash. The investigation centers on FSD’s ability to perform in “relatively common” reduced visibility conditions, such as sun glare, fog, and airborne dust.
In these instances, it appears that “the driver may not be aware that he or she is responsible” to make appropriate operational selections, or “fully understand” the nuances of the system, NHTSA said.
Meanwhile, “Tesla’s X (Twitter) account has reposted or endorsed postings that exhibit disengaged driver behavior,” Gregory Magno, the NHTSA’s vehicle defects chief investigator, wrote to Tesla in an email.
The postings, which included reposted YouTube videos, may encourage viewers to see FSD-supervised as a “Robotaxi” instead of a partially automated, driver-assist system that requires “persistent attention and intermittent intervention by the driver,” Magno said.
In one of a number of Tesla posts on X, the social media platform owned by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a driver was seen using FSD to reach a hospital while undergoing a heart attack. In another post, a driver said he had used FSD for a 50-minute ride home. Meanwhile, third-party comments on the posts promoted the advantages of using FSD while under the influence of alcohol or when tired, NHTSA said.
Tesla’s official website also promotes conflicting messaging on the capabilities of the FSD software, the regulator said.
NHTSA has requested that Tesla revisit its communications to ensure its messaging remains consistent with FSD’s approved instructions, namely that the software provides only a driver assist/support system requiring drivers to remain vigilant and maintain constant readiness to intervene in driving.
Tesla last month unveiled the Cybercab, an autonomous-driving EV with no steering wheel or pedals. The vehicle has been promoted as a robotaxi, a self-driving vehicle operated as part of a ride-paying service, such as the one already offered by Alphabet-owned Waymo.
But Tesla’s self-driving technology has remained under the scrutiny of regulators. FSD relies on multiple onboard cameras to feed machine-learning models that, in turn, help the car make decisions based on what it sees.
Meanwhile, Waymo’s technology relies on premapped roads, sensors, cameras, radar, and lidar (a laser-light radar), which might be very costly, but has met the approval of safety regulators.

Read more