Different PR/Fundraising approach

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
laurflorin
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:39 pm

Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by laurflorin »

Don't want to sound like a smart ass or anything, but my personal opinion is that if the project chose another funding platform (such as http://www.gofundme.com/) Instead of Kickstarter, it could have had higher chances of success. Why? Because Kickstarter is an 'all-or-nothing' fundraiser website, while GoFundMe allows to keep any money raised.

As the kickstarter has chances of failing, wouldn't it have been better to bet on something safer? Does any law/location/etc prevent you or constitute a disadvantage for not using another crowdfunding platform?

I am curious about why this specific decision was made. What were the advantages that outweighed the other options and made you settle for this?

Thank you :)
IT: The only place where a cookie could pose a risk to your privacy.

RacerBG
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:34 am
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by RacerBG »

I'm curious about the amount of money only. 120 000 is too much, guys. :|

Aeneas
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by Aeneas »

But everybody knows kickstarter vs. nobody knows gofundme.

The whole attempt was rather doomed - they got some serious campaign going on and did it well, but only after half the time had already passed, and frankly, everyone who sees you have some 20K after half the time, does not need to waste his time "supporting", because it is perfectly CLEAR you will not reach 120K with things going that way.

I don't know - can they try again kickstarter? But asking for 10K and for a SPECIFIC, WELL-DEFINED feature? Because so far, they were promising the sky and the moon for 120K, and quite literally, noone was "buying" it.

An example of a specific thing where the connection between money and success is rather obvious is, for instance, this project:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/69 ... the-raspbe

In short, they wanted a display for the Raspberry Pi. They wanted less than 60K GBP and ended up with over 260K GBP. (They, however, presented a working prototype.)

helsinkiharbour
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:40 am

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by helsinkiharbour »

Aeneas wrote:But everybody knows kickstarter vs. nobody knows gofundme.

The whole attempt was rather doomed - they got some serious campaign going on and did it well, but only after half the time had already passed, and frankly, everyone who sees you have some 20K after half the time, does not need to waste his time "supporting", because it is perfectly CLEAR you will not reach 120K with things going that way.

I don't know - can they try again kickstarter? But asking for 10K and for a SPECIFIC, WELL-DEFINED feature? Because so far, they were promising the sky and the moon for 120K, and quite literally, noone was "buying" it.

An example of a specific thing where the connection between money and success is rather obvious is, for instance, this project:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/69 ... the-raspbe

In short, they wanted a display for the Raspberry Pi. They wanted less than 60K GBP and ended up with over 260K GBP. (They, however, presented a working prototype.)
I agree that the planing and organization of the kickstarter campaign was sub-optimal... first, half of the time was lost. Of the 60 days campaign, the advertisment started after 30 days... stupid. By that, also the best days (christmas !) and the days around the new year, where people would have time to follow, relaxed with full bellies and open purses, were lost. Maybe even more damaging, the traction and flow of the campaign was broken... following kicktraq was not motivating but depressing... that was very different to successful campaigns.

About the focus, from the feedback of audience I got the strong impression that a clear vision of ReactOS as desktop OS and Windows replacement is what the people expected and are able to understand as vision. Thorium was for the end-user backers to far away, to abstract to business focussed... not sexy enough.

The amount was clearly realistical, ReactOS HAS the potentially to gather that money... but I agree, to find the right trade-of between understatement and motivating visionary goal is hard. I'm not sure if a new campaign should start higher or lower, frankly, 120,000 $ for an OS are peanuts (even a well defined sub-goal).

EDIT:

ANd, I would like to add, the campaing is still not over... a big business partner who sees the business case could easily make this campaign still a success. Also, is reactos not sitting themself on a bag of money, they were unable to invest up to now? Maybe they should throw their money reserves in to get the 25% ... ;)
Last edited by helsinkiharbour on Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

mametoc
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:31 pm

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by mametoc »

Aeneas wrote:I don't know - can they try again kickstarter? ]But asking for 10K and for a SPECIFIC, WELL-DEFINED feature? Because so far, they were promising the sky and the moon for 120K, and quite literally, noone was "buying" it.
Example?.

helsinkiharbour
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:40 am

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by helsinkiharbour »

mametoc wrote:
Aeneas wrote:I don't know - can they try again kickstarter? ]But asking for 10K and for a SPECIFIC, WELL-DEFINED feature? Because so far, they were promising the sky and the moon for 120K, and quite literally, noone was "buying" it.
Example?.

Example of a small successfull campaign with a clear and realistic feature focus:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help- ... cs-drivers

(But my feeling is, ReactOS has the potential to start bigger...)

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by Webunny »

Ok. By now, one has to be realistic. Short of a miracle like some multi-millionaire suddenly investing in Reactos, the project will fail. there's only 4 days left, and less than a quarter of the necessary funding there.

Do we all agree on this?

Now, while I don't want to say 'I told you so' I DO remain of the opinion one has made some strategic mistakes, and I think going for it in another way would have made more sense (and still does, for future trials). One can see the discussion of this here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12962&start=30#p105695

Apart from that, there are also some more practical issues in regard to the campaign. There have been some valuable comments on Kickstarter in this regard. This can even mean simple things, in a psychological context: for instance, it has been statistically proven to be an advantage to have a 1 dollar gift/reward on there (even if it's just a 'thank you' notification as reward). Why? Because it has proven that if you put that on there, there are more people contributing to the 5 or 10 dollar award. It might seems strange, but that's how human psychology works. I don't think these things were ever considered by the people going with the 'thorium' kickstarter thing.

Anyway, for the moment it seems a lost cause now, and even if one decided to go for a more traditional 'one shot' campaign with the name 'Reactos' , it would still be advisable to let some time pass between the two. (Also, maybe go for half the sponsoring, aka 60000 instead of 120000. This would still be double the amount of the sponsoring-bar in 2013 (or ws it 2012?) that was on the main site.

Which isn't the case now, btw. So I'm wondering whether we didn't shoot in our own for with this one. I 'thorium' doesn't succeed, I gather all the sponsoring becomes invalid and returns to the sponsors? which means it will not amount to anything, and worse, during that time, we also didn't have a sponsoring-bar for ROS working, so we loose out on that one too. On have to be careful to not have (almost) ANY considerable sponsoring left to support ROS, this way. Because now, you didn't get kickstarter, but you didn't get the additional sponsor-bar neither, and I'm betting the 'usual' way of getting sponsoring by directly giving money was a lot less too this time, just because a majority already gave to the Thorium project (which now will amount to nothing, in regard to getting any§ money), AND most people who sponsored there, won't sponsor anything additional through some other means (like the traditional sponsoring/gifting on the mainpage).

Am I correct in this assumption? If 'thorium' doesn't pan out - and this seems highly likely now - will it not have come back to bite us and have we not received a lot LESS sponsoring in the traditional way? So, unless all the people who donated to Thorium also donate *again* in the more traditional way after the thorium kickstarter project doesn't succeed, won't we have a huge discrepancy in funding, compared to other years? z98, can you answer this? Because according to me, when I apply logic to it, I can't but conclude that we currently (compared to other years around this time) will ultimately be left with a lot less funding.

In any case, I'm considering to donate a bit more this year since the funding of Thorium doesn't seem to pan out. All little compensations count, after all.

That said, I've been told that Reactos is a recognised non-profit organisation in Germany (and thus in the EU), so any donation above 40 euro's should be tax-deductible. Is this true? I've been researching a bit, an it seems that while in principle a donation to another recognised non-profit eligible for ta-reduction in one country of the EU is valid for the whole EU, if one wants to be able to use the 45% of tax-reduction on the amount given, one still needs some 'certification'-paper, as I understand it. Can the Reactos foundation provide this? In that case, I would augment my donation to it considerably.

User avatar
Black_Fox
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by Black_Fox »

@Webunny: I know it doesn't break any rules literally, but could you stop posting identical wall of text into multiple threads? If you need to say the same, why not link to it? It doesn't go against the litera of forum rules, but is essentially a double post.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by Webunny »

Black_Fox wrote:@Webunny: I know it doesn't break any rules literally, but could you stop posting identical wall of text into multiple threads? If you need to say the same, why not link to it? It doesn't go against the litera of forum rules, but is essentially a double post.
The problem lies with the parent poster. The real question should be asked: why post posts that deal with the same subject that another thread already has made? If those people posted it in the appropriate thread to start with, instead of always starting a new thread, it would suffice for me to post only once the same answer.

To make things clear in a more obvious way: if a poster starts a thread asking if ROS is based on Linux, and yet another poster asks again in another thread he makes if ROS is based on Linux, I have to answer 'no' two times. True, I could mayhaps post a link to it as well, but frankly, with copy/paste after I just typed it, it probably takes less time to paste it than to search for the link of the exact post and link this to it.

I'm aware that it can be a bit annoying if one already has read it (though nobody forces to read it again, of course), but, as said, the one you really should be complaining to are the people who could as well posted their own post in a former thread instead of creating a new one. (Though sometimes, it's not the parent poster I answer to, but a post *in* that thread, so the parent poster isn't always to blame.)

PS. But I'm not unreasonable. If it annoys you that much, I'm willing to give more consideration to posting a link to it in the future. I would hope other posters concentrated their posts more in the appropriate threads too, however...
Last edited by Webunny on Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Black_Fox
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by Black_Fox »

Webunny wrote:The problem lies with the parent poster. The real question should be asked: why post posts that deal with the same subject that another thread already has made? If those people posted it in the appropriate thread to start with, instead of always starting a new thread, it would suffice for me to post only once the same answer.
I agree with your point, though I think that you are more experienced and knowledgeable than those posters. It's just a bit confusing when I open all unread ROS forum topics and then multi-task with something else, seeing the same post twice over a time period and wondering, whether that's another topic or still the same topic. Lesson: Double-posting is bad, context switching is bad :)

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by Webunny »

Black_Fox wrote:
Webunny wrote:The problem lies with the parent poster. The real question should be asked: why post posts that deal with the same subject that another thread already has made? If those people posted it in the appropriate thread to start with, instead of always starting a new thread, it would suffice for me to post only once the same answer.
I agree with your point, though I think that you are more experienced and knowledgeable than those posters. It's just a bit confusing when I open all unread ROS forum topics and then multi-task with something else, seeing the same post twice over a time period and wondering, whether that's another topic or still the same topic. Lesson: Double-posting is bad, context switching is bad :)
Wow... that's some serious smooth-talking there. Keep it going! :-)

Some devs can learn a thing of two from you in regard to diplomatic skills. I've added a PS to my former post, even. ;-p

mametoc
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:31 pm

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by mametoc »

helsinkiharbour wrote:
mametoc wrote:
Aeneas wrote:I don't know - can they try again kickstarter? ]But asking for 10K and for a SPECIFIC, WELL-DEFINED feature? Because so far, they were promising the sky and the moon for 120K, and quite literally, noone was "buying" it.
Example?.

Example of a small successfull campaign with a clear and realistic feature focus:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help- ... cs-drivers

(But my feeling is, ReactOS has the potential to start bigger...)
That is not for commercial purposes (or it seems not), anyway anyone can donate money for ReactOS specifing a target development to spend that money.
Last edited by mametoc on Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mametoc
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:31 pm

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by mametoc »

Webunny wrote:Ok. By now, one has to be realistic. Short of a miracle like some multi-millionaire suddenly investing in Reactos, the project will fail. there's only 4 days left, and less than a quarter of the necessary funding there.
That's the thing i still don't understand, if no one multi-million or multi-group mini-rich aren't interesed in the past to investment on WôÓS, why now they will donated (literally) the money?. And i feel is not related about how much is advanced ReactOS development. And to say, if currently ReactOS had a shortage popular support, how convince people "Thorium" is cool?.

laurflorin
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by laurflorin »

For a continuous stream of revenue, my opinion is that finding a sponsor would be a good idea. But this
would mean advertising to the right people that are really interested in this. And also, it would make sense
to present the project in an exciting, easy to understand way.

Would a stable sponsor be bad to have? It would be like Canonical for Ubuntu (which has turned out to be
a successful OS in the Linux market).
IT: The only place where a cookie could pose a risk to your privacy.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Different PR/Fundraising approach

Post by Webunny »

mametoc wrote:
Webunny wrote:Ok. By now, one has to be realistic. Short of a miracle like some multi-millionaire suddenly investing in Reactos, the project will fail. there's only 4 days left, and less than a quarter of the necessary funding there.
That's the thing i still don't understand, if no one multi-million or multi-group mini-rich aren't interesed in the past to investment on WôÓS, why now they will donated (literally) the money?. And i feel is not related about how much is advanced ReactOS development. And to say, if currently ReactOS had a shortage popular support, how convince people "Thorium" is cool?.
One of the basic problems is, indeed, that ROS isn't all that popular. No, let me refrase that: isn't all that *well-known*. I'm in the It-business myself (though not as a programmer). I've asked my 15 colleagues in my IT-department if they ever heard of Reactos. Only one other had vaguely heard of it. All of them new Linux though. Most of them knew BSD. Some even heard of Haiku.

Thus, this is the principle obstacle: we're just not known enough, not with the IT-crowd, let alone with the general populace.

Now being cool is all good and well, and certainly is relative (things being cool for one isn't for the other), but in essence I think the question of being popular enough is in majority an issue of getting enough media-coverage and (informal) mouth-to-mouth advertising. The more you are known (and I mean, simply 'known') the more attention you get, the more followers, the more backers, etc. Unless you're a product/service that is *intrinsically* disliked or found useless or annoying, even a moderately interesting project can be hyped into something fantastic where people crave for and support in droves. ROS certainly is better than only 'moderately interesting' - though granted, and I repeat, this is relative - so I put the rather small support basis up to a lack of coverage and 'being known'.

That, and...maybe a lack from the side of ROS to anticipate on user-attracting concepts and endeavours, such as have been discussed (and dismissed) many times by the devs here; things like letting people decide/vote an own slogan (and accepting/using it, of course!), getting a mascot, a shop for selling T-shirts and mugs, etc. In general, this is at best viewed as a waste of time by devs because it would 'take away' development time, and at worst it is seen as something that should NOT be delved into because it's seen as utterly useless and potentially dangerous, or something. But, well...you know...the use IS exactly in engaging more people and getting a larger support-base of followers....which in turn would mean more backers, and thus more money to hire devs.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest