e
Whoa-- Design Renderings Banned on Kickstarter!
[Ed. Note: Updated on 9/24]
No longer allowed!No longer allowed!
Up above is Scott Wilson's rendering for the LunaTik, which we consider iconic because it kickstarted Kickstarter for an entire generation of industrial designers. It was the first ID project that really put KS on the map for us, and once the final pledge tally came in—$942,578 over an initial target of $15,000—Wilson had to make some adjustments. As the principal of design firm MNML, Wilson knew what those adjustments were and how to deliver the finished product.
"We far surpassed our minimum order quantities from the factory," Wilson told us in an interview at the time, "so I have had to place a much bigger purchase order. After the Kickstarter period ends we will have an eCommerce site set up for additional online orders and from there we will probably offload the fulfillment and distribution to a 3PL (third party logistics) partner."
I consider the TikTok/LunaTik project as something that should go down in the ID History books. But while Wilson and MNML knew what to do, not everyone has their experience, which has resulted in the news we're delivering here.
It seems more than a few Kickstarter backers have been disappointed by their recipients' inability to deliver (which is perhaps why some Core77 readers have been critical of the LIFX, to name one project). Product design is no cakewalk, but it's turning out to be a lot easier to come up with a great idea than it is to have it manufactured and delivered.
To circumvent this, Kickstarter has instituted new rules sure to be a blow to many a would-be designer: Renderings and simulations are now banned!
Product simulations are prohibited. Projects cannot simulate events to demonstrate what a product might do in the future. Products can only be shown performing actions that they're able to perform in their current state of development.
Product renderings are prohibited. Product images must be photos of the prototype as it currently exists.
Yup, y'all are going to have to go back to physically prototyping things.
I'm not sure the rules are a step in the right direction. It's true that there's plenty of Kickstartees who can't deliver, but isn't this more about backers not understanding the role that renderings play in the industrial design process? Any thoughts?
You can read Kickstarter's full statement here.
-
oFavorite This
-
Q36Comment
Directory Company Profiles
Core77
Industrial Design
Resources
Industrial Design
Resources
-
Core77 Directory
Find the Best Industrial Design CompaniesGo -
Curve ID
Curve ID is a New York City based studio, offering a complete industrial design consultancy service....
-
HS Design
HSD believes the future is based on teamwork across many disciplines and collaboration with multiple...
-
WhipsawWhipsaw, under the leadership of design visionary Dan Harden, is a highly acclaimed strategy, indust...
-
Bluemap Design
BlueMap design is a multi-disciplinary product development firm. Founded by Simon Yan in 2001, the f...
-
Olivialand Studio
Olivialand Studio, founded by Olivia Blechschmidt, is a boutique industrial design consultancy that ...
-
RKS Design
RKS is an award-winning global product design firm and innovation consultancy specializing in indust...
-
Architectural Cladding & Roofing
Architectural Cladding & Roofing (ArcClad) are a New Zealand based firm specializing in roofing prod...
K
{Welcome
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
K
Reset Password
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
Support project creators, don’t hobble them.
UPVOTE What he said :)
This is a terribly misguided and ham fisted approach to protecting backers:
1. Prototypes are just that, prototypes - often several steps away from the real thing. Renderings are incredibly useful for bridging the gap and are often a more realistic representation of what the final product will look like.
2. The majority of 'problem projects' within the design category are because of operational/fiscal shortfalls - how this issue is not at the front of peoples minds is quite surprising.
3. You can't fight technology. It's not overly difficult (and often less costly than producing fully functional prototypes) to produce photo realistic renderings that will fool the human eye.
Come what may, these rules are short sighted and will do little to stem the problems I think they are trying to solve.
Kickstarter is the dominant player though I do wonder how long this will last - a decision like the one we are now discussing is so short sighted as to highlight significant deficiencies in their management OR suggest their ambition to move away from product based campaigns that fit the 'I'm using crowdfunding to realise a product I couldn't create otherwise' sketch.
They don't allow photo realistic renderings for physical products, but they do everything else - clearly a double standard.
I think you've nailed it in that last paragraph. Grab that domain, quickly!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.