It’s very humbling to look at this graph of funding over the last few days for the OpenStreetMap Stats Kickstarter:
I had expected the whole thing to fail, now it looks like it’ll succeed. I was asked once in a job interview about how much failure I’ve recently had. The idea was that if you’re not failing you’re not really trying – if everything is a success then you can’t be pushing the envelope.
I figured asking for $1k for a statistics site that’s relevant to a minority of a minority in the world was going to be too much to ask for. In the grand scheme of things it’s not a whole lot of cash, but still. And yet, here we are.
Speaking of failure, “failure” itself is the wrong way to model how these things work. Scott Adams has called it “having a system” instead of “goals”. Other people have called it “failing forward”. Either way – the basic idea is that whatever happens you want to win. Adams wrote a whole book about this:
In this case, if the Kickstarter fails then I can shut the project down. This for me is a clear win. I get more time and one less distraction. I don’t have to pay for the hosting any more. I also learn that tiny kickstarters aren’t going to work and not to bother trying them again in a similar context.
On the other hand, if it succeeds that’s great too. I can dedicate the time to fix the site, the hosting is paid for and it proves that there are people out there who care about it.
Setting up situations like this can be enormously beneficial – where you win either way. But, it’s still hard since my lizard brain wants to avoid anything that looks like failure and being judged by those who see it in that way.
There are plenty of smart, educated people out there who think Amazon’s lack of profit is a “failure” for example. I think it’s beautiful. For a start, the definition of “profit” is “we have no idea what to do with the money so we’ll give it to you”. Amazon isn’t running out of ideas worth funding. Second, if they spend all the notional profit then they don’t have to pay tax on it and get some percentage advantage via that. Reinvesting in this way for a few decades leads to some spectacular growth.
This all leads to an idea that’s almost too tantalizing to verbalize: Maybe it’s possible to live by doing Kickstarter after Kickstarter? The idea is insanely fun and the implications profound. If it’s possible to raise $1k in a week then that would lead to a $52k/year revenue, supposing you had 52 great ideas. Perhaps more likely are $10k kickstarters every 2-4 weeks, or $100k kickstarters every month or two. With some number of them failing, plus costs, it should still be possible to live using this method.