Kickstarter doesn't want to be a venture capitalist

The crowdfunding company likes raising money for artists, rather than seed funding for companies.

Reuters blogger Felix Salmon shares my fascination with Kickstarter, and has been covering its uneasy transformation from an online begging bowl for artists to, essentially, a shopping site for products which don't exist yet.

Salmon reports from the Wired Business Conference, where Kickstarter co-founder Yancey Strickler spoke to Wired editor Jason Tanz. He writes:

Strickler is clearly much more conflicted about the way that his site’s most high-profile projects — the latest being the ridiculous Pebble watch — are turning the site into some kind of online shopping platform. He came onstage directly after Marc Andreessen, who was talking about how Kickstarter was something of a Plan B for Pebble, after they had failed to raise venture funding. Now that the company has shown that there’s more than $7 million of real demand out there for its project, however, that "derisks the company", says Andreessen, and makes it more likely that they can raise VC funds.

This didn't sit particularly comfortably with Strickler. "Kickstarter is for creative projects," he said. "We prefer creative expression to maximization." More generally, he said that “we don’t allow corporations to use Kickstarter”, and talked of the "danger" that funders will view a project as a commercial transaction — spending money on a thing — as opposed to a funding transaction. "People need to have the right expectations going in," he said.

Kickstarter has real potential to change the landscape of how startups operate, but Salmon is right – it needs to make its mind up about what, exactly, it's for. Right now there are 2 million people using it in a way which is very different to how its founders want it to operate, and if those competing pressures come to a head, things could get ugly.

Kickstarter's homepage

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.