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.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.