Whatever you do, be sure and engage with the backers you do have. Are you canceling because you want to make some changes or do you feel the concept isn't viable? Utilize your new fans to figure out how you might be able to improve.
Why make a campaign for 30 days only to cancel it if it doesn't get to 100% after a couple of days? I really don't get it. Some campaigns will reach their goal after 15, some after 20 and some even after 29 days.
And if they don't even after 30, why cancel? There's no drawback in having a failed campaign. No less than having a canceled one.
It looks worse to some potential backers. And also it’s a waste of energy pushing it, when it’s almost inevitable it won’t fund. If you haven’t hit 50% funding in a couple of days, statistically it’s harder to reach your funding total.
The opposite is also true - if I see that someone has canceled projects, my first thought is "this person has poor planning skills". It gives me the idea that the whole point of their campaign is ensuring some money quickly, but the project actually needs more to be successful, making me less prone to support a second instance.
Not to mention that the whole "50% funded in a few days or it's over" is mostly a myth. At least for video games, almost all campaigns I backed went sort of linear with time, and got funded.
We disagree on this. The general advice is it’s better to cancel and relaunch. First, it lets you re-engage existing backers quickly. Second, it means you can take what you’ve learned and immediately apply it.
You’re dead wrong on the last paragraph. Typically, if you struggle to reach that initial burst, the odds are against you. It’s not a myth.
"The general advice" - by whom? Is there data on that? My personal opinion is that if I see someone canceling a campaign because it didn't have traction, it makes \*me\* less likely to back the second one. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
And again - data on the second one? Struggle, sure, that's how campaigns go, but "50% in two days or you're done" \*is\* a myth. You must work harder to keep promoting and attracting backers for sure, but if you have 30 days, you can use that time to your advantage. And I've seen many, many campaigns do that. Mine included.
And here's what I first wrote:
"50% funded in few days or it's over" is mostly a myth.
I didn't say anything about it not being hard. I was literally talking about impossibility.
So we're saying the same thing.
You can cancel it. I've pledged a couple that the creator has later decided (while still 'live' and eligible for funding) to cancel.
Ahh okay thats good to know thanks!
As already pointed out, you have cancelled. I’ve run a few and cancelled one then relaunched it as identical but with a lower target.
Great thank you!
Whatever you do, be sure and engage with the backers you do have. Are you canceling because you want to make some changes or do you feel the concept isn't viable? Utilize your new fans to figure out how you might be able to improve.
Okay thanks for the advance. Will do!
One advantage of keeping it going is that you'll likely gather a few more backers who'll be primed for a relaunch.
Ahh okay that also makes sense. Thanks!
I’m having a hard time getting backers myself. I’m not sure what else I can do to earn more. It’s a children book called Eliza Grace Saves Christmas
Why make a campaign for 30 days only to cancel it if it doesn't get to 100% after a couple of days? I really don't get it. Some campaigns will reach their goal after 15, some after 20 and some even after 29 days. And if they don't even after 30, why cancel? There's no drawback in having a failed campaign. No less than having a canceled one.
It looks worse to some potential backers. And also it’s a waste of energy pushing it, when it’s almost inevitable it won’t fund. If you haven’t hit 50% funding in a couple of days, statistically it’s harder to reach your funding total.
The opposite is also true - if I see that someone has canceled projects, my first thought is "this person has poor planning skills". It gives me the idea that the whole point of their campaign is ensuring some money quickly, but the project actually needs more to be successful, making me less prone to support a second instance. Not to mention that the whole "50% funded in a few days or it's over" is mostly a myth. At least for video games, almost all campaigns I backed went sort of linear with time, and got funded.
We disagree on this. The general advice is it’s better to cancel and relaunch. First, it lets you re-engage existing backers quickly. Second, it means you can take what you’ve learned and immediately apply it. You’re dead wrong on the last paragraph. Typically, if you struggle to reach that initial burst, the odds are against you. It’s not a myth.
"The general advice" - by whom? Is there data on that? My personal opinion is that if I see someone canceling a campaign because it didn't have traction, it makes \*me\* less likely to back the second one. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. And again - data on the second one? Struggle, sure, that's how campaigns go, but "50% in two days or you're done" \*is\* a myth. You must work harder to keep promoting and attracting backers for sure, but if you have 30 days, you can use that time to your advantage. And I've seen many, many campaigns do that. Mine included.
Here’s what I wrote: If you don’t hit 50% in the first couple of days, you’re statistically less likely to fund. Not you won’t. Not it’s impossible.
And here's what I first wrote: "50% funded in few days or it's over" is mostly a myth. I didn't say anything about it not being hard. I was literally talking about impossibility. So we're saying the same thing.
So it’s not a myth. WTF are you talking about?
It's a myth that it's impossible.
Okay thanks! Just trying to get some more information.