Slashdot Mirror
Another Crowd-funded Drone Project Collapses (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Less than two weeks after we heard about the "robotic dragonfly" project failing, the BBC brings news that an even bigger crowd-funded drone project has given up development as well. The ZANO mini-drone raised a whopping £2.3 million on Kickstarter ($3.5 million), after asking for a mere £125,000 to get off the ground. They were supposed to start delivering drones in June, and a few hundred of them slowly trickled out. In October, they posted a long update detailing their plans for shipping the other ~15,000 drones they had been paid for. Their latest update, posted today, says, "Having explored all options known to us, and after seeking professional advice, we have made the difficult decision to pursue a creditors' voluntary liquidation." This will leave thousands of backers without a drone, despite paying £140 or more apiece.
Presumably that can and does happen, although most are not scams, just poorly run or run into unforeseen difficulties.
Kickstarter is about backing projects, and when those projects are advanced, like this concept, the project can fail due to either technical difficulties or inability to cost effectively manufacture the objects.
So, realistically, while most people would prefer to invest in projects that will produce a result, there is a substantial difference between a Kickstarter for something like a board game, which is relatively easy to publish, compared to an advanced drone, which is not easy to build, and the manufacturing process has to be built from the ground up.
People who get into Kickstarter projects expecting a product at the end are advised to have some understanding of the relative difficulties involved of the project they are supporting and then not support it if it is too speculative.
In this case, the project was sort of speculative. They were asking for 120,000 to get started, and they got two million. While that improved their ability to work on the project, it caused expectations to rise, and probably caused the team to make the mistake of increasing the scope of their project beyond their comfort zone.
That's not how manufacturing works. Minimum funding goal is how many pledges you need to at least overcome your anticipated fixed costs, but there's still a marginal cost associated with fulfilling each individual pledge. When you get 30x the expected number of pledges, that means your variable costs will also be 30x greater. On top of that, if you have to produce 15,000 pieces rather than 500 (say), then your fixed costs also rise as you now have to redesign your product for volume manufacturing, whereas previously your prototype process might have been sufficient.
No, there's not much to see here, just another startup that underestimated the challenges in going from prototype to volume, spent too much money on the transition, and went bust. The backers have my sympathy, but without evidence there's no basis for assuming malfeasance.
Right, it's not an investment.
It's a gamble.
People don't seem to get upset when their lottery tickets don't win. Kickstarter isn't much different.