Soldato
I find it baffling how you would just start a huge project with no direction of where you are going with it.
You don't just build a house, you blue print it first.
Cost to develop a Crowd funding website?
- Thread starter doodah
- Start date
I find it baffling how you would just start a huge project with no direction of where you are going with it.
You don't just build a house, you blue print it first.
Caporegime
Software != house.
And no, we do have direction... An iterations worth, oddly enough. That's all we need. Wasting time planning out to the minutest detail the entire project before any work has begun is wasting 90%+ of that time.
And no, we do have direction... An iterations worth, oddly enough. That's all we need. Wasting time planning out to the minutest detail the entire project before any work has begun is wasting 90%+ of that time.
Soldato
OK, so you have your project brief, the client puts across how they think it should work, you start work, 80% of what you do is wrong or has been misinterpreted.
Now who's wasted time...
Think I'm going to back away from this thread now. The OP has a good idea of what to look out for with a project this size.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Absolutely none of our time is wasted, because we have fast feedback and iterations to consistently check that what we are developing is what the client wants, and that what he client wants is what they have been asking us for.
However on your project, absolutely loads of time is wasted sitting in a meeting room explaining to a BA what the client thinks they need, without the knowledge of what it takes to develop software, and without any real idea of how long these things take and cost. Then, after burning up many days worth of development time and cost, and having precisely nothing to show for it, you bid te client farewell and begin work. Much later you deliver to them the finished item, which will not be what they actually wanted, will have evidence of misinterpretation, assumptions gone wrong, and need loads of rework to add to the already exspenive development process. Meanwhile, they still haven't made a single penny of return on their investment with you. Yeah, it must be me that's wasting.
However on your project, absolutely loads of time is wasted sitting in a meeting room explaining to a BA what the client thinks they need, without the knowledge of what it takes to develop software, and without any real idea of how long these things take and cost. Then, after burning up many days worth of development time and cost, and having precisely nothing to show for it, you bid te client farewell and begin work. Much later you deliver to them the finished item, which will not be what they actually wanted, will have evidence of misinterpretation, assumptions gone wrong, and need loads of rework to add to the already exspenive development process. Meanwhile, they still haven't made a single penny of return on their investment with you. Yeah, it must be me that's wasting.
I've been on both sides (client and programmer) and indeed, for the client not to change their mind throughout the life of a large project would be VERY rare. It just isn't feasible for a client to know so far in advance every little detail of the website/program. Sometimes new ideas pop up or the developer may give some ideas which the client goes along with.
In most cases, the product which was conceived on day1, is not the same product as the final/release product. For this reason, client's should have a contingency fund in place to cover changes which will inevitably occur.
I still wonder why anybody would want to copy (directly) the KickStarter website. I can't think of any reason to invest such a large amount of money on a copycat website/product/service. Now, if there was MASSIVE demand for a product/service (eg casino/porn websites), this would be a different story.
Last edited:
Associate
Kinda remminds me of when people asked for clones of myspace or ebay ... no idea why that was asked for either back in the day :S
"Back in the day", I could understand why somebody would want to try and create a MySpace or Ebay. The reason is that these websites were getting large visitor numbers. And IF your cloned website were to take off, you would see MASSIVE returns. But KickStarter is not a big hitter, in the same way as ebay or MySpace were.
If I were cloning a website and spending £10k on developing it and then a further £10k-£20k per annum on advertising to gain traction, I'd copy a website which is likely to see bigger numbers, such as a gambling/casino website, on-line betting, perhaps a sex/porn website or even an online version of QVC (shopping) and then if it takes off, have a TV channel. KickStarter doesnt attract the big numbers to warrant copying it. If you copy KickStarter and by some fluke, are able to match KickStarter's current visitor numbers, you won't make big money.
If I were cloning a website and spending £10k on developing it and then a further £10k-£20k per annum on advertising to gain traction, I'd copy a website which is likely to see bigger numbers, such as a gambling/casino website, on-line betting, perhaps a sex/porn website or even an online version of QVC (shopping) and then if it takes off, have a TV channel. KickStarter doesnt attract the big numbers to warrant copying it. If you copy KickStarter and by some fluke, are able to match KickStarter's current visitor numbers, you won't make big money.
Associate
I couldnt understand it back in the day.
Reasons are simple. You wouldnt look at HMV and think to yourself, Hmmm Ill rent a big store front and fill it with DVDs and ... profit.
No-one looked at how these big sites worked and ran, or the fact that luck played a major part in a lot of them.
£10-20k per annum advertising is zero. Thats the equi of 4 full pages in The Sun newspaper or a few weeks of heavy national radio campaigns.
All said and one though, if someone came to me with big pockets and said they wanted an eBay clone or whatever I'd give them one explanation of why I wouldnt, then if they went ahead Id happily part fool from their money.
Bizniz is bizniz yo.
Reasons are simple. You wouldnt look at HMV and think to yourself, Hmmm Ill rent a big store front and fill it with DVDs and ... profit.
No-one looked at how these big sites worked and ran, or the fact that luck played a major part in a lot of them.
£10-20k per annum advertising is zero. Thats the equi of 4 full pages in The Sun newspaper or a few weeks of heavy national radio campaigns.
All said and one though, if someone came to me with big pockets and said they wanted an eBay clone or whatever I'd give them one explanation of why I wouldnt, then if they went ahead Id happily part fool from their money.
Bizniz is bizniz yo.
Some businesses did exactly this and succeeded. Most failed.
Virgin Megastore on Oxford Street is the store that comes to mind. This competed directly against HMV 200m away.
The "corner shop" is also something which has been copied over and over again, with great success.
I can name quite a few shops which have succeeded by copying an existing idea.
Luck is a HUGE factor in any business. By creating a good business idea and implementing it well, you simply increase your chances of success. There is no guarantee that the business will actually break even and then make profit.
In any business, there is a big element of risk.
When the early investors in Google and Facebook paid US$millions, most people, like yourself, would've thought they were crazy. You'd call them "fools". However, those people made millions/billions and in hindsight, who IS the fool?
Any business can be copied. Very few will succeed. BUT if I were copying a business, I would make sure that I pick the most lucrative business out there, so if I do succeed, I will win BIG.
And with regards to advertising for KickStarter (clone), I would certainly not waste money on advertising in The Sun. I would be looking to advertise in economics based magazines. Perhaps even the FT. But I would mainly focus on online advertising (the cost is lower).
Associate
Hello.
1) I dont know any one man bands who managed to clone a business with no real insight and backing. Virgin was owned by Branson who had both a clue and money.
2) Corner shops copying corner shops is not exactly Joe Average cloning eBay
3) I wouldnt have thought anyone was crazy for investing in FB or Google, I've been around a while and can spot ideas that look decent and what looks silly. Eg: Kevin ROse and co holding out so long on IPO'ing Digg that it was a shadow of its former self.
4) Copying a business can succeed. Yes. With brains behind it. Not cloning something and then not having millions to push it to market.
5) I never said advertise in the sun, re-read it, I was saying that £10-20k is nothing in advertsing.
1) I dont know any one man bands who managed to clone a business with no real insight and backing. Virgin was owned by Branson who had both a clue and money.
2) Corner shops copying corner shops is not exactly Joe Average cloning eBay
3) I wouldnt have thought anyone was crazy for investing in FB or Google, I've been around a while and can spot ideas that look decent and what looks silly. Eg: Kevin ROse and co holding out so long on IPO'ing Digg that it was a shadow of its former self.
4) Copying a business can succeed. Yes. With brains behind it. Not cloning something and then not having millions to push it to market.
5) I never said advertise in the sun, re-read it, I was saying that £10-20k is nothing in advertsing.
Whose to say that the OP doesn't have huge backing?
Whose to say that the OP doesn't have a intimate knowledge on how to launch a business?
You say that the backers of Google or Facebook were not crazy. Yet you state that creating or investing in a copycat product/service/shop is folly (referring in your earlier post: "if they went ahead Id happily part fool from their money").
At the time when Facebook was up and coming, there were other social networking sites which had bigger numbers. The idea of social networking had not taken off at this point.
Similarly when Google entered the market in earnest, there were already established search engines. The big ones were Alta Vista and MiSN search, owned by Microsoft (the software giant). Are you seriously telling me that you would've invested in Google, when their intention was to battle with Microsoft and Yahoo?
You also then go onto ridicule the idea of a 1-man band (ie. a small setup), yet Google was started by 2 University students. Facebook was started by a few University students.
At the end of the day, all businesses are inherently risky. Some carry more risk than others. And others have potentially more rewards. You have to measure risk to reward ratios and have to see if the investment is worth your while.
To brand someone as a "fool" is wrong, as that "fool" may end up creating/investing a copycat service which may out perform the original.
Also, some of the best and most original ideas never take off, while some poor ideas which are badly implemented, may take off. Luck plays a huge part and in most cases it is impossible to tell which idea will become huge and which idea will amount to nothing.
For this reason most investors will invest in 10s, 100s or 1000s of companies, hoping that 1-10% of those companies become huge. Most companies will amount to nothing. Most investments will fail, which is why I find it strange that you state that you are able to tell which companies/startups will prosper and which won't ("I've been around a while and can spot ideas that look decent and what looks silly"). If you can truly judge this correctly, then you are probably the only person on this planet who can and most likely, you are already a billionaire.
I would also ask (genuine question) which startups you think, in August 2012, will become big over the next 5 years.
Associate
1) Whose to say that the OP doesn't have a intimate knowledge on how to launch a business?
"I know nothing about the different types of payment systems on websites; which is the best suited for this? We need a system/account..."
"I realise you can pay thousands for development of a website but this doesn't need to be a complicated and extensive website. It just needs to be functional and relatively professional."
2) You say that the backers of Google or Facebook were not crazy. . Yet you state that creating or investing in a copycat product/service/shop is folly
Their business model wasnt "lets out Yahoo Yahoo" or "lets out MySpace MySpace" - they both created products they were passionate about and had unique twists - not lets CLONE
3) You also then go onto ridicule the idea of a 1-man band (ie. a small setup), yet Google was started by 2 University students. Facebook was started by a few University students.
Again - they didnt set out TO CLONE
4) To brand someone as a "fool" is wrong, as that "fool" may end up creating/investing a copycat service which may out perform the original.
Doubt it. If its a copy cat and has no original ideas.
5) For this reason most investors will invest in 10s, 100s or 1000s of companies, hoping that 1-10% of those companies become huge. Most companies will amount to nothing. Most investments will fail, which is why I find it strange that you state that you are able to tell which companies/startups will prosper and which won't ("I've been around a while and can spot ideas that look decent and what looks silly"). If you can truly judge this correctly, then you are probably the only person on this planet who can and most likely, you are already a billionaire.
...
I see things pop up all the time and generally can look and say "not a chance" - eg: Pwnce from the guys at Digg
6) I would also ask (genuine question) which startups you think, in August 2012, will become big over the next 5 years.
Give me a list and I'll have a look and get back to you
"I know nothing about the different types of payment systems on websites; which is the best suited for this? We need a system/account..."
"I realise you can pay thousands for development of a website but this doesn't need to be a complicated and extensive website. It just needs to be functional and relatively professional."
2) You say that the backers of Google or Facebook were not crazy. . Yet you state that creating or investing in a copycat product/service/shop is folly
Their business model wasnt "lets out Yahoo Yahoo" or "lets out MySpace MySpace" - they both created products they were passionate about and had unique twists - not lets CLONE
3) You also then go onto ridicule the idea of a 1-man band (ie. a small setup), yet Google was started by 2 University students. Facebook was started by a few University students.
Again - they didnt set out TO CLONE
4) To brand someone as a "fool" is wrong, as that "fool" may end up creating/investing a copycat service which may out perform the original.
Doubt it. If its a copy cat and has no original ideas.
5) For this reason most investors will invest in 10s, 100s or 1000s of companies, hoping that 1-10% of those companies become huge. Most companies will amount to nothing. Most investments will fail, which is why I find it strange that you state that you are able to tell which companies/startups will prosper and which won't ("I've been around a while and can spot ideas that look decent and what looks silly"). If you can truly judge this correctly, then you are probably the only person on this planet who can and most likely, you are already a billionaire.
...
I see things pop up all the time and generally can look and say "not a chance" - eg: Pwnce from the guys at Digg
6) I would also ask (genuine question) which startups you think, in August 2012, will become big over the next 5 years.
Give me a list and I'll have a look and get back to you