Crow Bicycles launches world’s first crowdfunded electric gravel bike

The hoods go out at 45 deg ?

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I wouldn't recommend donating to this unless you've got spare cash that you don't mind losing

Isn't that kind of the whole premise of these platforms?

Not exactly, though that does seem to be what they've become.

There's much less risk when it's a known company (e.g. Silca run some respectable KickStarter campaigns). Also, you can get newish companies that are looking to expand their range - I jumped on the Cycliq Fly12 campaign as they already had a good product with their Fly6 rear camera. Look for experienced designers who know how to get a product to market.

The last Indiegogo campaign I backed was the HedKayse foldable helmet which did eventually come through but unfortunately it's heavy and ugly, so it's turned out to be a waste of money.

I'd say it's the other way around - the original idea of them was that backers would risk their money in the hopes that the idea might pay off. You're not buying a product here, you're making an investment. The possible return on that investment is the product being developed, usually at a price below what it would otherwise be, and possibly with some other perks attached. But the flip side of that is that you risk the project failing and losing your investment.

It's only more recently that more established companies have started using it as a way to expand ranges, or generate buzz around new products. Certainly there's less risk with these (and I've backed this kind of thing myself), but it's not really what it's meant for.

In fact there's a school of thought that says that the platforms shouldn't allow established companies to use them in this way, precisely because it muddies the waters and tends to make backers start to think of them as more like a shop, rather than an investment platform, and to have unreasonable expectations about delivery as a result.

I wouldn't describe crowd-funding as an investment as there's no chance of a profit - there's a chance that you get the product that you want, but in no sense do you become an investor in the company (i.e. you do not own any stocks, you do not get to participate in any AGMs, you do not pass GO).

Donation is probably the best term to describe it and that implies that you may receive nothing back.

I thought that the initial idea was a way of collecting together like-minded purchasers, so if you had a neat idea for a T-shirt (probably involving cute squirrels) you could find out how much a bulk run would cost and then see if there's enough people interested in it to make it viable. That's the purpose behind having a minimum funding goal - if there's not enough interest then it's a no-go.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I thought that the initial idea was a way of collecting together like-minded purchasers, so if you had a neat idea for a T-shirt (probably involving cute squirrels) you could find out how much a bulk run would cost and then see if there's enough people interested in it to make it viable. That's the purpose behind having a minimum funding goal - if there's not enough interest then it's a no-go.

My understanding was, like mdavidford's, that it was originally intended to be used as it is ... i.e. it was a way for small and startup businesses to get funding for their ideas without having to go to the time and expense of arranging prohibitive debt from the traditional funding sources by having individuals risk their cash "investing" in a new idea that might pay off. Or might not. 

You are correct, it is not an investment in the traditional sense (all you receive in successful cases is the product (and maybe some extras) probably cheaper than buying it) but it can be a way of helping products you are interested in see the light of day when they would otherwise no chance. 

It can also be used for the like-minded purchasers thing as well. 

Investment doesn't have to be for financial profit. The return here is in getting to own a custom product (if it's a limited run affair) or in the discount / extra perks you get above what would be available when it goes to general market.

The minimum funding is a way of giving you confidence that you won't end up being the only one throwing your money away on it - that at least it'll get to the point where they can start doing something meaningful - but it's not a guarantee of delivery - it's more like a bunch of venture capitalists saying "well if you can get three other investors on board then I'll kick in half a million" (but on a smaller scale).

I think calling it an 'investment' is misleading, although technically you're correct (the best kind of correct).

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm seeing lots of red flags on this "product".

Their website is minimal and I can't see any person's name listed which ties in with the Indiegogo page - just lists Crow Bicycles and so if they decide to not go ahead with production, you'll have a tough time getting any money back.

...

If Crow bicycles is a Limited Company then individuals are not liable for anything anyway. If you can't get your money back from the company then you can't get your money back. 

And the whole ethos of crowd funding is that, even if the funding goal is reached and you have to fork over your cash, there is still no guarantee that the product will make it to final production, or that you will get your money back in those circumstances, and that is made clear right from the off. 

That is why it is important only to back things on which you are happy to take that kind of punt. The one and only crowdfunder I have even backed is the ZX Spectrum Next ... and even then I didn't back the first, but waited for the second to make sure that the first was successful and rolled out the final product to all the backers (which it did). 

However, the money I used to back the second Kickstarter might still be gone forever if something goes wrong.