I designed a healthier men's dress shoe and was able to gain close to $100K in preorders in a Kickstarter this past September; https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/oaka/oaka-the-worlds-he.... Hopefully it doesn't stay a side project for too much longer, fingers crossed.
I launched a successful Kickstarter a few years ago. Getting press coverage is critical, but it's difficult to get press to cover something that isn't yet available. To overcome this catch-22, you can (1) have a product that is somehow attached to a current trend in the news, or (2) have enough progress that you can convince journalists that it's not vaporware.
It also helps to have an existing network that would be interested, for example from a related product.
There are companies that you can pay to do marketing. I didn't use one of those, since it seems like many of them probably suck out all the profit from any Kickstarter that actually succeeds. But I imagine some of them could be good partners, depending on what you're making.
>have enough progress that you can convince journalists that it's not vaporware.
I second this. I launched my first and only campaign back in 2016, but even then media outlets were wary. Back when crowdfunding was new and exciting, many of them featured products that turned out to never launch. Once bitten, twice shy.
Those marketing companies can also be a good way to give you the initial market reach with kickstarter so that later on, when you make your product available outside of kickstarter, you have an established customer base. It can be worth losing the profit of the initial run for this.
For a lot of people serious about the gym, they are way past just getting any workout in. They are very specific about what workout, what machine, what day of the week, etc.. Just switching to running is like telling some backend architecture programmer to just switch to Photoshop; to an outsider they're both tech on computers..But in the bubble we all know it's world's of difference.
The narrative you are suggesting is unequivocally false and has been for a while. While the black on black crime rate is at 89% the white on white crime rate is at 83%, not far off and receives very little relative attention.
In addition, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics, while blacks in the absolute cause 50% of the violent crime, when you control for income (white people have 10x the wealth) and location (rural, suburban, urban, etc) white people actually commit about 5% more violent crime i.e. poor urban white people commit more violent crime than poor urban black people.
People need to start understanding these facts, remove old narratives and realize there's more interesting things to focus on than race its self.
This would just be a recipe for increasing inequality among college goers. The families who can pay for the more expensive colleges will continue to do so, while you'd be taking away the opportunities for less privileged kids to go.
I believe the question, "Why college is so expensive" is the right one, but I don't think this is the right solution.
You can get NADH (which is interchangeable with NAD) pills pretty easily on amazon for like $30. My question is what is the difference between those pills and the $50K substance/solution they came up with?
Not sure if you've been in a real full size fulfillment center before, but while both it and a Costco store look like a big box they are remarkably different and there's no way you could operate both under the same roof.
says that they've started to build additional delivery-only stores(/warehouses?) in areas where their is sufficient demand to warrant it.
Doing it this way meant the managed to avoid the huge upfront costs in building specialist warehouses, and instead used their existing network of hundreds of stores that exist all over the UK.
It would require some remodeling. But my point is that these box stores already have a clear advantage in fulfilling orders because they already have stores and distribution centers built all over the country. Amazon is still trying to figure that part out.
Competing with Best Buy and Barnes and Noble is going to be a lot easier than competing with Wal-Mart.
Probably, but I doubt you as a founder would get $1-1.2 Bil from a deal that was only $3b.
On a much larger note, I don't feel like there's a big difference beyond $20 Mil if your goal is to continue living the life you're living now, but with total financial security. I know that given the chance, that's all I'd really ask for. Anything beyond that, and the only thing I can think of to spend the money on is philanthropy.
However, I'll bet other people have different aspirations, so I guess I can't really speak on the subject.
I think the cutoff point is more like 100 million. With 20 million you're still having second thoughts about your NetJets use or the size of your yacht.
With $20MM in the bank, there is plenty you cannot buy and subsequently maintain for very long: a shiny new Bombardier jet, a motor yacht, more than one vintage racing Ferrari... even blowing $5MM on a substantial estate would be highly ill-advised. But at this point, one becomes acquainted with people who can afford to keep such things, so it might start to seem less like "wealth" and more like "security" depending on one's desires and insecurities.
Consumption of ultra-luxury items is one way to look at the difference, but another is your progeny. $20M, if spent frugally and invested well, could certainly ensure the well-being of your immediate children and probably grandchildren as well (not if you blow it on vintage sports cars and jets, though). But a billion or two could keep your family out of work for many, many generations
Not for a decade or more has this been true. Inflation in the UK is 2.2%. You would be lucky to get that without venturing into equities (which to be fair have done well this year) or property. But energy is up 8%, travel 9%, food 12%, etc. Real inflation is hard to outrun. And markets are prone to bubbles...
My intent was to put $20MM or so in perspective: yes, prudent investment could put such an amount to good, long-term use, but it is not so much money that it would be challenging to spend it all within a decade or so. $1Bn is something else entirely, and would require a very concerted effort to squander quickly.
You could pay for your $5 million estate in cash with the dividends from a 'boring' investment in AT&T's stock (5.1% dividend) after six years, while never touching the principle.
uh, pretty sure 10-20 million is in fact "do whatever you want for the rest of your life" money. Certainly do anything normal that you want. perhaps you can't buy a jet. damn.
10million * 3% dividend stocks = 300k per year just having it sit there. Maybe not entirely risk free, but not too risky either.
Exactly. I could never bring myself to use billions on super luxury stuff anyway and would wind up donating most of that money to a good cause (I wonder if the Gates foundation accepts donations?).
Lets say you want to get into automotive racing. Assuming you want to race in professional series such as ALMS or similar you could easily burn 5M a year.
20M is plenty to live a very well off life, but its not "do anything you want for the rest of your life" money. Look at how many professional athletes/musicians manage to blow many multiples of that amount.
I included the caveat of "normal". Obviously that amount of money is "spendable." 300k a year though will service a very nice lifestyle though. You can live an upper class lifestyle most places in the world without doing anything.
Also, perhaps I'm naive, but I expect tech startup founders to be better with their money than professional athletes. Yes, you could be an idiot, but that doesn't mean 10 mil isn't FU money. It is if you have even a little bit of a brain. You can spend nearly any amount of money, but that's not really the point. You can put your 3 billion all on red and dammit if it didn't come up black. Doesn't make it not FU money. (No casino in the world will take that bet, but you know what I mean).
