Also interesting in the graph, 30, 45, 60, and 90 day durations are quite popular and significantly poorer at getting funded than other durations.<p>Is the kind of person that picks a number like that less able to write a convincing story? Is there something about seeing those unthoughtful numbers that turns off donors?
I've had a lot of friends try Kickstarter for various projects, most have chosen to start longer campaigns under the assumption that more time will increase the chance of funding the project.<p>Personally, I agree with Kickstarter's assessment that longer campaigns create less urgency. This seems to make sense. Often times, If I see a friend has a longer running campaign, I'll procrastinate and put off donating until later in the game. I'm sure other people do this too, and not all of them remember.<p>In the campaigns my friends have run, it's usually that first push out to their social network that gets the biggest response, after that the donations start slowing down. A few more people will kick in some extra dough at the end (like me), but by that time most people have moved on.
I disagree with limiting to 60 days instead. Educate your users, but some may very well have a good reason to choose 90... Like they expect a TV appearance in 75 days.<p>That person would have to wait 30 days to list the project in order to bank on the buzz from the tv appearance.<p>That example is just off the top of my head, but the point is that some of the world doesn't work at the pace of the web.
> With those things in mind, today we’re lowering the maximum amount of time a creator can choose for their project from 90 days to 60 days.<p>Wet sidewalks cause rain. Film at 11.<p>In other news, banning anonymous article creation on Wikipedia has increased the acceptance rate of anonymous articles to 100%, a stunning increase in average quality.