The Vario failed twice because of being at the same time as the Atlas/Helio KS. I think spacing allows you to adjust your goals based on how well the first KS does. Only Bob among us knows how much money he needs to make in total to be able to produce the Phantom full line-up.
You actually just reinforced my point. The Vario failed because it was a separate product on a separate KS introduced too close to an existing KS launch. If it had been part of the Atlas/Helios launch (one KS), it would have run, met the requirements, and Bob would be making them now.
If you have too many separate KS running too close together you won't get support.
Delta, Hyperion and Techne worked well because they were included together. If you split the Techne out into a separate campaign, it probably would have failed.
My thought would be to keep the new series all together - under one KS.
Potato/potahto. I didn't reinforce your point, we had different inflections. Running two Kickstarters that aren't overlapping is not the same as what happened with the Vario, which actually had people saying that they didn't have the money to buy both products because the Kickstarters were running at the same time as the Atlas/Helio Kickstarter. I backed on both Vario campaigns but knew that both would fail due to the concurrent and successful Atlas/Helio Kickstarter and due to the size of the funding goal. Having Kickstarters staggered apart allows you to keep getting money from the same backers, if you ask backers to put a ton forward at once, you run the risk of not having as many multiple buyers. The big advantage of Kickstarter is it is a bit addictive, people get revved up for the bargain, but they still have limits on their finances. Putting all the products under one Kickstarter doesn't eliminate the limited funds problem.
It is also the case that companies with multiple successful Kickstarter do better in future Kickstarters. I'm an avid boardgamer as well as audio enthusiast, and you can use one campaign to recruit for the next campaign. That and boardgame companies don't run concurrent Kickstarters, but they might run them two to three months apart, and people spend similar amounts of money on boardgame Kickstarters to audio Kickstarters. I've spent $1700 on a boardgame Kickstarter (I was profiteering), and many spend $400 on games with miniatures every couple months. People love the bargain.
One of Bob's problems that he's run into in his campaigns is that his goal is usually pretty high and his currency is in £. Having a currency that is stronger than other currencies doesn't help people buy-in. If Bob had a USA bank account or distribution partner, he'd probably get more money coming in. Also, people back by whether something is looking like it will be successful, lower goals enhance the perception of probability of success. This is another reason why splitting the campaigns may make more sense, because then both can have lower goals. If the first campaign is really successful, then the second can have an even lower goal. Bob has a mixed record on campaign success, with 3 failures to two successes. I think building momentum is a better strategy than putting all his eggs into one basket, having a higher funding goal because of this, and then having to overcome perceptions. I believe in Bob's product. I think it does a disservice to his abilities to have them fail on Kickstarter. If Bob wants to do a Kickstarter that includes all 4 products, he should do it with stretch goals. I'm still inclined to think he'll make more money with separate Kickstarters. With a pledge manager, he can make even more money.
We can't know how many backers would have bought the Varios if they had been in with the Atlas, but I don't think they would have been enough to get them produced given that IEMs and on ears are related but not identical headphone markets, and many backers already knew about both campaigns. That Vario campaign had a £100,000 funding goal, which is really high. Bundling £100k into the Atlas/Helio campaign likely would have made all three products not get made. A common mistake for first launches is to have the goal too high. We do know what happened to the Vario for running concurrently. It is just as likely that the problem was too many products for the price points--the Trinity, Hyperion and Techne Kickstarter had inexpensive backer levels and a lower £40k goal, so isn't really a fair comparison.
I don't buy your argument, Brooko, as my previous experience on Kickstarter and with failed campaigns does not support it, but neither of us have enough data to reach statistical significance, so we'll have to agree to disagree if you're more into frequentist statistics.
