erable

This could be good -- any additional info that you can share? The details are somewhat scant and I'm greatly interested.

That's an entirely valid point and for the most part, I agree. Where we seem to differ is where we feel the balance exists between correlation and causation. I feel the former still gives very strong contextual direction, and this shouldn't be ignored, especially when the proposed solution is the 'and then what' flow.

I'd actually love to see some studies of how that works in practice, especially given that screen real estate is so valuable around the signup call-to-action. You may be on to something!

While there's some quality fodder there, I couldn't get beyond this line:

"I’ll bet that the time-to-signup isn’t an important anxiety factor."

This isn't the only reason that sign-ups have been pared down; the current trend of thought on the matter is that it also reduces barriers to conversion.

Engaging your audience without making them jump through numerous hoops is a great practice, even if that means the occasional company adopts the practice a little too quickly before the rest of their process is fleshed out. I'd certainly prefer that to the alternative, where I've invested a great deal of time with a long form, just to have the same end result, 'and then what?'

The author touches upon the evolution of the industry and then makes strong claims towards stagnation. Perhaps it's the ebb and flow of innovation and commoditization rather than exclusively the latter? This cyclical occurrence is common across almost all industries -- a trend will eventually reach a saturation point until something new comes along, breeding a culture of forward-thinkers and followers.

One has to wonder that, services and technologies comparison aside, perhaps there's something appealing about the Kickstarter brand/community. Contributing to a random website out in the wild vs. contributing in an environment where there's a critical mass are very different. Whether or not the value is extracted from being a part of Kickstarter depends on many more variables than the article choses to mention. Perhaps a viable alternative would be a similar product but with a more de-centralized approach (ie. a mechanism placed on individual sites but with a recognizably safe community & brand).

While both articles address a company's outward image, I'd say that the two touch upon very different things. I understood OP's post to be more about the quality of marketing collateral and making sure that the client experience was well fleshed-out, and I read your link to be a lesson in messaging. I didn't find the two to be mutually exclusive.

Another thing that I'm sure weighed in positively (at least subconciously) was seeing others do the same. On a singular device, the experience is very individual, could be experimental, and feels like shopping in a box: a tiny flat one, at that. Out in the public alongside others breeds a sense of community approval and helps reinforce the legitimacy of the method, especially as it is somewhat close to the original grocery shopping experience.