You asked for money and people responded with a price and it didn't match. That's all. Lots of people were interested and lots of people gave you money, just not a superlative amount of people you were hoping.
> That’s the bulk of the criticism we received over the course of the campaign. However, I don’t think any or all get to the heart of what went wrong. Jorge Castro echoes my thinking:
>> Lesson learned here? People don’t like their current email clients but not so much that they’re willing to pay for a new one.
> All I’d add is that over one thousand people were willing to donate a collective sum of $50,000 for a new email client. Let’s say Jorge is half-right.
Should of setup the campaign to allow you to get the 50,000 dollars. That was the mistake. I wouldn't draw any conclusions beyond that, they can't be founded on any sort of thing beyond just speculation. It's possible to make a mistake and still have made the best decision with the information available at the time. It's not a personal failure, just lack of information causing mistakes. You will do better next time.
Humble Bundle, for example, didn't start off making X.X million dollars per fund raising. It took multiple tries and different techniques to convince people that they were worth that much.
Not everybody is going to be convinced that your product is worth investing in because you said so. You have to be able to prove it. They don't know if giving you 50 bucks or whatever would end up with something they actually want to use.
So you should of been able to take the money, put what you felt was $50K worth of improvements into it and then said 'See, this is what we can do when you help'. And that way you have proof that you are good enough and you are going to create something that people will enjoy using.