Content uploaded by Valtteri Kaartemo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Valtteri Kaartemo on Aug 31, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The elements of a successful crowdfunding campaign:
A systematic literature review of crowdfunding performance
Valtteri Kaartemo ab (Corresponding Author)
to be published in International Review of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 15, No. 3
a Masar B.V., Herengracht 182, 1016 BR Amsterdam, The Netherlands, http://www.masar.io
bTurku School of Economics, University of Turku, Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, 20500 Turku, Finland.
Tel. +358-44-5171183
Email: valtteri.kaartemo@utu.fi
Abstract
Crowdfunding campaigns are widely designed based on intuition rather than strategy. This
systematic review gathers scattered knowledge on the elements that influence crowdfunding
performance. The review provides guidance for practitioners on how to run a successful
crowdfunding campaign, and it suggests topics and themes to advance the field further. The review
identifies four main categories that affect crowdfunding performance: (1) campaign-, (2)
crowdfunder-, (3) crowdfunding platform-, and (4) fund-seeker-related factors. Empirical research
findings within these categories are synthesized and evaluated. It was found that there are still
substantial gaps in our knowledge of crowdfunding performance, which opens avenues for future
research. In addition, the review reveals methodological shortcomings in the field and calls for
further research on the topic in general. In particular, many intuitive suggestions made by
crowdfunding platforms need to be subjected to rigorous academic research.
Keywords: crowdfunding; campaign; performance; literature review; crowdfunder;
platform; fund-seeker
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the past few years, crowdfunding has become a major trend in financing various
entrepreneurial and nonprofit projects. In 2012–2014, the global crowdfunding industry grew 12-
fold, and it is already estimated to be worth USD 34 billion, and rising over USD 300 billion by
2025 (Crowdsourcing.org, 2015). The growth of the crowdfunding industry has attracted scholarly
attention to study various aspects of alternative financing within the digital society, and it has even
led to special issues on crowdfunding (e.g., Bennett et al., 2015; Short et al., 2017). These studies
vary from the role of fan culture in crowdfunding (Booth, 2015; Hills, 2015; Scott, 2015) to the
influence of crowdfunding on shaping societal norms in various contexts (Farnel, 2015; Hunter,
2015; Koçer, 2015; Stiver et al., 2015) to the role of innovativeness (Chan and Parhankangas,
2017), signaling and endorsements (Courtney et al., 2017), community (Josefy et al., 2017), and
social capital (Butticè et al., 2017; Skirnevskiy et al., 2017) explaining crowdfunding performance.
While these efforts to unravel the developments and processes in crowdfunding are
acknowledged, it is argued that, in general, scholarly activity around the topic has not kept pace
with the growth of the industry. As a result, theory development in crowdfunding research is still
in its infancy, and the academic community could do more to inform fund-seekers on how to raise
funds through crowdfunding. Personally, I have encountered this issue as an academic teaching
inno vation man age men t at Turku Scho ol o f Ec onomics and as a H ead o f Re search at Masar helping
the smart energy startup to raise funds through crowdfunding. This lack of knowledge has not
remained unnoticed by major crowdfunding platforms either:
“‘What goes into a successful campaign?’ has become a frequently asked question among
entrepreneurs, nonprofits and other people willing to launch a crowdfunding campaign. To date,
there has not been much information regarding a recipe for a successful campaign.” (Indiegogo,
2016a).
Although crowdfunding platforms give some advice to entrepreneurs on how to design a
campaign, fund-seekers still rely on intuition rather than on strategy (Thürridl and Kamleitner,
2016). Consequently, crowdfunding campaigns are not properly designed, and the efforts to raise
funds for a good cause are often wasted when the funding target is not met. This lacunae of
knowledge has encouraged scholars to call for more research focusing on optimizing the
effectiveness and impact of crowdfunding campaigns (Stiver et al., 2015).
On a positive side, the past couple of years (2014–2016) have seen several empirical studies
on crowdfunding. These studies provide insights into how strategies might be developed for a
successful crowdfunding campaign. Nevertheless, these research findings and managerial
implications are scattered across numerous academic journals to which entrepreneurs and civil
activists often do not have access. As crowdfunding performance literature is coming of age, there
is a need for a literature review that evaluates and synthesizes the accumulated knowledge base.
This review aims at collecting the scattered research findings and providing a more holistic
understanding of the elements of a successful crowdfunding campaign. The review contributes to
the academic debate as well as to crowdfunding practices by synthesizing the current state of
knowledge around the theme, and by providing fund-seekers with clear recommendations on how
to improve their chances to raise money. The article informs the readers about the state-of-the-art
of the crowdfunding performance literature, discusses important knowledge gaps in the field, and
provides reasoned avenues for future research. In this review, crowdfunding performance is
conceptualized in terms of success in raising funds, and therefore does not cover factors
influencing other benefits such as increased legitimacy or sponsorship satisfaction.
This is the first systematic literature review that focuses on the elements that impact
crowdfunding performance. Ghezzi et al. (2017) explicitly excluded crowdfunding research from
their review on crowdsourcing. Yet, some literature reviews have built on prior crowdfunding
literature. For instance, Short et al. (2017) reviewed past work on crowdfunding in leading
management and entrepreneurship journals. However, their review is limited to only 21 research
papers, and they do not aim at analyzing crowdfunding performance. Moritz and Block (2016)
reviewed a wider literature basis (127 articles and working papers) to provide an overview of what
is known about crowdfunding, such as motivations of companies for crowdfunding and legal
framework, as well as crowdfunding performance. Macht and Weatherston (2015) systematically
reviewed the academic literature on crowdfunders to shed light on their decisions and behaviors
in the pre- and post-investment phases. Nevertheless, altogether these reviews do not focus on
crowdfunding performance, and as such do not provide an answer to our research question.
Although Moritz and Block (2016) manage to discuss some fund-seeker-, crowdfunder-, and
crowdfunding platform-related factors explaining crowdfunding success, it is still justified to have
a closer look at what is known about the elements of a successful crowdfunding campaign.
This study employs a systematic literature review method (Booth, Papaioannou, & Sutton,
2012) to structure and synthesize the prior research on crowdfunding performance. Out of 480
articles identified, this study closely examines 51 studies that focus on the factors that influence
the success of crowdfunding campaigns. The review proceeds as follows. First, the systematic
literature review method is described in detail. Second, the next section discusses the reviewed
publications and provides detailed information on the key findings to develop the research
framework. Third, the findings are reflected in the current view of a recipe for a successful
crowdfunding campaign.
2. METHODOLOGY
This study builds on a systematic literature review as its methodology to provide a transparent and
objective account of the existing empirical research base of factors influencing the success of
crowdfunding campaigns. This review follows the guidelines of Booth et al. (2012) by searching
relevant literature, assessing empirical research findings, and synthesizing the evidence.
ISI Web of Science was chosen as a database to search for relevant literature, as it provided
quick access to peer-reviewed articles and a search function that returned studies on crowdfunding.
First, different ways of how crowdfunding and crowdfunders have been discussed in scientific
articles were combined. Second, after consulting Macht and Weatherston (2015), the following
search term was employed: [crowdfund OR crowd-fund OR crowd fund OR crowdfunding OR
crowd-funding OR crowd funding OR crowdfunders OR crowd-funders OR crowd funders].
Third, the search was delimited to scholarly (peer-reviewed) articles. The search was conducted
on February 10, 2017. Altogether, 480 articles on crowdfunding that had been published and that
were made available via ISI Web of Science by the end of 2016 were found.
The selection of relevant articles involved three rounds of examination. First, all non-
English studies were excluded from the database owing to the researcher’s limited knowledge of
French, Spanish, German, and Russian as well as to increase the transparency of the findings within
English-speaking academia. Second, the abstracts were read through to identify articles that
provided insights into crowdfunding performance. For instance, there are interesting studies on
taxes and regulation (Metrejean and McKay, 2015), as well as general benefits of crowdfunding
(Macht and Weatherston, 2014). In addition, using the term ‘crowd’ as a search term listed findings
in ambiguous research fields. However, such articles were excluded from the review as they did
not refer to crowdfunding performance. Third, some studies needed to be examined closely to
determine whether they provided evidence regarding the topic, as it was not always evident from
the abstract. Eventually, 51 articles that provided evidence on the factors that influence the success
of crowdfunding campaigns were included in the final review. Typically, crowdfunding platforms
are classified as reward-, donation-, equity-, or lending-based platforms (Frydrych et al., 2014). In
this review, there were no platform-specific restrictions while selecting relevant articles.
After the articles were selected, their content was analyzed. First, basic bibliometric
information was collected to get a better idea of how scattered the research is, how long is the
history of crowdfunding performance literature, and with what kind of methods and in which
empirical settings has the phenomenon been studied so far. After the publications were identified,
the associated journals were classified based on their core focus and knowledge areas as referred
to in the Web of Science. Second, in line with the systematic literature review methodology, the
articles were coded based on the principles of relevance and feasibility (Webster and Watson,
2002). The analysis followed open coding (Corbin and Strauss, 2008), where the data is broken
down, examined, compared, conceptualized, and categorized based on the findings of the data.
The codes were not predetermined. Thus, the details of the articles were coded along with the
contents regarding the elements that influence crowdfunding performance. At the end of the
analysis, the research findings were categorized under four higher level categories: (1) campaign-
, (2) crowdfunder-, (3) crowdfunding platform-, and (4) fund-seeker-related factors. Campaign-
factors refer to the decisions made by the fund-seeker regarding the content of the campaign. These
include decisions on funding targets, length of the campaign, or content in the campaign video, for
instance. Crowdfunder-related factors refer to the characteristics of the individuals (and
organizations) that back the fund-seekers, such as their motives, personality, and geographic
location. Crowdfunding platform –related factors, in turn, focus on the characteristics of the
crowdfunding platform that influence the ability to raise funds, such as the type of the platform
and level of competition on the platform. Finally, fund-seeker-related factors refer to the
characteristics of the fund-seeker that influence crowdfunding performance, such as fund-seeker’s
earlier experience and social networks.
3. FINDINGS
3.1 Publications:
The review revealed that research on crowdfunding performance is widely scattered. Altogether,
40 journals have published articles on the topic. Among these journals, Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice and New Media & Society have published four articles, followed by Decision Support
Systems (3), Economics Letters (2), Information Systems Research (2), and Management Science
(2). The rest of the journals have published only a single article that features elements of
crowdfunding performance. The full list of all the publications is provided in Table 1.
[Table 1 here]
Based on the Web of Science journal classification, the majority of crowdfunding
performance literature has been published in the fields of Management (15), Business (14),
Computer Science and Information Systems (9), Communication (8), Economics (7), and
Information Science and Library Science (7). Although the research has concentrated on these
fields, crowdfunding performance has been studied in various other fields ranging from
Environmental Engineering to Social Work. In many categories, less than a handful of papers have
been published on crowdfunding performance. This indicates that the results of findings on this
topic remain largely scattered.
The history of crowdfunding performance studies is relatively young. The first reviewed
article was published in 2011 (Ordanini et al., 2011). Most studies were published in 2014–2016,
indicating that this topic has attracted scholarly interest only recently. The annual distribution of
the reviewed articles is presented in Table 2.
[Table 2 here]
The analysis revealed that most (73%) of the studies relied on data from one crowdfunding
platform only. The most common platform that was used as a data source in the reviewed studies
was US-based reward-based Kickstarter, with 19 articles (37%). Altogether, the authors of the
reviewed articles have collected and extracted data from 33 different crowdfunding platforms. The
majority of the articles (55%) collected data only from the US-based platforms. The list of all
platforms from which data was collected in the reviewed articles is presented in Table 3.
[Table 3 here]
The analysis also revealed that various research methods were used to understand the
factors influencing crowdfunding performance. Most studies (73%) were quantitative in nature.
There were also some qualitative studies, as well as one simulation and one mixed method
research.
Finally, the reviewed articles were categorized based on the elements they focused on,
namely campaign-, crowdfunder-, crowdfunding platform-, and fund-seeker-related factors. The
majority of the studies focused on various aspects of the campaign itself. In fact, 33 articles (65%)
studied campaign-related factors. Crowdfunder- (16), fund-seeker- (23), and, in particular,
crowdfunding platform-related factors (3) were more rarely studied factors. Notably, almost all
crowdfunding performance studies focused on only a single aspect of the performance factors, and
none of the reviewed studies covered all categories. As a result, we still lack studies that analyze
crowdfunding performance more holistically, taking into account campaign-, crowdfunder-,
crowdfunding platform-, and fund-seeker-related factors in explaining crowdfunding performance.
3.2 Campaign-related factors:
In general wisdom, pricing and targets are important in designing a successful crowdfunding
campaign. The prices cannot be too high, as an increased price of rewards lowers the likelihood of
a project being funded on a reward-based platform (Meer, 2014). Similarly, Lukkarinen et al.
(2016) found that the size of minimum investment (smallest amount of money an individual can
invest to become a shareholder) negatively influences the number of investors as well as the
amount raised in Invesdor, a Finnish equity-based crowdfunding platform. On the contrary, Saxton
and Wang (2014) found that price was not a significant factor among crowdfunders on the more
donation-oriented Causes.com.
While lower prices may attract more funders, something also needs to be offered for both
the masses and “high-buyers.” Hu et al. (2015) identified that the top 10% of buyers contribute the
majority of funds in crowdfunding campaigns in Kickstarter. Interestingly, even when product
options are virtually the same, high buyers may still choose the more expensive alternative.
Mollick and Nanda (2016) suggest that a greater number of reward levels is associated with
crowdfunding performance. Nonetheless, the number of reward tiers should not necessarily be
extended indefinitely, as fewer meaningful reward tiers are characteristic to successful campaigns
(Chen et al., 2016). As Hörisch (2015) and Hobbs et al. (2016) emphasize, it is not the mere
existence of reward tiers but the quality of rewards that seem to matter for crowdfunders. In
addition, the funders should be offered a variety of products of different quality on reward-based
platforms (Hu et al., 2015). As a result, the role of rewards in determining success is not
straightforward. “We even find all three possible variants: rewards can be key for success (path 2),
can have no influence (path 1), or can even be harmful (path 3)” (Kraus et al., 2016: 20).
Bœuf et al. (2014) found that public acknowledgment is more important than material
reward for people who crowdfund theater projects in Kickstarter. Interestingly, an add-on material
reward can reduce the willingness to donate money to a campaign. These findings are supported
by Thürridl and Kamleitner (2016), who studied the role of different rewards in successful and
unsuccessful crowdfunding campaigns. Their findings indicate that collaborative rewards typical
to culture campaigns lead more often to success than pure pre-sales that are characteristic of novel
products. “Top it Up” rewards that come in the form of unique bundles and “Collectible Token”
rewards that provide primarily physical symbolic rewards or low-value gifts are, in turn, mainly
associated with unsuccessful projects in Kickstarter. On the other hand, this does not mean that
people fund only those projects with hedonic experiences as a reward. In fact, Chen et al. (2016)
found that utilitarian (functional) products tend to reach higher donation levels than hedonic
(aesthetic, experiential, and enjoyment) ones in Kickstarter. Nonetheless, even utilitarian products
seem to attract more funding when they are presented in an emotional message frame, that is, in
reference to the achievement of a positive state of being.
It should be remembered that even when high buyers are attracted, the campaign target
should not be too high, as successful campaigns tend to have more realistic, lower funding targets
in comparison to unsuccessful ones in reward- and donation-based platforms (Fondevila Gascon
et al., 2015; Hörisch, 2015; Kim et al., 2016; Liao et al., 2015). However, there is again contrary
evidence from equity-based crowdfunding platforms, where investors seem to be more interested
in campaigns that have higher funding targets (Lukkarinen et al., 2016). Although targets were
high, it is important for entrepreneurs to signal their belief in the potential of the company and
retain as much equity as possible, as equity retention increases crowdfunding pitch popularity and
attracts more investors and capital (Vismara, 2016).
According to the findings of Agrawal et al. (2015), crowdfunding propensity increases with
the accumulated capital in equity-based platform Sellaband. Therefore, the early success of a
campaign seems to increase the probability of a campaign reaching its goal in various
crowdfunding platforms (Agrawal et al., 2015; Colombo et al., 2015; Fondevila Gascon et al.,
2015). Colombo et al. (2015) found that campaigns that have more crowdfunders and that collect
a higher share of the target capital during the first one-sixth of the campaign duration are more
likely to succeed in Kickstarter. As early success is important, some fund-seekers invest their own
money to increase the probability of success in Polish MegaTotal crowdfunding platform
(Galuszka and Brzozowska, 2016).
Although it is known that the first one-sixth of the campaign duration is important, there is
still mixed evidence regarding the optimal overall duration of a campaign. Lukkarinen et al. (2016)
and Mollick (2014) found that there is an inverse correlation with duration and success in Invesdor
and Kickstarter, respectively. In other words, lengthier campaigns have lower chances of success.
Bœuf et al. (2014), in turn, found a nonlinear correlation between duration and campaign
performance in Kickstarter. They suggest that while some time is needed for a campaign to attract
funds, the period must be short enough to create a sense of urgency to mobilize crowdfunders. The
problem may also be that in longer campaigns, there is more time for crowdfunders to learn from
each other’s behavior. For instance, Burtch et al. (2013) show that contributors in donation-based
spot.us tend to fund less when they notice that the money from other crowdfunders makes their
own contribution less important. These results may not be universal though, as Zheng et al. (2014)
did not find evidence from their US data (Kickstarter) but found a significant positive effect of
campaign duration in their Chinese dataset (Demohour). Furthermore, Liao et al. (2015) and
Hörisch (2015) found that lengthier campaigns have a higher probability of success when using
Chinese- (ZhongchouNet) and US-based (Indiegogo) data, respectively. Nonetheless, according
to some experts, a crowdfunding campaign should not last longer than 40 days (Fondevila Gascon
et al., 2015).
Regardless of the campaign length, it is important to signal the campaign quality through
communication. Fondevila Gascon et al. (2015), Hobbs et al. (2016), Mollick (2014), and Mollick
and Nanda (2016) have found that pitch quality is associated with the success of crowdfunding
efforts in reward- and donation-based platforms. They show that signals of quality and
preparedness (including campaign video, pictures, content precedence, detailed text description,
rapid updates, proofread) increase the likelihood of meeting the funding targets.
Although Hörisch (2015) considered that the existence of a video could be used as an
indicator of project quality in Indiegogo (reward-based crowdfunding platform), now that videos
have become standard in crowdfunding platforms, it may not be enough. In fact, Kim et al. (2016)
already found that the availability of video pitches, as such, can even decrease the probability of
raising funds in Indiegogo. However, creative videos still seem to influence crowdfunding
positively in Kickstarter (Calic and Mosakowski, 2016).
References to IPO as an exit strategy are more characteristic to successful crowdfunding
campaigns than trade exit plans in an Australian equity-based crowdfunding platform ASSOB
(Ahlers et al., 2015). Nonetheless, there is no conclusive evidence of the impact of exit strategy as
a valuable signal in crowdfunding campaigns. In relation to finance, providing financials has been
found to attract more crowdfunders; however, it does not have a significant influence on the
amount raised in an equity-based platform (Lukkarinen et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, signals of quality seem to matter in general. Ahlers et al. (2015), Hobbs et
al. (2016) and Mollick (2014) found that it is important to give signals that reduce the uncertainty
of backers (reward-based) and investors (equity-based) in crowdfunding platforms. These signals
include references to traditional equity investment terms, retaining equity, and providing more
detailed information about the risks of the crowdfunding project. Kim et al. (2016) thoroughly
studied signaling credible claims in crowdfunding campaign narratives and found that the language
of precision and distinction, such as having a completed campaign; having more referrals, funders,
updates, and images; having longer word counts; and containing more negative emotional text
influence crowdfunding performance positively in Indiegogo. In contrast, language of complexity
and speculation, such as higher pronoun use and displaying a video influence the performance
negatively. Tirdatov (2014) closely examined the rhetorical appeals employed in successful
crowdfunding campaigns in Kickstarter. He notes that the most well-funded projects all contain
three types of rhetorical appeals: ethos (emphasizing credibility of the speaker), pathos (producing
emotions in the crowd), and logos (supporting claims through logical argumentation).
Ciuchta et al. (2016) studied the influence of the importance of favorable venture quality
information and favorable social information on the willingness to crowdfund projects in an
empirical experiment. They found that positive words about the venture as well as evidence of
others’ inclination to fund the project increases the crowd’s willingness to fund projects. However,
it is important to remain honest with social information, as false social information typically results
in a rapid drop in crowdfunding in Kickstarter (Wessel et al., 2016).
To motivate crowdfunders, campaigns should increase the understanding of the crowd in
relation to the project and support their action processes in charity projects (Choy and Schlagwein,
2016). In addition, how the purpose of the campaign is communicated also matters. For instance,
there is a difference in whether money is sought to help others or for a business opportunity. More
generally, project with guilt appeals (highlighting feelings of responsibility) tend to attract more
donations in Kickstarter (Chen et al., 2016). At least, “prosocial lenders” who also use charitable
criteria in finance evaluation are more likely to back projects that describe the venture as an
opportunity to help others rather than when a venture refers to profits and risk-taking in lending-
based Kiva (Allison et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it is acknowledged here that these results may also
be platform-specific. For instance, Hörisch (2015) did not find a positive connection between
environmental orientation and crowdfunding success in their Indiegogo dataset. On the other hand,
Calic and Mosakowski (2016) claim that both the social and the environmental sustainability
orientations of technology projects positively influence crowdfunding performance in Kickstarter.
However, they did not find a direct positive influence between environmental sustainability and
crowdfunding performance in the film and video category.
It is important to utilize private networks in an equity-based Invesdor (Lukkarinen et al.,
2016) and attract third-party endorsements in Kickstarter (Calic and Mosakowski, 2016) to ensure
the wide circulation of the pitch during a campaign in reward- and donation-based platforms
(Fondevila Gascon et al., 2015). Galuszka and Brzozowska (2016) emphasize that it is important
to address the messages directly to the most active users in the crowdfunding platform MegaTotal.
At the same time, more general messages are also important, as social media activity, email
contacts, and other interactions with the crowd in equity- and reward-based platforms (Byrnes et
al., 2014; Hobbs et al., 2016; Kraus et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2016) as well as blog entries and
Web presence in German reward-based VisionBakery (Kraus et al., 2016) influence the
crowdfunding performance positively.
More detailed qualitative studies (Booth, 2015; Hills, 2015; Scott, 2015) focused on “fan-
ancing,” namely, fan-based crowdfunding, and highlighted the importance of discourse and
rhetoric that appeal to the existing fan base in Kickstarter. These findings are in line with Fondevila
Gascon et al.'s (2015) suggestion that successful crowdfunding projects connect with a collective
in reward- and donation-based crowdfunding platforms. As the communication may depend to a
large extent on crowdfunders, below, the influence of crowdfunder-related factors on the success
of a crowdfunding campaign is examined more closely.
3.3 Crowdfunder-related factors:
Successful crowdfunding projects match with what is valued by the crowdfunders, that is, a shared
meaning in the project attracts crowdfunders (Zheng et al., 2014). Therefore, it is important to
understand why crowdfunders are willing to participate in a campaign in a given platform. These
motives may vary from nonfinancial to purely financial. For instance, Cholakova and Clarysse's
(2015) results from the registered investors of Symbid, a Dutch equity crowdfunding platform
focused on monetary return, indicate that nonfinancial motives do not influence the decision to
pledge to or to invest in a project.
In general, people are driven to participate in crowdfunding projects by the strive to collect
rewards and financial returns, help other people in need and support a cause, and to form
relationships and be part of a community (Galuszka and Brzozowska, 2016; Gerber and Hui, 2013;
Lam and Law, 2016). Ryu and Kim (2016) identified six motives, namely, interest, playfulness,
philanthropy, reward, relationship, and recognition, as well as four types of crowdfunding
sponsors, namely, angelic backer (characterized by philanthropic motives), reward hunter
(characterized by reward motives), avid fan (characterized by several motives except rewards),
and tasteful hermit (similar to avid fans but less motivated by recognition and relationship
motives). As a result, it becomes evident that motives to participate in a crowdfunding campaign
vary greatly.
Choy and Schlagwein (2016) have, in turn, categorized crowdfunders into four types based
on whether they are motivated by intrinsic or extrinsic motives, and whether the actions are
community-oriented or not, namely, intrinsic-individual, intrinsic-social, extrinsic-individual, and
extrinsic-social motivations. By identifying different types, it is possible to analyze which
characteristics of campaigns and platforms support crowdfunding motivations.
Whereas we already have some evidence on the motives of crowdfunders, what
discourages crowdfunders from funding is less known. Gerber and Hui (2013) have noted that
distrust of a creator’s use of funds deters crowdfunders. This is considered problematic,
particularly in platforms where the fund-seeker is allowed to keep the money even when the target
is not met. It is also known that prevention-focused and promotion-focused people are motivated
and discouraged to participate in crowdfunding differently (Ciuchta et al., 2016). Prevention-
focused individuals tend to be attuned to the presence of negative environmental feedback,
whereas promotion-focused ones are particularly attuned to the positive aspects of feedback from
the environment. Ciuchta et al. (2016) found that promotion-focused people are more responsive
to social information in crowdfunding campaigns, which influences their willingness to invest
under both positive and negative social information cues.
To provide shared meaning, it seems to be beneficial to choose target crowdfunders that
are similar to the fund-seeker. Burtch et al. (2014) found that crowdfunders prefer culturally similar
and geographically proximate fund-seekers. Lin and Viswanathan (2016) refer to this phenomenon
as “home bias.” Similarly, Mollick's (2014) findings suggest that geography may play an important
role in the success of crowdfunding efforts, as a proportionally greater creative population in a
fund-seeker’s city was associated with a greater chance of success. These findings on the
importance of location are further validated by Agrawal et al. (2015), who identified differences
in funding patterns between local and distant crowdfunders. For instance, local crowdfunders
appear less responsive to information about the cumulative funds raised by the fund-seeker.
Furthermore, Galuszka and Brzozowska (2016) found that crowdfunders are willing to support
friends and local fund-seekers.
Ultimately, the purpose and characteristics of fund-seekers vary from one platform to
another (Ordanini et al., 2011). Therefore, it is also important to understand how platforms
influence crowdfunding performance.
3.4 Crowdfunding platform-related factors
As with crowdfunders, crowdfunding platforms have different purposes based on which they
support crowdfunding in different roles (Ordanini et al., 2011). This is important to acknowledge,
as the chosen platform and the community it serves are significant determinants of a successful
crowdfunding campaign. First, platform design enables the crowd to understand the messages and
take actions to support the projects through platform-specific IT affordances (Choy and
Schlagwein, 2016). Second, the policies and norms governing individual crowdfunding platforms
influence the probability of success of a campaign on a platform. This is explained by Farnel
(2015), who considered that Indiegogo’s policies and norms were more welcoming to
crowdfunding gender/sexual reassignment surgery projects than Kickstarter and YouCaring,
which had a different kind of culture. Whereas these differences may remain hidden, the platform
cultures may be better understood by running a semantic analysis of campaigns on a platform,
which can reveal topical features (i.e., latent semantics) of successful campaigns and differences
between platforms (Yuan et al., 2016).
In addition, the availability of other projects on the platform influences the likelihood of
success. In other words, fewer good projects as competitors in the pool can cause more good
projects to be funded (Meer, 2014; Parker, 2014). However, crowdfunders are not necessarily
informed in picking up good projects. Instead, when most investors are uninformed, they tend to
follow the few informed investors, who predominantly back good projects (Parker, 2014).
Therefore, it is important that crowdfunders know who has funded the project. Burtch et al. (2013)
found that a platform’s decision to conceal information about previous contributors decreases the
likelihood of conversion and the amount of contribution of subsequent visitors. The uninformed
crowdfunders may follow not only other funders’ actions but also a platform’s suggestions.
According to Mollick (2014), projects featured by Kickstarter, indicating the preferences of the
Kickstarter staff, are more likely to be successful than unfeatured campaigns.
Overall, relatively little is known about the role of crowdfunding platforms on
performance.
3.5 Fund-seeker-related factors:
In addition to the campaign, crowdfunders, and platform, the role of an individual or an
organization that asks for the money also influences crowdfunding performance. These differences
are studied more at an organizational level. Fund-seekers that have B2C projects are more likely
to succeed than those with B2B projects (Lukkarinen et al., 2016). Companies in the environmental
category, in turn, tend to attract little crowdfunding (Hörisch, 2015). Hörisch (2015) and Pitschner
and Pitschner-Finn (2014) found that crowdfunding initiatives that are structured as nonprofits
tend to be more successful than other organizational forms. Moreover, Liao et al. (2015) found
that the type of project (for-profit or nonprofit) moderates the influence of social capital on
crowdfunding performance. The effects of social capital on the crowdfunding performance of for-
profit projects are more powerful than on nonprofit ones. In contrast, Fondevila Gascon et al.
(2015) did not find a significant difference between nonprofit and for-profit fund-seekers in terms
of crowdfunding performance. Interestingly, Kim et al. (2016) found that there was not as much
difference between a social cause or business venture objective than against a creative objective,
which tended to raise less funds through crowdfunding. There may also be differences between
nonprofits. Saxton and Wang (2014) found that there is a negative correlation between the size of
a nonprofit and crowdfunding donations, which indicates that smaller nonprofits are better
positioned in raising funds through crowdfunding than larger ones. They further suggest that there
may be differences stemming from the social cause for which the money is raised. There is also
evidence that a certain kind of journalism attracts more funds than others (Jian and Usher, 2014).
Thus, the performance is dependent not only on the general category but also on more detailed
information about the projects and fund-seekers.
Nevertheless, it seems to be important to have a clear identity, as belonging simultaneously
to several categories (in platforms where it is possible and labels are visible) makes fund-seekers
look less attractive to crowdfunders (Leung and Sharkey, 2014).
Although the campaign-related factors highlighted the importance of signaling quality, it
is interesting to note that the experience of the fund-seeker had no influence on crowdfunding
performance (Jian and Usher, 2014). Ahlers et al. (2015) found that intellectual capital (as
measured by patents) does not influence the success of a campaign either. However, if experience
is measured through website age and reach (Saxton and Wang, 2014), then it can be considered as
having an influence on crowdfunding performance. In other words, it can be suggested that
experience is associated with social capital.
There is mixed evidence regarding the role of social capital on crowdfunding performance.
The differences seem to stem largely from the operationalization of social capital. For instance,
Ahlers et al. (2015) conclude that social capital has no significant impact on crowdfunding success.
However, this may be due to the fact that they use the share of board members with MBAs and the
share of nonexecutive board members as proxies to measure the amount of social capital.
Interestingly, other measures of social capital reveal different results. For instance, an
entrepreneur’s social network ties have a significant positive effect on crowdfunding performance
(Lehner, 2014; Mollick, 2014; Saxton and Wang, 2014; Vismara, 2016; Zheng et al., 2014).
Similarly, Quero and Ventura (2015) highlight the importance of the existence of a community
prior to the launch, namely, “fan cultural capital” (Hills, 2015), to ensure success. In addition to a
wider community or fan base, the offline social network of friends and family influences
crowdfunding performance (Agrawal et al., 2015).
The social capital of the fund-seeker seems to be important within the crowdfunding
community, that is, internal social capital. Liao et al. (2015) noted that both external as well as
internal (within the crowdfunding community) capital influences crowdfunding performance
positively. Colombo et al. (2015) showed that internal social capital helps in being fully funded.
This internal social capital may be of two kinds. First, there are internal social contacts that have
received money from the fund-seeker and who may therefore feel obliged to help by giving back.
Second, if a fund-seeker has backed many projects in the platform earlier, there may be generalized
reciprocity within the online community to fund the fund-seeker. Similarly, Zheng et al. (2014)
found that an entrepreneur’s obligations to fund other entrepreneurs have significant effects on
crowdfunding performance in both China and the USA. Furthermore, Bœuf et al. (2014) found
that financing others had a positive influence on crowdfunding performance, whereas earlier funds
raised through the platform had a negative impact. Zheng et al. (2016), in contrast, suggest that
crowdfunding success experience has a positive (albeit small) impact on future crowdfunding
performance. Lehner (2014) explains these results through the concept of symbolic capital, which
builds trust toward the fund-seeker.
Location-bound external social networks explain patterns in home bias in crowdfunding
(Agrawal et al., 2015). As a result of home bias, a fund-seeker’s distance to the crowdfunders
influences crowdfunding performance negatively (Mendes-Da-Silva et al., 2016). This may also
explain why US-based campaigns have higher ratios of funds to target goals in Indiegogo (Kim et
al., 2016). On a smaller scale, Bœuf et al. (2014) noted that theater projects in New York, Los
Angeles, and San Francisco raised more money than other US-based theater projects in Kickstarter.
Nevertheless, Lehner (2014) considers that geography or physical distance matter only little
compared to a fund-seeker’s cultural capital (common values, language, norms, or other artefacts
enabling understanding), which enables better interaction with the crowd.
When a fund-seeker is an individual, gender might have an influence. However, Barasinska
and Schäfer (2014) did not find that the gender has any influence on whether or not a project is
crowdfunded. Apart from that, not much is known about the influence of individual characteristics
on meeting crowdfunding targets.
4. RESEARCH AGENDA
The review indicates that there is still a lot of room for studies on crowdfunding performance. In
general, the number of studies remains low. Therefore, it can be assumed that the elements of a
successful campaign are only partially known.
Building on empirical data helps to design impactful strategies for crowdfunding in
opposition to intuition-based campaigns. Fortunately, many platforms already give advice on how
to design a campaign based on their expertise. However, there is rarely data available to back these
suggestions, which makes it difficult for a fund-seeker to assess whether or not it makes sense to
follow the instructions. In particular, it seems that the research findings are often very context-
dependent, which encourages taking a broader look at the circumstances in which the advice
applies. Table 4 lists examples of advice given by crowdfunding platforms and the related research
gaps.
[Table 4 here]
The examples in Table 4 indicate that there is a lot to be researched in terms of the influence
of a campaign’s content, visuals, reward, targets, duration and sense of urgency, and outreach on
crowdfunding performance. Further, more research is needed regarding the role of the
crowdfunders, crowdfunding platforms, and the fund-seeker (incl. organizational issues) in
determining the success of crowdfunding campaigns. Of note, these questions are not evident in
Table 4, which focuses more on campaign-related factors.
First, although we already know a lot about what is required from a successful campaign,
there are still questions that need to be subjected to rigorous academic research. Although
transparency creates trust it still remains unclear how much details one should provide in a
crowdfunding campaign from the perspective of funding performance. For instance, it is still
unknown how the plan to use the funds and estimated delivery dates influence crowdfunders’
decision making. It is also open how fund-seekers can effectively signal their commitment to the
project so that crowdfunders can feel more secured that the project will happen. Although we know
that social media has a positive influence on crowdfunding performance in general, there is no
clear advice for the fund-seekers on how they should use social media during the campaign. It is
suggested here that it is not merely the number of posts or tweets that increase the chance of being
funded but the content should signal quality and engage the community. Further evidence is needed
to understand the specific characteristics of social media content that is associated with positive
impact. It is also otherwise an open question on how the backers should be engaged during the
campaign. Social media can be one tool to engage the backers. In addition, localization might be
a good way to engage backers and reach funding targets. In order to reach local communities, it
might be beneficial to host offline events, as suggested by Kickstarter. So far, the crowdfunding
performance scholars have mostly focused on quantitative data that has been available online. As
a result, offline activities of fund-seekers have not been unearthed. One of these aspects is the
organization of teams aiming at raising money through crowdfunding. It should be lucrative for
other entrepreneurs to know how successful fund-seekers have organized their teams during the
campaign.
Second, more insightful research evidence on the characteristics and motives of various
crowdfunders would enable fund-seekers to select the crowds that are most suitable to their project.
This could occur by integrating the knowledge base of crowdfunders with performance studies.
Currently, our understanding of the role of characteristics of crowdfunders is to large extent limited
to the information that is publically available in platforms, namely the location of crowdfunders.
There is a need for learning the influence of other demographic factors, such as age, gender,
income level, educational level, employment status, household size, ethnicity, race, and language.
As a result, fund-seekers could have a better understanding of, for instance, what kind of messages
are valued by different groups of people, which group backs campaigns the most, and what kind
of people should be targeted first to mobilize these groups. There is already some evidence on the
variety of motives that crowdfunders have and how these influence their crowdfunding activity.
The demographic studies could be linked with the studies focusing on the motives of crowdfunders
to understand why crowdfunders back one project but not another one.
Third, although not addressed by crowdfunding platform, the review indicates that the
characteristics of crowdfunding platforms influence crowdfunding performance. The mixed results
in the crowdfunding performance literature can be potentially explained with the specific context
of the study. In other words, some campaign-related factors may have either a positive or negative
influence depending on whether the campaign is launched on a reward-, donation-, equity-, or
lending-based crowdfunding platform. The empirical evidence by Farnel (2015), Lukkarinen et al.
(2016), and Zheng et al. (2014) suggests that the purpose, location, or culture of crowdfunding
platforms may influence crowdfunding performance. Unfortunately, most of the studies are
conducted in single platforms, which makes it challenging to compare the role of crowdfunding
platforms in explaining mixed evidence. In addition, a majority of the studies collected focused on
reward-based platforms. It is hoped that replication of existing studies in other contexts sheds some
light to this issue, as otherwise entrepreneurs are subject to flawed managerial implications.
Fourth, it would be useful to find out more about the characteristics of the fund-seekers
that influence the probability of success. In particular, there is limited information regarding the
characteristics of individuals behind the successful campaigns. Here again, a demographic study
on the fund-seekers could be beneficial to know who should be featured in the campaign and what
kind of personal and company characteristics should be emphasized in the campaign. It would also
be important to know the characteristics that are valued by the crowdfunders in the organizations
so that these skills could be developed or even recruited by the fund-seekers prior to a campaign
launch. This could be further enhanced by research focusing on successful teams. At the moment,
there is only indicative evidence that teams are more successful in raising funds than individuals;
however, future research could shed more light on what kinds of teams are preferred by the
crowdfunders. On the one hand, teams may be more successful because they look more convincing
to crowdfunders. On the other hand, teams may raise more money because they act more efficiently
and are able to create better campaigns. In addition, it would be interesting to know what fund-
seekers have done in the local community prior to raising funds. This could shed light to findings
on home-bias in crowdfunding performance literature. At the moment, the research is to large
extent limited to the information that is available online. As a result, the influence of several
interesting characteristics and actions of fund-seekers on crowdfunding success remains unknown.
The current literature suggests that the elements of a successful crowdfunding campaign
are built around the campaign itself, crowdfunders, fund-seekers, and, to a minor extent,
crowdfunding platforms. Nonetheless, further research is needed to find other factors that
influence the success of a crowdfunding campaign. For instance, wider socio-economic context
may remarkably influence crowdfunding performance.
In addition, it is acknowledged that the influence of the major factors is moderated by some
variables. For example, the early success of the campaign seems to change crowdfunding behavior
(Agrawal et al., 2015; Colombo et al., 2015). It would be important to find out more moderators
that influence the elements of a successful crowdfunding campaign. These might be particularly
useful in understanding the contextual limitations of available research findings. In addition, there
is a need for longitudinal studies that can improve our understanding of the dynamics of success
factors over a longer period of time.
Importantly, the current research on successful crowdfunding campaigns is largely
focusing on reward-based platforms located in the US (particularly, Kickstarter). As the elements
of a successful campaign may vary from one crowdfunding platform to another, it is necessary to
examine multiple platforms in academic research. Following design science (Van Aken et al.,
2016), it is understood that average outcomes in crowdfunding performance literature may be
informative only when contextual variance is limited and if the practitioner knows how to
contextualize the intervention. As noted in this review, the research findings on reward-based
platforms may not necessarily be applicable to donation-, equity-, or lending-based crowdfunding
platforms worldwide. Thus, it is acknowledged that although this review provides general ideas
based on which successful crowdfunding campaigns can be designed, care must be taken to not
blindly generalize the findings from one type of platform to another.
Here, widening the horizon to other types of platforms is called for. We need evidence
from outside the US to better understand the role of geography and location in campaign success
by bringing in cultural differences more explicitly. At the same time, there is a need for studies
that look beyond single platforms and provide a more holistic understanding of crowdfunding
performance.
5. CONCLUSION
The expansive growth of crowdfunding provides an interesting context for scholars to study how
entrepreneurs and non-profits alike can fund their projects. This review of 51 empirical studies
reveals that current literature regarding the elements of successful crowdfunding campaigns is
growing but remains still in its infancy and is scattered in various disciplines. As the number of
studies increases, it is important to have better frames and models through which crowdfunding
scholars can interpret the emerging results. This article provides a first version of a model to avoid
scattered research findings and to ensure coordinated efforts to create better strategies for more
impactful crowdfunding design. The classification of crowdfunding elements (campaign-,
crowdfunder-, crowdfunding platform, and fund-seeker-related factors) can be used in the future
to position crowdfunding performance studies.
In addition, the identification of these broad classes can be developed into a managerial
tool to design more impactful crowdfunding campaigns. Nevertheless, this review is not as
optimistic as Fondevila Gascon et al.'s (2015) study, which suggests that the success of a
crowdfunding campaign could be guaranteed by giving a list of strategies to follow. Instead, this
review provides the first holistic analysis of the literature on crowdfunding performance and
explains some contextual differences that negate the idea of a generic strategy for successful
crowdfunding campaigns. In addition to informing readers about the current situation of the
crowdfunding performance literature, the review suggests a research agenda for developing the
field. Particularly, the review calls for more methodological plurality in order to gain better
understanding of the elements themselves and the contextual influence on the elements of a
successful crowdfunding campaign. It is argued that the crowdfunding performance literature
would be enriched by other than quantitative analysis of online data of campaigns in rewards-
based crowdfunding platforms located in the USA.
This review suggests that an all-inclusive theory in the domain of crowdfunding
performance could be misleading. As crowdfunding platforms are different by nature (reward-,
donation-, equity, and lending-based platforms), it is suggested that contextual factors are
highlighted while discussing the generalization of the empirical results. This review identifies four
categories that can be used as a basis for analyzing crowdfunding performance but interest in
contextual limitations can widen our horizon beyond them.
It is acknowledged that this review has some limitations. First, success is measured in terms
of funding and not by other benefits such as increased legitimacy or sponsorship satisfaction,
which may also be associated with crowdfunding performance. With the given definition, this
review systematically covers articles cited in Web of Science that have studied aspects that
influence crowdfunding performance, such as willingness to invest, as all studies are not limited
to studying only successful campaigns. Second, there are certain limitations that arise from the
principles of the systematic literature review. For example, only articles with selected keywords
are analyzed. As a result, this review may miss some data where synonyms have been used instead.
On the other hand, systematic literature reviews have important advantages over unsystematic ones
(i.e., cherry-picking selected articles). Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the decision to limit
the study to international peer-reviewed journals published in English excludes studies published
in books, conference proceedings, and other publications as well as studies that are written in other
languages. However, by focusing on English language journals, it is possible to be more
transparent with the choices, and the readers can evaluate the research findings presented in this
review more easily. Furthermore, one can continue expanding the evidence base for this rapidly
growing way of financing ventures, organizations, and individuals.
To conclude, this study provides the first systematic literature review on crowdfunding
performance. By revealing state-of-the-art of elements of crowdfunding performance and
classifying them in four categories the review helps both entrepreneurs and civil activists in
designing campaigns that are more likely to meet the funding targets, as well as crowdfunding
scholars to develop the field.
REFERENCES
Agrawal, A., Catalini, C. and Goldfarb, A. (2015), “Crowdfunding: Geography, Social
Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions”, Journal of Economics & Management
Strategy, 24(2): p 253–274.
Ahlers, G.K.C., Cumming, D., Günther, C. and Schweizer, D. (2015), “Signaling in Equity
Crowdfunding”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4): p 955–980.
Allison, T.H., Davis, B.C., Short, J.C. and Webb, J.W. (2015), “Crowdfunding in a Prosocial
Microlending Environment: Examining the Role of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Cues”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1): p 53–73.
ASSOB (2016), “How Does ASSOB Work?”, Available from:
https://www.assob.com.au/entrepreneurs.asp?page=3.
Barasinska, N. and Schäfer, D. (2014), “Is Crowdfunding Different ? Evidence on the Relation
between Gender and Funding Success from a German Peer-to-Peer Lending Platform”,
German Economic Review, 15(4): p 436–452.
Bennett, L., Chin, B. and Jones, B. (2015), “Crowdfunding: A New Media & Society special
issue”, New Media & Society, 17(2): p 141–148.
Bœuf, B., Darveau, J. and Legoux, R. (2014), “Financing Creativity: Crowdfunding as a New
Approach for Theatre Projects”, International Journal of Arts Management, 16(3): p 33–48.
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D. and Sutton, A. (2012), Systematic Approaches to a Successful
Literature Review, London, UK: Sage Publications.
Booth, P. (2015), “Crowdfunding: A Spimatic application of digital fandom”, New Media &
Society, 17(2): p 149–166.
Burtch, G., Ghose, A. and Wattal, S. (2013), “An Empirical Examination of the Antecedents and
Consequences of Contribution Patterns in Crowd-Funded Markets”, Information Systems
Research, 24(3): p 499–519.
Burtch, G., Ghose, A. and Wattal, S. (2014), “Cultural differences and geography as
determinants of online prosocial lending”, MIS Quarterly, 38(3): p 773–794.
Butticè, V., Colombo, M.G. and Wright, M. (2017), “Serial Crowdfunding, Social Capital, and
Project Success”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): p 183–207.
Byrnes, J.E.K., Ranganathan, J., Walker, B.L.E. and Faulkes, Z. (2014), “To Crowdfund
Research, Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work”, PLoS ONE, 9(12): p 1–30.
Calic, G. and Mosakowski, E. (2016), “Kicking Off Social Entrepreneurship: How A
Sustainability Orientation Influences Crowdfunding Success”, Journal of Management
Studies, 53(5): p 738–767.
Chan, C.S.R. and Parhankangas, A. (2017), “Crowdfunding Innovative Ideas: How Incremental
and Radical Innovativeness Influence Funding Outcomes”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 41(2): p 237–263.
Chen, S., Thomas, S. and Kohli, C. (2016), “What Really Makes a Promotional Campaign
Succeed on a Crowdfunding Platform?”, Journal of Advertising Research, 56(1): p 81–94.
Cholakova, M. and Clarysse, B. (2015), “Does the Possibility to Make Equity Investments in
Crowdfunding Projects Crowd Out Reward-Based Investments?”, Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice, 39(1): p 145–172.
Choy, K. and Schlagwein, D. (2016), “Crowdsourcing for a better world. On the relation
between IT affordances and donor motivations in chartable crowdfunding”, Information
Technology & People, 19(1): p 221–247.
Ciuchta, M.P., Letwin, C., Stevenson R.M. and McMahon, S.R. (2016), “Regulatory Focus and
Information Cues in a Crowdfunding Context”, Applied Psychology, 65(3): p 490–514.
Colombo, M.G., Franzoni, C. and Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015), “Internal Social Capital and the
Attraction of Early Contributions in Crowdfunding”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 39(1): p 75–100.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures
for Developing Grounded Theory, London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Courtney, C., Dutta, S. and Li, Y. (2017), “Resolving Information Asymmetry: Signaling ,
Endorsement, and Crowdfunding Success”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): p
265–290.
Crowdsourcing.org (2015), “Global Crowdfunding Market to Reach $34.4B in 2015, Predicts
Massolution’s 2015CF Industry Report”, Available from:
http://reports.crowdsourcing.org/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=54.
Farnel, M. (2015), “Kickstarting trans*: The crowdfunding of gender/sexual reassignment
surgeries”, New Media & Society, 17(2): p 215–230.
Fondevila-Gascón, J.-F., Rom-Rodríguez, J., Mata-Monforte, J., Santana-López, E. and Masip-
Masip, P. (2015), “Crowdfunding As a Formula for the Financing of Projects: An
Empirical Analysis”, Revista Cientifica Hermes, 14: p 24–47.
Frydrych, D., Bock, A.J., Kinder, T. and Koeck, B. (2014), “Exploring entrepreneurial
legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding”, Venture Capital, 16(3): p 247–269.
Galuszka, P. and Brzozowska, B. (2016), “Early career artists and the exchange of gifts on a
crowdfunding platform”, Continuum, 30(6): p 744–753.
Gerber, E.M. and Hui, J. (2013), “Crowdfunding: Motivations and Deterrents for Participation”,
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(6) p 34:1-34:32.
Ghezzi, A., Gabelloni, D., Martini, A. and Natalicchio, A. (2017), “Crowdsourcing: A Review
and Suggestions for Future Research”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
forthcoming. First published online: 19 January 2017, doi:10.1111/ijmr.12135.
Hills, M. (2015), “Veronica Mars, fandom, and the ‘Affective Economics’ of crowdfunding
poachers”, New Media & Society, 17(2): p 183–197.
Hobbs, J., Grigore, G. and Molesworth, M. (2016), “Success in the Management of
Crowdfunding Projects in the Creative Industries”, Internet Research, 26(1): p 146–166.
Hu, M., Li, X. and Shi, M. (2015), “Product and Pricing Decisions in Crowdfunding”, Marketing
Science, 34(3): p 331–345.
Hunter, A. (2015), “Crowdfunding independent and freelance journalism: Negotiating
journalistic norms of autonomy and objectivity”, New Media & Society, 17(2): p 272–288.
Hörisch, J. (2015), “Crowdfunding for environmental ventures: An empirical analysis of the
influence of environmental orientation on the success of crowdfunding initiatives”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, 107: p 636–645.
Indiegogo (2016a), “Indiegogo Frequently Asked Questions”, Available from:
https://www.indiegogo.com/how-it-works.
Indiegogo (2016b), “Planning your campaign”, Available from:
https://learn.indiegogo.com/planning-your-campaign-essential-guide/.
Jian, L. and Usher, N. (2014), “Crowd-Funded Journalism”, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 19(2): p 155–170.
Josefy, M., Dean, T.J., Albert, L.S. and Fitza, M.A. (2017), “The Role of Community in
Crowdfunding Success: Evidence on Cultural Attributes in Funding Campaigns to ‘Save the
Local Theater’”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): p 161–182.
Kapipal (2016), ”Kapipal FAQ”, Available from: http://www.kapipal.com/faq.
Kickstarter (2016), ”Kickstarter Creator Handbook”, Available from:
https://www.kickstarter.com/help/handbook (accessed 4 May 2016).
Kim, P.H., Buffart, M. and Croidieu, G. (2016), “TMI: Signaling Credible Claims in
Crowdfunding Campaign Narratives”, Group & Organization Management, 41(6): p 717–
750.
Koçer, S. (2015), “Social business in online financing: Crowdfunding narratives of independent
documentary producers in Turkey”, New Media & Society, 17(2): p 231–248.
Kraus, S., Richter, C., Alexander, B., Cheng, C.-F. and Chang, M.-L. (2016), “Strategies for
reward-based crowdfunding campaigns”, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1: p 13–23.
Lam, P.T.I. and Law, A.O.K. (2016), “Crowdfunding for renewable and sustainable energy
projects: An exploratory case study approach”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
60: p 11–20.
Lehner, O.M. (2014), “The Formation and Interplay of Social Capital in Crowdfunded Social
Ventures”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(5/6): p 478–499.
Leung, M.D. and Sharkey, A.J. (2014), “Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Evidence of Perceptual
Factors in the Multiple-Category Discount”, Organization Science, 25(1): p 171–184.
Liao, C., Zhu, Y. and Liao, X. (2015), “The Role of Internal and External Social Capital in
Crowdfunding: Evidence from China”, Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 49: p
187–204.
Lin, M. and Viswanathan, S. (2016), “Home Bias in Online Investments: An Empirical Study of
an Online Crowdfunding Market”, Management Science, 62(5): p 1393–1414.
Lukkarinen, A., Teich, J.E., Wallenius, H. and Wallenius, J. (2016), “Success drivers of online
equity crowdfunding campaigns”, Decision Support Systems, 87: p 26–38.
Macht, S.A. and Weatherston, J. (2014), “The Benefits of Online Crowdfunding for Fund-
Seeking Business Ventures”; Strategic Change, 23(1-2): p 1–14.
Macht, S.A. and Weatherston, J. (2015), “Academic Research on Crowdfunders: What’s Been
Done and What’s To Come?”, Strategic Change, 24(2): p 191–205.
Meer, J. (2014), “Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online
crowdfunding platform”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 103: p 113–124.
Mendes-Da-Silva, W., Rossoni, L., Conte, B.S., Gattaz, C.C. and Francisco, E.R. (2016), “The
impacts of fundraising periods and geographic distance on financing music production via
crowdfunding in Brazil”, Journal of Cultural Economics, 40(1): p 75–99.
Metrejean, C.T. and McKay, B.A. (2015), “Crowdfunding and income taxes”, Journal of
Accountancy, 220(4): p 44–48.
Mollick, E. (2014), “The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study”, Journal of Business
Venturing, 29(1): p 1–16.
Mollick, E. and Nanda, R. (2016), “Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert
Evaluation in Funding the Arts”, Management Science, 62(6): p 1533–1553.
Moritz, A. and Block, J.H. (2016), “Crowdfunding: A literature review and research directions”,
In: D. Brüntje and O. Gajda, Crowdfunding in Europe: State of the Art in Theory and
Practice, Cham (Switzerland): Springer, p 25–53.
Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M. and Parasuraman, A. (2011), “Crowd-funding: transforming
customers into investors through innovative service platforms”, Journal of Service
Management, 22(4): p 443–470.
Parker, S.C. (2014), “Crowdfunding, cascades and informed investors”, Economics Letters,
125(3): p 432–435.
Pitschner, S. and Pitschner-Finn, S. (2014), “Non-profit differentials in crowd-based financing:
Evidence from 50,000 campaigns”, Economics Letters, 123(3): p 391–394.
Quero, M.J. and Ventura, R. (2015), “The role of balanced centricity in the Spanish creative
industries adopting a crowd-funding organisational model”, Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, 25(2): p 122–139.
Ryu, S. and Kim, Y.-G. (2016), “A typology of crowdfunding sponsors: Birds of a feather flock
together?”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 16: p 43–54.
Saxton, G.D. and Wang, L. (2014), “The Social Network Effect: The Determinants of Giving
Through Social Media”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43: p 850–868.
Scott, S. (2015), “The moral economy of crowdfunding and the transformative capacity of fan-
ancing”, New Media & Society, 17(2): p 167–182.
Short, J.C., Ketchen, D.J. Jr., McKenny, A.F., Allison, T.H. and Ireland, R.D. (2017), “Research
on Crowdfunding: Reviewing the (Very Recent) Past and Celebrating the Present”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): p 149–160.
Skirnevskiy, V., Bendig, D. and Brettel, M. (2017), “The Influence of Internal Social Capital on
Serial Creators’ Success in Crowdfunding”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2): p
209–236.
Stiver, A., Barroca, L. and Minocha, S. (2015), “Civic crowdfunding research: Challenges,
opportunities, and future agenda”, New Media & Society, 17(2): p 249–271.
Thürridl, C. and Kamleitner, B. (2016), “What Goes Around Comes Around?”, California
Management Review, 58(2): p 88–110.
Tirdatov, I. (2014), “Web-Based Crowd Funding: Rhetoric of Success”, Technical
Communication, 61(1): p 3–24.
Van Aken, J., Chandrasekaran, A. and Halman, J. (2016), “Conducting and publishing design
science research Inaugural essay of the design science department of the Journal of
Operations Management”, Journal of Operations Management, 47–48: p 1–8.
Vismara, S. (2016), “Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding”, Small
Business Economics, 46(4): p 579–590.
Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002), “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future writing a
literature review”, MIS Quarterly, 26(2): p 13–23.
Wessel, M., Thies, F. and Benlian, A. (2016), “The emergence and effects of fake social
information: Evidence from crowdfunding”,Decision Support Systems, 90: p 75–85.
Yuan, H., Lau, R.Y.K. and Xu, W. (2016), “The determinants of crowdfunding success: A
semantic text analytics approach”, Decision Support Systems, 91: p 67–76.
Zheng, H., Li, D., Wu, J. and Xu, Y. (2014), “The role of multidimensional social capital in
crowdfunding: A comparative study in China and US”, Information and Management,
51(4): p 488–496.
Zheng, H., Hung, J.-L., Qi, Z. and Xu, B. (2016), “The role of trust management in reward-based
crowdfunding”, Online Information Review, 40(1): p 97–118.
Table 1 List of journals with reviewed articles on crowdfunding performance
Journal
name
Journal
classification
Number
of
reviewed articles
Entrepreneurship
Theory
&
Practice
Business
4
New
Media
&
Society
Communication
4
Decision
Support
Systems
Computer
Science,
Artificial
Intelligence; Computer Science,
Information Systems;
Operations Research &
Management Science
3
Economics
Letters
Economics
2
Information
Systems
Research
Information
Science
&
Library
Science; Management
2
Management
Science
Management;
Operations
Research & Management
Science
2
Acm
Transactions
on
Computer-Human Interaction
Computer
Science,
Cybernetics; Computer
Science, Information Systems
1
Applied
Psychology
-
An
International Review-
Psychologie Appliquee-Revue
Internationale
Psychology,
Applied
1
California
Management
Review
Business;
Management
1
Continuum
-
Journal
of
Media
&
Cultural Studies
Communication;
Cultural
Studies
1
Electronic
Commerce
Research
and Applications
Business;
Computer
Science,
Information Systems; Computer
Science, Interdisciplinary
Applications
1
Entrepreneurship
and
Regional
Development
Business;
Planning
&
Development
1
German
Economic
Review
Economics
1
Group
&
Organization
Management
Management;
Psychology,
Applied
1
Information
&
Management
Computer
Science,
Information
Systems; Information Science
& Library Science;
Management
1
Information
Technology
&
People
Information
Science
&
Library
Science
1
International
Journal
of
Arts
Management
Management
1
Internet
Research
Business;
Computer
Science,
Information Systems;
Telecommunications
1
Journal
of
Advertising
Research
Business;
Communication
1
Journal
of
Business
Venturing
Business
1
Journal
of
Cleaner
Production
Engineering,
Environmental;
Environmental Sciences; Green
& Sustainable Science &
Technology
1
Journal
of
Computer
-
Mediated
Communication
Communication;
Information
Science & Library Science
1
Journal
of
Cultural
Economics
Economics
1
Journal
of
Economic
Behavior
& Organization
Economics
1
Journal
of
Economics
&
Management Strategy
Economics;
Management
1
Journal
of
Innovation
&
Knowledge
n/a
1
Journal
of
Management
Studies
Business;
Management
1
Journal
of
Service
Management
Management
1
Journal
of
Service
Theory
and
Practice
Business;
Management
1
Marketing
Science
Business
1
MIS
Quarterly
Computer
Science,
Information
Systems; Information Science
& Library Science;
Management
1
Nonprofit
and
Voluntary
Sector
Quarterly
Social
Issues
1
Online
Information
Review
Computer
Science,
Information
Systems; Information Science
& Library Science
1
Organiz
ation
Science
Management
1
PLOS
ONE
Multidisiplinary
Sciences
1
Renewable
&
Sustainable
Energy Reviews
Energy
&
Fuels;
Green
&
Sustainable Science &
Technology
1
Revista
Cientifica
Hermes
n/a
1
Revista
De
Cercetare
Si
Interventie Sociala
Social
Work;
Sociology
1
Small
Business
Economics
Business;
Economics;
Management
1
Technical
Communication
Communication
1
Table 2 Temporal distribution of the reviewed articles
year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
publications
1
0
2
14
1
5
19
Table 3 A list of platforms and their home countries in reviewed articles
Name
of
platform
Country
Number
of
studies
Kickstarter
USA
19
Indiegogo
USA
5
ASSOB
Australia
2
Crowdcube
UK
2
Demohour
China
2
Goteo
Spain
2
Kiva
USA
2
prosper.com
USA
2
RocketHub
USA
2
Sellaband
Germany
2
spot.us
USA
2
Verkami
Spain
2
Zhongchou
China
2
Catarse
Brazil
1
Causes
USA
1
Chuffed
Australia
1
CircleUp
USA
1
DonorsChoose.org
USA
1
Dreamore
China
1
Hazloposible
Spain
1
Invesdor
Finland
1
Kapipal
Italy
1
Lanzanos
Spain
1
MegaTotal
Poland
1
SeedMatch
Germany
1
Seedrs
UK
1
Smava
Germany
1
Symbid
Netherlands
1
Thinkable
Australia
1
Trampoline
UK
1
VisionBakery
Germany
1
Worldcoo
Spain
1
Youcaring
USA
1
Table 4 Examples of advice given in selected crowdfunding platforms and related evidence in the
reviewed articles
Advice
Source
A
note
on
research
evidence
Content advice
“Introduce
yourself,
your
team, and any similar work
you’ve done” / “Insert an
accurate description.”
(Kapipal,
2016;
Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
the
evidence
on
the importance of signaling,
and the importance of earlier
projects; the specific
importance of introduction,
earlier work or accuracy not
researched.
“The
more
details,
the
better.
Sketches, samples,
prototypes.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
the
evidence
on
the importance of giving
detailed text description.
“Tell
people
how
you
got
the
idea, and how much you’ve
accomplished so far.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
N
ot
researched
.
“Lay
out
a
clear,
specific
timeline for what backers can
expect… A simple
breakdown lets people know
you’ve thought things
through and have a workable
plan, so they can trust you to
use funds wisely.” / “Create
an infographic to let people
(Indiegogo,
2016b;
Kickstarter, 2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
that
transparency builds trust and
increases probability of
success; the specific impact
of transparency on spending
is not researched.
know
how
you
will
use
the
funds you raise.”
“Estimated
delivery
dates
.
”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
N
ot
researched
.
“Tell
people
why
you’re
passionate about your project
and committed to making it
happen.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
N
ot
researched
.
Visual advice
“Choose
a
great
project
image.” / “Insert a custom
image.”
(Kapipal,
2016;
Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
preparedness, the specific
impact of project image is not
researched.
“Make
a
compelling
video.”
/ “Insert a nice video.”
(Kapipal,
2016;
Kickstarter,
2016)
M
ixed
findings
whether
a
video influences the success.
“Captions,
subtitles,
and
translations help more people
understand what you have to
say and get involved with
your project.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
project-cognition affordances,
the specific impact of
language localization is not
researched.
“Include
gifs,
soundclips,
and
graphs.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
N
ot
researched
.
“Try
to
keep
some
media
items under 5MB so that
they're easily shareable.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
Supported
by
the
evidence
on
the positive influence of
social media activity but the
influence of file sizes is not
researched.
“Offer
copies
of
your
work
in
different formats, from digital
downloads to limited
editions. Consider custom
work and chances to be a part
of the process.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
importance of collaborative
nature of rewards.
Reward advice
“When
people
think
about
backing your project, they’re
asking themselves whether
your rewards are a good trade
for what they’re
contributing.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
findings
on
the
role of price; mixed evidence
as high buyers may act
differently.
“Offer
a
range
of
rewards
.
”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
positive impact of several
reward levels but mixed
results.
Target advice
“Other
entrepreneurs
have
found success by setting a
low goal, which can help
build confidence with backers
early in the campaign.”
(Indiegogo,
2016b)
S
upported
by
evidence
that
lower targets are more likely
to be successful.
“Most
campaigners
that
raise
millions of dollars start by
launching a smaller
campaign, and grow their
audience from there.”
(Indiegogo,
2016b)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
number of crowdfunders and
funds raised above goals
predicting successful future
campaigns.
Campaign
duration
and
sense
of
urgency
advice
“Limited
“early
bird”
rewards, where a certain
number of backers get
something for a slightly lower
pledge, can also help build
momentum during the
project’s early days.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
importance of early
crowdfunders and the
importance of rewards; the
specific effect of “early bird”
rewards not researched.
“C
ampaigns
that
reach
30%
of their goal in the first two
days are much more likely to
exceed their ultimate
crowdfunding goal.”
(Indiegogo,
2016b)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
role of early success to reach
the goal.
“
P
rojects
lasting
30
days
or
fewer have our highest
success rates.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
M
ixed
evidence
on
the
role
of
duration.
Outreach advice
“Prepare
an
outreach
plan.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
importance of early updates;
the specific role of outreach
plan not researched.
“Insert
a
link
to
your
website
and Twitter account.”
(Kapipal,
2016)
S
upported
by
the
evidence
on
the positive influence of
social media activity and
online outreach; more
detailed studies on the use of
social media to support
crowdfunding campaigns still
missing.
“Share
it
[the
project]
on
Facebook, and send out a few
tweets.” / “Share the Kapipal
URL on Facebook, Twitter,
Google+, and other sites.”
(Kapipal,
2016;
Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
positive influence of social
media activity.
“Email
friends
and
family.”
/
“Spread the word among your
friends, and invite them to do
the same.” / “Use email
outreach early and often.”
(Indiegogo,
2016b;
Kapipal,
2016; Kickstarter, 2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
positive influence of email
contacts and online outreach.
“Pitch
the
press.”
/
“A
company's success ultimately
depends on that company
keeping its campaign fresh
and active by releasing
announcements, media or
attachments that will be
uploaded to our Platform.”
(ASSOB,
2016;
Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
influence of contacting
people in the press on success
in crowdfunding research
projects.
“Host
an
event.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
N
ot
researched
.
“Keep
ba
ckers
engaged
through interesting and
shareable updates, and
encourage them to spread the
word about your progress.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
importance of interesting and
shareable updates; the role of
engaged crowdfunders not
researched.
“You
can
use
messages
to
communicate with backers
one-on-one.”
(Kickstarter,
2016)
S
upported
by
evidence
on
the
positive influence of
interacting with the crowd
and reaching most important
backers.
“Link
your
Kapipal
page
from your website or write a
post about it on your blog.”
(Kapipal,
2016)
S
upported
by
th
e
evidence
on
the positive influence of blog
entries and web presence.
Organizational advice
“Build
a
team
to
divide
and
conquer on tasks.”
(Indiegogo,
2016b)
N
ot
resea
rched
.
