communication in crowdfunding: a case study of success · sales video 23 3.1.2. sales page 30 c....
TRANSCRIPT
Carmen Ortega Hernáez
Cristina Olarte Pascual
Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales
Grado en Administración y Dirección de Empresas
2014-2015
Título
Director/es
Facultad
Titulación
Departamento
TRABAJO FIN DE GRADO
Curso Académico
Communication in crowdfunding: a case study of success
Autor/es
© El autor© Universidad de La Rioja, Servicio de Publicaciones, 2015
publicaciones.unirioja.esE-mail: [email protected]
Communication in crowdfunding: a case study of success, trabajo fin de gradode Carmen Ortega Hernáez, dirigido por Cristina Olarte Pascual (publicado por la
Universidad de La Rioja), se difunde bajo una LicenciaCreative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 Unported.
Permisos que vayan más allá de lo cubierto por esta licencia pueden solicitarse a los titulares del copyright.
GRADO
FACUL
O EN ADM
Comm
C
LTAD DE C
TRABA
MINISTRA
municaa case
Autor: DªTutor: Dr
CURSO A
CIENCIAS
AJO FIN DE
ACIÓN Y
ation in study o
ª Carmen Ora. Cristina
ACADÉMI
EMPRESA
E GRADO
Y DIRECC
crowdof succ
Ortega HernáOlarte-Pasc
ICO 2014-
ARIALES
CIÓN DE
fundingess
áez cual
-2015
EMPRES
g:
SAS
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to a number of people who have helped me in the process of writing this paper. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my mentor, Professor Cristina Olarte-Pascual, who has always supported me, not only on the academic regard but also on the personal when I needed it. I also thank Professor Yolanda Sierra for working with Cristina and me as a team at every moment. Finally I acknowledge the people who mean the world to me: my parents and my best friend Jonas. I extend my thanks to some of my friends, especially to Adriana – thank you for keeping us laughing until the end.
“Failure to meet your fundraising goal and the failure of your creative project are two completely different things” (Briggman, 2014).
“Capture their hearts and minds, then their wallets will follow”. Harold Sumption (Burnett, 2012).
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT/RESUMEN5
A. INTRODUCTION5
B.1 THEORETICALFRAMEWORK6
1. CROWDFUNDING 6
1.1. DEFINITION&HISTORY 61.2. MODELS 81.2.1. DONATIONS 91.2.2. REWARDS 91.2.3. LENDING(CROWDLENDING) 101.2.4. EQUITY(CROWDINVESTING) 101.3. MOTIVATIONS 111.3.1. FORPROJECTSOWNERS 111.3.2. FORPROJECTSBACKERS 12
2. COMMUNICATION 13
2.1. FACTORSOFPERSUASION 132.2. ELEMENTSOFCOMMUNICATION 172.2.1. VERBALMESSAGES 172.2.2. NONVERBALMESSAGES 182.2.3. PARAVERBALLANGUAGE 19
B.2 EMPIRICALFRAMEWORK19
1. OBJECTIVES 19
2. METHODOLOGY 20
3. RESULTS 23
3.1. COMMUNICATIONCOMPARISON 233.1.1. SALESVIDEO 233.1.2. SALESPAGE 30C. CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATIONS37
D. REFERENCES43
ANNEXES46ANNEX1:FAILEDCAMPAIGNVIDEOTRANSCRIPT 46ANNEX2:SUCCESSFULCAMPAIGNVIDEOTRANSCRIPT 47ANNEX3:KICKSTARTERPROJECT’STOPPAGEAPPEARANCE 48
4
ABSTRACT
This final degree project explains what crowdfunding is, presents its historical evolution and describes the four existent crowdfunding models. This paper defines the factors of communication which, according to different authors, influence and persuade the receiver in the decision making process. In the empirical part of the paper the two different campaigns launched for funding the The Coolest Cooler project on Kickstarter are compared to one another on the basis of the case study method. Campaign one did not succeed, but campaign two beat the fundraising record of the crowdfunding industry history. The comparison is done on the basis of the persuasive factors listed on the theoretical framework. The aim of the comparative analysis is to test the relevance of the communication strategy for crowdfunding campaigns. The paper concludes emphasizing the importance of building the campaigns around the potential backers, standing out the trust, appeal and emotional aspects. Key words: crowdfunding, financing, communication, Kickstarter, The Coolest Cooler.
RESUMEN
Debido a la crisis económica y financiera muchos emprendedores se ven obligados a recurrir a fuentes de financiación no tradicionales y aprovechar las oportunidades que brinda Internet. El Crowdfunding se puede definir como una actividad online mediante la cual se solicita la aportación de dinero para la realización de un proyecto a cambio de una contraprestación económica, material, de reconocimiento social o de auto-estima. Con el objetivo de estudiar la importancia que tiene la comunicación en la captación de fondos se analiza el caso The Coolest Cooler en la plataforma virtual Kickstarter. Este caso consta de dos campañas, una primera que no consigue la financiación suficiente y la posterior que, alcanzando la cifra de $13,285,226, batió el récord de captación de fondos a través de crowdfunding. Esta comparación se hace en base a los factores de persuasión descritos en la teoría con el fin de probar la importancia de la estrategia de comunicación para la captación de fondos en las plataformas virtuales de crowdfunding. Los resultados muestran la importancia de construir las campañas de crowdfunding basado en recompensas (rewards-based) en torno al potencial contribuyente destacando los aspectos relativos a las emociones y la confianza. Palabras clave: crowdfunding, financiación, comunicación, Kickstarter, The CoolestCooler.
5
A. INTRODUCTION
The economic and financial crisis has made the financing challenge increasingly difficult for current ambitious entrepreneurs. While traditional investors were not providing financing to small but aspiring startups, a new form of financing was emerging from the crowd’s side. The improvement of the world wide web added to this economic and financial disaster generated the perfect breeding ground for the emergence of crowdfunding (Schwienbacher & Lambert, 2010).
Crowdfunding is, as defined by Schwienbacher and Larralde (2010), “an open call, essentially through the Internet, for the provision of financial resources either in form of donation or in exchange for some form of reward and/or voting rights in order to support initiatives for specific purposes”.
This new way of raising funds has found its way into the existent fundraising staus quo. It is currently becoming a huge industry that makes possible bringing to life projects that were too risky of crazy for the traditional ways.
This paper defines and analyzes crowdfunding as a fundraising method, presents its history and describes the four existent models that currently exist.
This paper also presents a set of factors that according to the literarture influence and persuade people’s actions. On the empirical part of this writing these factors are tested in the context of the communication strategy of crowdfunding camapaigns.
The Coolest Cooler is the project analyzed on the empirical framework. This project became the record-breaking Kicksarter campaign by getting a total plegded amount of $13,285,226. But what makes this more interesting is that another campaign trying to fund this project was launched before and it did not even met its fundind goal of $125,000. As the same product was launched at both campaigns, the paper focuses on how the communication strategy made the project move from unfunded to record-breaking. The objective is to develop guidelines from the achieved results that will serve to coming entrepreneurs and startups.
1. C
1
F
S
T“fr TmPd ObIn
Aeos
TMbthg It
CROWDFU
1.1. DEFINIT
Figure 1: Ev
Source: Own e
The two-wo“the practicefrom a large
The earliest method wasPulitzer whodonation a sp
On the otherbetween the nternet (Bla
As defined essentially thof donation upport initi
The first onlMarillion mband. The che band in
goals (Sawe
t was in 200
B.1
UNDING
TION & HI
volution of
elaboration
ords term cre of fundinge number of
and one of s the constro published ponsoring r
r hand, the tone-word t
asingame, 2
by Schwienhrough the or in exchaatives for sp
line crowfumade use of
ampaign suconcert. Thrs, 2014).
01 when the
1 TH
STORY
crowdfundi
owd fundingg a venture of people” (Pr
the most wruction of athe project
reward (Kaz
term crowdfterm and the2014).
nbacher andInternet, foange for sompecific purp
unding campf the e-mail ucceded raishe power o
e first crow
HEORETICA
ing over tim
ng has been or project brive, 2012).
well-known a pedestal ft on his ownzmark, 2013
funding is ae two-word
d Larraldeor the provisme form ofposes”.
paign took pand online
sing about $f Internet w
wdfunding pl
AL FRAME
me
around for by raising m.
and ambitiofor the Statun newspape3).
a relatively none is that
(2010), crosion of finanf reward an
place in 199e forums to$60,000 andwas proven
latform, Art
EWORK
centuries. Imany small a
ous projectsue of Liberr offering fo
new one. Ththe latter is
owdfunding ncial resourd/or voting
97 when theo finance thd the fans wto unite pe
tistShare, w
It is, by defiamounts of
s funded usirty. It was
for each one
he only diffs conducted
g is “an operces either i
g rights in o
he fans of thhe U.S tour were able toeople for co
was establish
6
finition, money
ing this Joseph
e-dollar
ference on the
en call, in form order to
he band of the
o enjoy ommon
hed but
7
it was not until 2006 when the term crowdfunding was first publicly recorded from the words of Fundavlog's founder (Schroter, 2014). Note that crowdfunding is always operated online but it can be conducted on a platform or on the projects owner’s own initiative. We have mentioned the World Wide Web as one of the triggers that helped crowdfunding's development. It played the key role of facilitating access to the ‘crowd’ (Schwienbacher & Lambert, 2010). The WWW enables the inexpensive distribution of information to the people as well as the interaction with them. As identified by Lee, De Wester and Park (2008), there are three attributes of the Web that contribute to the enhancement of entrepreneurs’ practice: openness, collaboration, and participation.
The other important trigger that helped the development of the crowdfunding industry was the economic and financial crisis. Within the framework of the entrepreneurs’ failing attempts to obtain loans from banks, support from venture capital funds or from business angels the concept crowdsourcing emerged. “Crowdsourcing takes place when a profit oriented firm outsources specific tasks essential for the making or sale of its product to the general public (the crowd) in the form of an open call over the Internet” (Kleeman, Voss, & Rieder, 2008).In crowdfunding campaigns, individuals can voluntarily support the development of a product/sevice or support a cause providing input in the form of financial support instead of tasks. Both crowdsourcing and crowdfunding use online social communities to provide resources to enterprises. There is much of a social element in the development and growth of the crowdfunding industry. The increasing curiosity generated by crowdfunding can be graphically reflected through data from Google Trends (Figure 2). Google Trends is a public web tool of Google Inc. and it is based on Google Search. The tool reflects how often a specific term is searched in relation to the total search-volume. The term can be filtered by region or city of the world and in diverse languages (Adams, 2014).
As the Figure 2 illustrates, the general interest towards crowdfunding has been increasing sharply since 2010 and it is expected to keep doing so. The three countries that lead the rank are The Netherlands, Spain and Austria; the top two curious cities are Berlin and Barcelona (Google Trends, 2015). It must be noted that the US does not appear in the ranking since the discussed term is more known there and does not cause as much confusion and curiosity as it still does in Europe.
F
S
Ta1 T
1
C(BdT
F
S
Figure 2: G
Source: Googl
The evolutioan interestin1).
Table 1: E
1.2. MODEL
Currently, thBarabas, 20
donors, backThey are dif
Figure 3: Cr
Source: Own e
eneral inter
e Trends 2015
on of the mong picture o
Evolution o
LS
here are fou012), each kers or fundfferent indus
rowdfundin
elaboration
rest on crow
5
oney raisedof the incre
f the mon
Source: Ra
ur different of which
ders. They stries brand
ng models
wdfunding o
d in crowdfuasing impo
ney raised
amos & Stewa
models of providing all have di
ded under th
over time
unding platfortance of th
in crowdfu
art, 2014
crowdfundidifferent befferent char
he same nam
forms worlwhis fundrais
unding plat
ing as waysenefits to tracteristics,
me (Hemer,
wide also prsing option
tforms wor
s for raisingthe corresp, goals and 2011).
8
rovides (Table
rldwide
g funds onding actors.
F F
S
Figure 4 rep
Figure 4: Im
Source: Own e
1.2.1. D
An indivowes thealtruisticThese rea symbolbe financ
1.2.2. R
There armodel: smoment
SPON
Theexchthe ffundback
PRE‐
13%
15
presents a br
mportance b
elaboration ba
Donations
vidual prove funder thec nature, buewards are olic value forcial.
Rewards
re three diffsponsoring,this model
NSORING
sponsorinhangeforthfunding caders appeaked.
‐SELLING
29%
43%
5%
reakdown by
by model of
sed on Masso
ides fundine proper reaut some kinoften inexper the funded
ferent system pre-sellingis the most
ng systemheireconomampaign sur on the c
%
y model of
f platform ov
olution, 2013.
ng to a projalization of nd of compensive itemsd project (In
ms includedg and simpused out of
targets comiccontribucceds. Thecredits of t
Donation‐bas
Reward‐base
Lending‐base
Equity‐based
platform.
ver the total
ect and thethe plan. Bpensation fs advertisinnvesdor, 20
d under the ple rewardinf the four ex
orporationbutionwoue most comthe movie,
sed
ed
ed
d
l
e founder oBy definitionfor the dong the projec14). Those r
rewards-bang (Invesdoxisting ones
ns and indldreceivepmmon exa video‐gam
of the projecn, a donatio
nators is coct or presenrewards can
ased crowdfdor, 2014). s.
dividuals tpublicvisibample is thme or boo
9
ct only on is of mmon.
nts with n never
funding At the
that inbilityifhat thek they
10
In the pre-selling method the individual ‘buys’ the product form the project's owner before it has been produced. This method is beneficial for both sides. On the one hand, the founders of the project get to now that there is an offset market for the product. On the other hand, the contributors get the product before and usually at a lower price than (the rest of) the market.
PUREREWARDS
The pure reward-based crowdfunding model refers to the projects in which the backers pledge their money for a reward from the campaign founder. The owner thanks the funders with gifts that are almost always related to the funded plan. The rewards differ depending on the amount of capital being pledged - the higher the contribution, the better the reward - stimulating backers to contribute with higher amounts of money. The pledge-reward relation is organized in stages. As in the case of the donations, those rewards can never be financial.
1.2.3. Lending (Crowdlending)
Lenders give a loan to the project owner, who will pay it back over time with a set interest rate. This is the least common model out of the four.
1.2.4. Equity (Crowdinvesting)
This system allows companies to sell shares online to investors so they get a financial return on their investment depending on the project's performance. It is the only crowdfunding model that offers the backers – actual investors under the equity-based model – to actively participate in the project, making them able to vote for product's attributes or even working for the company (Schwienbacher & Larralde, 2010). The equity-based model, often defined as crowdinvesting, is a tool to raise money that can only be used by businesses and not by individuals. It only became legal in the United States by the pass of the JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) Act on April 5, 2012 by the US Government (Prive, 2012). The Act's intention was to foster funding for small businesses by permitting to the general public to get company’s equity for their investments. The equity-based model is the most administratively complex of this industry (Dellorso, 2014).
1
Breo
1.3. MOTIV
Both sides oeasons to b
online fundr
1.3.1. F
Figure 5
Source: Ow
The mos
money (financingtraditiononline ca Getting
project (Schwiencan be aservice b
The thirdobtainingOn almoprojects’itself wh
The last reflect tha benefic2010). T
VATIONS
of the crowde part of th
raising mech
or project o
5: Project ow
wn elaboratio
st common
(Willems, 2g for businal funding an be advan
public atte
funder to nbacher &
a powerful mby making it
d most relevg feedback ost every pl’ posting paho decides if
two mentiohe importancial two-waThe campai
dfunding eqe Crowdfunhanism are
owners
wners’ moti
n
n motivatio
2013). Thisness ventureinstitutions
negeous in s
ention is co
place aLambert, 2marketing tt reachable
vant factor from potenatform it isage. If the pf leaving op
oned factorsnce of beingay informatiign owners
quation, projnding platfoseparately d
ivations to f
on for a pr
s way of res that are s or investosome other w
onsidered th
project on2010). Postitool to raiseby millions
according tntial customs posible foproject is n
pinions is or
s, getting atg able to tesion flow (Bes gather in
ject creatorsorms. Their defined belo
fundraise vi
roject found
aising capiconsidered
ors (Prive, 2ways.
he second m
nline, wheting projectse public aws of viewers
to Schwienbmers about th
r the viewenot posted or is not poss
ttention andst the projecelleflamme,formation a
s and pledgreasons to
ow.
ia crowdfun
der to crow
tal is a subd too risky 2012). But
most relevan
ter on a s on crowdf
wareness abos.
bacher and Lhe product oers to leave on a platforsible.
d feedback cts in a pub, Lambert, &about the p
gers, have diparticipate
nding platfo
wdfund is
bstitute souy or crazy
posting a
nt motivatio
platform ofunding plaout the prod
Lambert (2or service ocomments
rm it is the
from the viblic setting. & Schwienbperception
11
ifferent on this
orms
raising
urce of for the project
on for a
or not atforms duct or
010) is offered.
on the owner
iewers, This is bacher, of the
product potentialexpectatiproduct o
1.3.2. F
Figure 6
Source: Ow
One of twith theinterests belief, inbackers Pim Betiplatform
of a com
with the Accordinabout sobook A Smotivatemotivati
- - p- th
Other es
project. financed
or service bl customers ion, spreadior service.
or project b
6: Backers’
wn elaboratio
the essentiaeir money i
and goals. nterest, or p(Stengel, 20
ist, a crowdms, supports
mmunity, si
initiative (W
ng to Lamocial reputatSnapshot ine crowdfunons are the IdentificatiSatisfactio
preferences. Gratificatio
he contribut
ssential fun
The return d and its rew
by the markare willing
ing informa
backers
motivations
n
al motivatiois the senseThe motiva
passion wit014).
dfunding exthe idea th
ince they ac
Willems, 20
bert & Schtion and enj
n Crowdfundnders other
following:ion feeling oon from bei
on from thetion to an im
nder's motiv
would diffwards system
ket. They alg to pay. At ation and inc
s to pledge
ons that moe of belongation is theth the proje
xpert and crhat individu
ctually are, a
013).
hwienbachenjoy taking pding, Heme
than the p
of the backeing and fee
e accomplimportant so
vation is th
ffer dependim (Willems,
lso get infothe same ti
creasing con
projects on
ove individuging to a g feeling of ect’s creato
reator of onals fund pro
and thus the
er (2010), cpart in the
er (2011) naphysical co
ers with theeling part o
shment of tcial mission
he return th
ing on the , 2013).
rmation aboime, the camnsumer awa
crowdfund
uals to contgroup of peaffinity driv
or and with
e of the oldojects becau
ey have a pe
crowdfundesuccess of
ames a numompensation
project's fuof a commu
the backed n.
hey will ge
type of pro
out how mumpaign is careness arou
ding platform
tribute to people with ven by a co
h the other
dest crowdfuse they fee
ersonal conn
ers are conthe project.
mber of factons. Among
under and itunity with
project an
et for backi
oject that is
12
uch the reating und the
ms
projects shared
ommon project
funding el part
nection
ncerned . In his ors that g those
s goal. shared
d from
ing the
s being
13
On his master's thesis research, Harms (2007) studied the incentives that moved potential project donors to actually participate in the financing. He classified those intentions to participate in a crowdfunding project into five value categories and tested them. The value categories are the following: financial, functional, social, epistemic and emotional. His conclusion was that gaining economic value was one of the driving forces with the strongest significance.
The motivations of the funders have been studied from a geographic perspective too (Agrawal, Catalini & Goldfarb, 2011). According to the study's results, funders are not more concerned with projects created geographically closer to them but they do show differences in their funding criteria. The distant funders’ motivation to contribute with a project will grow when its funding goal is not far from being reached. For local funders, the funding goal percentage already being reached does not affect their aim to fund a project.
2. COMMUNICATION
2.1. FACTORS OF PERSUASION
As supported by Etan Mollick in his article The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study (2013), the most relevant factor that determines a project success depends on the nature of projects themselves. The potential funders evaluate the quality of the product/service, the project owner and team, and the likelihood of success. We consider now this affirmation supported by crowdfunding experts: “failure to meet your fundraising goal and the failure of your creative project are two completely different things” (Briggman, 2014). So, leaving aside the essence of the projects themselves, communication is what determines whether fundraising goals will be reached. This paper’s section provides a theoretical basis on the elements of communication that affect individuals on their engagement to fund crowdfunding projects –main focus on rewards-based model.
“Capture their hearts and minds, then their wallets will follow”, Harold Sumption (Burnett, 2012).
This quote is the basis of emotional marketing. Harold Sumption is the founder of the International Fundraising Congress. He supports the idea that funders need an emotionally constraining motivation to engage and it will be later when they will look for a logical rationalization to underpin their emotional move (Burnett, 2012).
TaDcgp(D Fhww FCcpto
S
TofiT
F
The emotionand the hippDamasio supconsidered tgood also rpropensity oDamasio, 2
Further analhave a greatwith the facwork of diff
First, we devChristophe Mcharge of taparticular aco incite this
Self‐centere
The fundraiowner, indivfinanced. ThThis is becau
Figure7:F
ns are creatpocamus arepported, boto be thoughregulates oof the peopl003).
lysis is reqter influenc
ctors that wferent author
voted our aMorin. Accaking actionction (i.e. fus 'old brain'.
ed
sing campavidual or orhe focal poiuse the 'old
undraising
ted in our me in charge ody and minhts that prod
our emotionle giving fu
quired to unce on the poould raise trs for its de
attention toording to thns (2007).
unding your
aign appealrganization, nt of the crobrain' is sel
gfactors
minds, in ceof controlli
nd are irretrduce responns. Emotionunds, leavin
nderstand wotential donthe fundrais
evelopment.
the book Nhese authorsSo, if one
r project) yo
l has to be is just the
rowdfundinglfish and on
ertain parts ng our emo
rievably connses in our bns drive m
ng aside the
which the fanor's mind. sing appeal
Neuromarkes the 'old brwants to e
ou have to c
about the means usedg campaignnly cares ab
of our brainotional memnnected (20bodies and
more than ae factor of d
actors and The follow(Figure 7)
ting by Patrrain' is the pengage indiconsider the
potential dd to achieve
drive thus out itself.
ns: the amymories. As A003). Emotio
feeling phyanything eldisposable i
emotions awing is a ch. I focused
rick Renvoipart of the bividuals to
e following
donor. The e the goal ohas to be b
14
ygdalas Antonio ons are ysically lse the income
are that hecklist
on the
ise and brain in
take a stimuli
project f being ackers.
15
Source:OwnelaborationbasedonRenvoise&Morin,2007andCialdini,1987.
Contrast
Neuroscientists state that novelty awakes the rewards centre of our brains (Dooley, 2012). Consumers are novelty-seekers and we find new products or services attractive. According to Dr. Bianca Wittman, our attraction for new things comes from the release of dopamine, the neurotransmitter that is released when an innovative decision is taken (Wittmann, Daw, Seymour, & Raymond, 2008).
Tangibility
The old brain prefers tangible concepts over abstract ones. It prefers ideas that are simple and concrete (Georges, Bayle-Tourtoulou, & Badoc, 2014). Studies have concluded that there is a positive correlation with tangibility and generosity (Cryder & Loewenstein , 2011). Potential backers are more likely to fund a project when they are given concrete information about how their money will be used to make a difference. Tangibility increases the perception that one’s involvement will make a difference. Furthermore, tangibility deepens the emotional receptivity.
Beginning and ending
Our old brain puts more interest on what appears at beginnings and endings so it is on those parts of the speech, video, or text where the key information should be stated.
In marketing it is essential to leave a mighty first impression for the message to be approved (Corcoran, 2014). The first impression becomes the filter for how what is to follow is going to be perceived. It is interesting to mention here the results achieved by Kahneman and Redelmeier in their study Memories of Colonoscopy: A randomized trial (2002). According to them, in the majority of life’s aspects we tend to ingnore most concrete moments, disregard its total duration and overvalue the final. The following graphs are the result of their study. Patient B, disregarding the duration of the intervention, remembered it as less painful as patient A did as the latter’s intervention ended with higher pain intensity. This is relevant in the context of marketing and crowdfunding because consumers will have the tendency to remember the impression left by the ending of a video or an ad, as opposed to the impression the middle part left on them. Figure8:MemoriesofColonoscopypainintensity
S
V
VbW
Tc
E
Itegw
SP
S
Pod
L
Inpdth
Source:Everts
Visual estim
Visual stimubrain responWords are in
The core meconnection w
Emotions
t has been
emotions anget people twith the cam
Secondly, wPersuasion (
Social proof
People are lother similardo it as well
Liking
ndividuals
process potedepends on hrough a vi
s, 2012
muli: one im
ulation is kends rapidly n the new br
essage shouwith the pot
n proven bnd then theyto take acti
mpaign.
we focus ou(1987), wer
f
likely to takr individual.
are more liential fundethe particuldeo. Physic
mage reveals
ey in gettingto visual curain’s doma
uld be delivetential backe
y research y try to juston (i.e. pro
ur attentionre he identif
ke their leals are suppo
ikely to sayrs consider lar person wcal appearan
s more than
g people’s aues or physain and are t
ered visuallers.
that indivtify them raovide financ
n to Cialdinfied several
ad from othorting a part
y yes to pewhich kind
who communce and clot
n a thousan
attention ansiology, nottrivial in bu
ly to strengt
viduals makationally (Rcing) their
ni’s book In'weapons o
hers. If the ticular camp
eople they d of firm or unicates the thing are im
nd words.
nd engagemt to words
uying/backin
then the em
ke decisionRenvoise &
emotions sh
nfluence: Tof influence'
potential bpaign, they
like. In theindividul amessage is
mportant fact
ment. Our pr(Corcoran, ng process.
motional and
ns based onMorin, 200hould be en
The Psychol'.
backers knoare more li
e decision masks for funds, especiallytors.
16
imitive 2014).
d brand
n their 07). To ngaged
logy of
ow that kely to
making ding. It
y if it is
A
Itecja
S
Poe
2
Cm
F
Authority
t is import
experts on thconcrete lanargon since
Scarcity and
People like others wouldelse.
2.2. ELEME
Communicamessages an
Figure9:T
Source:O
2.2.1. V
The wor
tant for thehe concerne
nguage, be s it could lim
d exclusivity
to feel sped have a cer
NTS OF CO
ation is mand paraverba
heelement
wnelaborati
Verbal mess
rds we cho
e viewers/lied area and specific andmit the unde
y
ecial. They rtain produc
OMMUNICA
ade up of al messages
tsofcomm
onbasedonW
sages
oose and o
isteners/readknows wha
d provide deerstanding.
like the feect or benefi
ATION
three coms (MVC, 20
munication
Windle&Wa
our use of
ders that that he/she is etails but no
eling of exit or getting
mponents: v013) (Windle
arren,2014a
the langua
he founderstalking abo
ot falling int
clusivenessg that produc
verbal mese & Warren
ndMVC,201
age are key
s come acrout. It is keynto using too
s it gives thuct before an
ssages, nonn, 2014).
13.
ey in the k
17
ross as y to use o much
hat few nybody
nverbal
kind of
18
communicative ambience we are creating (Windle & Warren, 2014). The connotations associated with the chosen words affect the mindset of the listener. The message must be brief, concise and organized. The information must be relevant. The speaker must choose the vocabulary of the speech depending on the receptor. Jargon should be avoided; the message has to be easy to understand for the listener. “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler” (Einstein).
2.2.2. Nonverbal messages
The nonverbal messages are the ones we send through our body language: facial expression, gestures, body posture, and the spacial distance. When we are communicating, our bodies are transmitting a message that is as powerful as the words we are saying (MVC, 2013). As stated in the book Silent Messages (1971) by Professor Albert Mehrabian, nonverbal communication accounts for 55% of what others perceive and understand from our message. We always communicate through our body language; we cannot avoid it. It is through nonverbal messages that we communicate our emotions. Although we know now that these percentages are not true in every situation, what Mehrabian’s study demonstrates is that body language is an essential part of our interaction and communication with others (MVC, 2013).
Facial expression
The face is the most expressive part of our bodies. It is the conveyor that transports our emotional information to the outside world. The eyes are especially revealing; they are the windows to the soul. Through the face we often give away our emotions before we say how we feel (Windle & Warren, 2014). In business conversations it is essential to keep our facial expressions positive; a natural smile helps the other speaker to relax. Eye contact it is a good way to show that you are listening and interested in what they are saying. Smiles, frowns, a raised eyebrow o to chew one’s lips are examples of facial expression on the speaker that mean different feeling and thoughts (MVC, 2013).
Postures and gestures
The posture of our body can create a feeling of rejection or openness. Negative body language causes a negative impact and constrains progress. The way of standing, sitting or the position of the legs, arms, feet and hands talk about the speaker’s personality and state of mind (MVC, 2013).
19
2.2.3. Paraverbal language: It is how we say something, not what we say.
Paraverbal language is how we say something, not what we say and it is transmitted through the tone, pitch and pacing of our voices (MVC, 2013). According to Professor Mehrabian (1971) it about 38% of what others perceive and understand from the message. Paraverbal language is so important because the way things are said can change their meaning.
The Pitch
Pitch can be defined as the key of the voice; it is the vibration’s rate of the vocal folds (MVC, 2013) (Reiman, 2013). As this rate changes, the sound of the voice varies; the more vibrations the higer the voice will sound. To keep the listener interested it is important to vary the pitch of the voice.
The Speed
The speed at which you speak affects the ability to communicate. It is important to communicate the message at a moderate pace because it would be easier to understand for the listener and it helps him/her to focus on the information.
The Tone
Tone refers to the combination of different pitches to produce a frame of mind. Speed can also produce an effect on your tone.
B.2 EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK
1. OBJECTIVES The following comparative analysis aims to reaffirm the power of communication in business, especially when seeking for financing. The study aims to check which factors of the communication strategy of a rewards- based crowdfunding campaign would move it from failed to successful. It is expected that the conclusions reached can serve as guidelines for communication strategies of upcoming fundraising attempts, particulartly for rewards-based crowdfunding campaigns and the, maybe necessary, re-launches.
20
2. METHODOLOGY
We adopted a qualitative approach, since it is the suggested to examine a circumstance about which little is known. The qualitative methodoloy, versus probability sampling, eases the deliberated selection of those cases that are considered as crucial in order to evaluate a theory (Carazo, 2006). The methodoly adopted is the case study method, one of the tyoes of the qualitative approach. The case study method emphasizes not only on the construction of new theories but also incorporates existent theories, which reveals a mixture of induction and deduction. The contemporary case study method is conceibed as a reserach strategy with the aim of understanding the current dynamics in specific contexts (Carazo, 2006). The matter of generalizing from the study of a particular case study is not a statistical generalization but an analytical one: it uses the results of a case study or several ones to illustrate or generalize a theory. The credibility of the conclusions obtained from a case study relies on the quality of the conducted investigation and on the objectivity of the researcher on investigation’s elaboration (Carazo, 2006). The empirical part of this report focuses on making a comparative analysis of the communication of two crowdfunding campaigns. For making this comparison we have considered two campaigns on the platform Kickstarter from the same project: an initially unfunded campaign and its improved mega-successful re-launch. We are talking about The Coolest Cooler, a project hunting for funds on Kickstarter. After the failure of his first attempt, Ryan Grepper, the product creator, did not surrender but launched the highest funded Kickstarter so far, at $13,285,226. (See Annex 3 for as Kickstarter project page overview) For each of the campaigns the sales video and the sales page are are separately analyzed.
The sales video analysis includes a study of the scripts and of the film content. This film content analizes comparatively each of the product features.
On the sales page analysis section the structure followed for the incorporation of each part of the sales page elements is analyzed. The sales page contents is discussed, especially the differences on the rewards and the insertion of FAQs on the campaign two.
All the images that appear throughout this paper have been retrieved from Kickstarter. The URLs of both two campaigns are provided in Table 2. Both campaigns launched for the The Coolest Cooler project are classified on the basis of the criteria exposed on section 1 of the theoretical framework section on Table 10.
Figu
Sourc
Mr. GcooleCool Wheendepolic Half cooleat thefor.
ure10:The
ce:Ownelabo
Grepper neeer prototypelest.
n campaignd up just g
cy Ryan Gre
f a year lateer communie end of the
eCoolestcla
oration
eded moneye, and it w
n one was lgetting an 8eeper did no
er (8/Jul/20ication strate funding p
assification
y for a largewas not a co
aunched (21.75% of thot get a penn
14), our entegy. His ne
period of 54
ninbaseof
er-scale maonventional
6/Nov/2013hat amountny from ple
ntrepreneur ewly set fun4 days, he g
thetheore
anufacturingl cooler, wh
3) it set a fu. Due to th
edges.
re-launchednding goal wgot the 26,5
ticalframe
g and markehich is why
unding goale ‘all-or-no
d his defeatwas $50,00070% of wh
ework
et launchingy he named
l of $125,0othing’ Kick
ted project 0. To his su
hat he was l
21
g of his d it the
00, but kstarter
with a urprise, ooking
Tabl
F
Ple
(al
UN
This coolecommanalyCoolGrepsafetstora The winteits laa coo
le2: Techn
TECHNICINFORMA
Name
LaunchingFunding deProject dur
Funding gPledged m
edged monethe fundingMoney obt
ll-or-nothingResult
NITS OF AN
Elements st
paper focuers are nomunication ysis, we melest has a mpper’s wordty matters. Iage for plate
seasonality er (Northern
aunch duringoler during t
nical inform
CAL ATION
e
g date adline ration goal
money y % over g goal tained g policy) t
NALYSIS
tudied
uses on the cot exactly
comparisoention themmodern vin
ds (GrepperIn addition es and a kni
is a relevann Hemispheg summer. Uthe time of
mation of the
The CooBlender, M
26/ No
26/ De
$
$
(
U
Sales videohttps://www.kick
epper/the-coomusic-and-so
Video scriSales pa
contents an
communicaalike, their
on executionm here for tntage look r, 2014). It to the origife, wider w
nt factor onere). The suUndoubtedlthe year it c
e two campa
olest: Cooler Music and So
More ovember/ 20
ecember/ 201
31 days
$125,000
$102,188
81.75% (<100%)
$0
Unfunded
o 1 and sales kstarter.com/proj
olest-cooler-with-o-much?ref=nav_
ript, video coage organizatnd offered re
ation strategr differencn. Altoughthe readers’for a mordoes not i
inal featureswheels, and a
n this analyuccess of thly, the readecould be enj
aigns and un
with o Much
13
13
page 1ects/ryangrblender-_search
Shttp
er
ontent. tion, ewards.
Vp
gy of both cces are noth disregardi’ knowledgre targeted include the s, the new va USB charg
ysis. Campahe second cers would bjoyed.
nits for its a
COOLES21st Centu
Actua8/ Ju
30/ Au
5
$5
$13
26(>
$13
F
Sales video 2ps://www.kickstarr/coolest-cooler-2
actually?
ideo script, vpage organiza
offere
campaigns. t being coing their dige: the seco
marketing optional g
version alsoger.
ign one wacampaign is be more incl
analysis
ST COOLERury Cooler thally Cooler uly/ 2014
ugust/ 2014
52 days
50,000
3,285,226
6,570% >100%)
3,285,226
Funded
2 and sales prter.com/projects21st-century-cool?ref=nav_search video contenation, contened rewards.
Even thougonsidered fifferences f
ond version approach,
grill option o included b
as launched s greatly rellined to pled
22
R: hat's
page 2
s/ryangreppler-thats-
nt. Sales nts and
gh both for the for the of the as per due to
built-in
during lated to dge for
23
While being aware of the power of networking for the success of crowdfunding plans, this report is not analyzing off-site information. This study is based on data taken exclusively from Kickstarter. Nevertheless, some interesting facts about the social networks used by The Coolest team are mentioned in this paper.
3. RESULTS
3.1. COMMUNICATION COMPARISON
This comparison deals with the fundraising factors (Figure 7) affected by every communication amendment in the second campaign, in order to more clearly show the link between the theoretical and empirical parts of this writing.
3.1.1. Sales video
Firstly, it is important to mention specifics about the video: length and quality. Video one is an unprofessionally produced video with a duration of three minutes and thirtysix seconds. Video two was professionally produced and it is three minutes and twentyone seconds long. The fifteen-seconds reduction of the video can be considered as not connected to the intentions of this paper. Contrarily, the professional latests video production changed the viewers’ perception of the project and it is here considered as key for the huge campaign success. The improvement of the video’s quality was related to the later success of the campaign. In the following subdivision we have analyzed the video script and content.
3.1.1.1. Script (verbal message)
Ryan Grepper, the creator of the Coolest was the speaker on the sales video for both launched campaigns. The complete transcription of his speeches for each video can be found on Annexes 1 and 2.
Video one begins highlighting the only thing that regular coolers do, and the only thing people would expect them to do: keep the drinks cold. Contrarily, video two is telling us why normal coolers are not as suitable for their function as they could: boring, unresisting and annoying to carry. When describing regular coolers they have moved from saying that they do just what they are supposed to do, to say why they are annoying for the user. They are letting the viewer see that there is room for improvement.
24
Furthermore, they should be built in a way that when you are going out to have fun, they are not becoming a pain for the user. Then, the features description started with the built-in blender. The blender description is pretty much identical on both sales videos. They improved the content by the addition in campaign number two of the benefits you can obtain from it: “You’re already carrying around a cooler full of ice and tasty beverages, why not blend them up and become a summer time hero anytime, anywhere”. The Coolest team was then focusing on selling the benefits you can get from having a blender than on the feature itself. The introduction of the removable Bluetooth speaker follows. The number two continued maintaining the fun-oriented tone of the speech: “And what is a party without music?” It also alludes to the comfort of being able to use the speaker from 30 feet away. One does not want to leave the conversation with friends to go to the cooler to fix the music. It is, again, about fun, good company and comfort. On the other side, number one says that regular coolers do not have an option for integrated speakers. Then the successful campaign video goes with the presentation of the waterproof USB charger, which did not exist in the original cooler. By saying: “maybe you have an iPhone and wanna use it after two in the afternoon”, they got closer to the viewer by taking an everyday-problem we all have (and that gets even worse when outdoors), low battery, and making fun of it while giving a solution. The built-into-the-lid lights are next. The successful video keeps the festive ambiance up: “The party doesn’t stop just because the sun goes down and you shouldn’t have to freeze your fingers searching endlessly for your favorite drink.” The last comparable attribute is the bottle-opener. It is introduced in a very different way in both videos. It changed from “And is it too much to ask that a cooler comes with a bottle-opener?” to “And, how many hours of your life have you lost looking for a bottle-opener?” For the re-launched campaign is not just focusing on the feature itself anymore, but underlining why it is useful for the listener: saving time through convenience. To conclude, the transcriptions of Grepper asking the viewers to put money into his projects are compared.
‐ In campaign one he said: “The biggest problem with the cooler right now is that I’ve got the only prototype. That is when you come in, the Kickstarter community. See, if we can reach our goal up here, you can
‐
3.1.1
F
Salesthe rshotsthe b Choothe prepreenjoy Coolfrienconte Imagwerethe s Imag
have onewith you
In the seexpensivall the ctoday anyou ovecampaigfirst peop
1.2. The f
Film conten
s video onere-launched s, the placesbackground.
osing the riproduct is esent real lying the Co
lers are comnds. In shorext of leisur
ge 1 containe chosen to uccessful an
ge1:BackgO
e too. We ars”.
econd videove tooling tocomponents nd get all ther five hungn with just ple in the w
film
t
e was not a video was
s where it w.
ight backgroperceived
live scenaroolest.
mmonly assrt, these fore activities
ns screenshshow the dnd failed vi
groundcomONE
all can. Thin
o we hearedo pay for all
at a volumhe gear we andred dollaa hundred
world to hav
professionaprofessiona
was recorde
ound for thand assess
rios where
sociated wiood and be.
hots taken fdifferences iideo campai
mparison
nk of all tho
: “But to mol the Coolesme discountare packing
ars. Well, band eighty
ve a cooler t
al productioally made, aed and even
he sales vidsed by thethe spectat
ith good weeverage con
from both vin the scenaigns.
ose cool pla
ove to the nst parts and t. If you areg in the Cooby backingdollars youthat’s actua
on. Contrarias can be se
the clothin
deo has a bi viewers. tor would
eather, holintainers are
videos. Theario/backgro
TWO
aces you co
next stage red the capitalre about to olest it woug this Kicku can be oneally cool.”
rily, the filmeen by the png of the pe
ig impact oThe backgvisualize h
idays, famile thought o
e included ound select
25
ould go
equires l to buy go out
uld cost kstarter e of the
ming of product ople in
on how grounds himself
ly, and of in a
images tion for
In thepeopl The imby a blendplayin The rthe copositiwith t The fstages As to
catchiviewewith shim afun.
Imag
The fback your s Secon
chanc In vidit, staelegantech t
e original cale are seated
mage on thlake. In the
der. In the ng in the wa
re-launched ooler can bive experientheir people
following ps worth talk
o the video
ing image oers excited wsomething talone sitting
ge2:VideoO
first feelingis crucial. sales video
ndly, the pro
ce to create
deo one the arting the nnt, smooth touch of the
ampaign, thd on a blank
e right is coe foregroun
backgrounater.
video reprebe enjoyed. nces they we.
paragraphs king about.
o introduct
of a group owith an appthey would g in a park
introductiONE
g a viewer gThis impreand page or
oduct intro
a first impr
Coolest is noisy blendpanning up
e profession
he video waket, talking
ompletely dnd people and, we see
esents a mo The found
would enjoy
contain a
tion, shown
of friends hapealing scenlike to be pnext to his
oncompar
gets when wession is gor click back
oduction is
ression of th
introduced der that comp and then onally made n
s shot in theand wearing
different. Thre preparin
e people w
ore appealinders are looy thanks to
chronologi
n in Image
aving fun arnario wherepart of. Whe
creation, w
rison
watching a oing to detek to the Kick
highly imp
he product o
by Greppermes with i
out to the frnew video is
e backgardeg thick cloth
he chosen sg a cocktai
wearing swi
ng festive enoking to selthe product
ical order a
2, video tw
round the Cthey can p
en we play vwhich does n
TWO
video of a rmine if thkstarter men
ortant: foun
on the viewe
r, who is set. Video twont of the Cs visible her
en of a houshes.
scenario is ail in the Coimming-sui
nvironmentll the viewt: joyful mo
analysis of
wo started
Coolest. He picture themvideo one itnot seem as
project thehey keep wanu.
nders have ju
ers’ minds.
eated alone wo starts wCoolest. Thre. See Imag
26
se. The
a beach oolest’s its and
t where ers the oments
f video
with a
got the mselves,
t is just s much
ey may atching
ust one
next to with an e high-ge 3.
Imag
After one. Tthe prfilm q On battribuhighli Videotwo sprovid Imag
Imagespeakthe acimprooutdo Anothpresenbottleworks
ge3:ProduO
the producThe benefitroduct shooquality.
oth videos ute via voicighting: the
o one presehowes userde.
ge4:BluetoO
es containeker introducctual speakoved video oors with fri
her examplenting benef
e opener. Ins as did on v
uctintroducONE
ct presentatit-focused inots of the a
they show ce over. Wh
feature itse
nts some ofrs enjoying
oothspeakeONE
ed in Imagction of bothkers and vidshows the f
iends can br
e also captufits over pron video two,video one, b
ctioncomp
ion, all the ntention of vattributes in
the produchat made theelf or the be
f the featurthe possibil
erintroduc
ge 4 are sch two differdeo two hafun that beiring.
ures how fooduct featur, they not obut also a si
parison
product fevideo two sn both video
ct in use we differenceenefits it giv
es as just plities those
ctioncomp
creenshots rent videos
as kids daning able to
for the projeres themsel
only showedituation rela
TWO
atures are istands out wos, leaving a
while Grepphere was w
ves the user.
product attribring and t
arisonTWO
taken durin. Video onecing aroundplay your m
ect relaunchves: the intd the openerated with ne
introduced when we coaside its im
per describewhat the vid.
ibutes whilethe value th
ing the Blue shows a vd the coolemusic when
h they focutro of the ater itself and eeding one.
27
one by ompare
mproved
es each deo was
e video hat they
uetooth view of er. The n going
used on ttached how it
Imag
The ibetweperce
Imag
On bdrinkadvaVidescena On th
commback In coprovlaunc The
with video
ge5:BottleO
mages capteen the sception of the
ge6:ScenaO
both videosking a smooantage; it is eo two provario: a sunn
he crucial m
munication ker only bec
ontrast, in ciding the Cch.
final video
just a blacko two.
eopenerintONE
tured for Imenario and e characteris
riosuitabilONE
s they showothy right ouncommon
vides a shoony beach day
moment of a
differencesame part of
campaign nCoolest to t
o screens p
k screen. W
troduction
mage 5 aim the introdu
stic’s utility
litycompar
w how the on the track
n that one taot of the bley.
asking for p
s as well. Inf the project
number twotheir suppo
present rem
We observe,
compariso
to reflect huced featury.
rison
blender cok on video akes a cooleender on a m
pledgers fo
n campaign t when mon
o Grepper aorters exclus
markable dis
in contrast,
onTWO
how importae is. It aff
TWO
ould be enjone cannot
er to go for more appea
or the projec
one the vieney for fund
asking for msively and
ssimilitudes
, an enagagi
ant the connfects the vi
joyed. The ot be a convr a run in thaling and co
ct there wer
ewer and poding was nee
money wasbefore its
s. Video on
ing final sc
28
nection iewers’
jogger vincing
he park. ommon
e some
otential eded.
s about market
ne ends
reen in
Imag
The ask fteamat the The provcamp Imag
S
The bConsfactoThe instruinter This the vsettin
ge7:FinalO
Coolest teafor help to
m is asking fe viewers’ d
request fores. The firpaign’s vide
ge8:ProjeON
Sound
backgroundsequently, tor in the late
song is Cumental vefere the eas
melody covideo to evng to be enj
videoscreONE
m is askingspread the
for shares adisposal.
r project shrst campaigeo added up
ects’FaceboNE
d music usethe music uer success o
Celeste by ersion of itsy understan
mplements voque a sumoyed.
encompar
g the viewereir word anaiming to m
haring actuagn’s video p to 389,547
ookshares
d for the viutilized for of the produ
Ezra Vinet. This backnding of the
and complmmery and
rison
rs to share thd not for aake possibl
ally workedwas shared
7 shares.
comparisoTWO
deos of botthe sales vct.
e. For the kground so
e video spea
etes the picd relaxed at
TWO
heir promota monetary e for them
d as the evid 831 time
on
h campaignideo has no
videos thaound on theaker.
ctures and sctmosphere,
tional videocontributioto put the C
idence in Imes. The re-
ns is the samot been a re
ay have ushe video do
cenarios shthe Cooles
29
o. They on. The Coolest
mage 8 -launch
me one. elevant
sed the oes not
own in st ideal
30
3.1.2. SALES PAGE
The most significant difference between the failing and the winning campaign, besides the sales video, was the scheme followed on their sales page. Note that the URLs for accesing the sales pages of both campaigns are provided in Table 2. But before starting a comparison between them it is important to mention some details about the quality of the texts.
None of the campaigns contained any grammatical nor ortographic mistakes. This is a relevant factor to consider since it shows the preparedness of the publishers and their effort put into the campaign. Project owners may lose credibility in the viewer’s eyes due to the existence of errors in their publication. We can find punctuation examples that are not grammatically correct but that we have considered as valid for their emphatical function. We are referring to cases like the following: ?!, ;)… In addition there are some differences in the writing style between those two campaigns as well. In general we can say that for campaign two the funders have easened the lecture by synthesizing tedious paragraphs. Also, they have presented the project in a way that the potential backers would feel part of the project and not as simple money givers. These differences would be presented in detail in the coming sales page organisation comparison. Table 3 shows the structure followed on the sales page of both campaigns. The sections written in red highlight when the structure followed on the two campaigns was different. For the analyzing the sales page content the structure of sales page two is followed. Only the information that originally appeared on the sales page is considered here – updates are not studied. Table3:Salespagestructureofthecampaignscomparison
SALES PAGE STRUCTURE
ONE TWO 1. Introductory paragraph 1. Introductory paragraph 2. Product description 2. Product description 3. Features description 3. Features bullet list4. The story: evolution & planning 4. Rewards 5. Rewards 5. Features description 6. Features bullet list 6. The story: evolution & planning 7. Risks & challenges 7. Risks & challenges 8. FAQ=0 8. FAQ=25
31
Source:Ownelaboration
We can begin comparing the titles given to both campaigns. We did not include the element title on the previous table since it is a constituent that has to be always on top of the sales page by website’ default. Nevertheless, we are analyzing it by reason of its importance for the campaign success. The heading together with the picture appearing on the main page of the platform is their letter of introduction to their potential backers.
ONE: The Coolest: Cooler with Blender, Music and So Much More TWO: COOLEST COOLER: 21st Century Cooler that's Actually Cooler
The one given to the second campaign contains the new name assigned to the improved relaunched product. Its name is a word play and it is written in capital letters; this is an attention catcher for the platform viewers. The heading of the successful campaign, unlike the failing one, makes reference to the coolness of the product instead to the features it contains (blender, music and more…). For the relaunched campaign they decided to focus on benefits before features. We find the first big difference in their introductory paragraphs.
ONE: Why can’t my cooler blend DRINKS, play MUSIC, carry GEAR, and GRILL food?! Here's the perfect tool for all your tailgate & outdoor fun! TWO: The COOLEST is a portable party disguised as a cooler, bringing blended drinks, music and fun to any outdoor occasion.
The introductory paragraph is followed by a brief description of the product in
both campaigns.The failed campaign description gives the reader the feeling of a big annoying product that you would have to carry around. This impression is given by the long enumeration of features. Contrarily, the winning campaign description gives the potential backers just the opposite impression. The description starts with a catching subheading: A 21st Century Cooler? It's about time! And, after making fun of old coolers, this essential statement follows: The COOLEST cooler is 60 quarts of AWESOME packed with so much fun you'll look for excuses to get outside more often. In just a sentence they are emphazising that the product is upgraded with cool features even thought its size is not excessive. Key terms of that statement are Coolest (double meaning), awesome and fun; packed references its numerous characteristics wrapped in its comfortable size.
32
In the product definition of the successful campaign the project owners mentioned the product’s most appreciated three features for the crowd, fun-regards. But this time more than just mentioning their existence, as they did on the failed launching, they told the readers the benefits those features can provide them.
ONE: The 'Coolest' is the world’s first portable party cooler with a built-in ice-crushing blender, Bluetooth speakers to stream your music, in-cooler lighting, and adjustable tie-downs to help carry all your stuff.
TWO: Maybe you want to use the built-in ice-crushing blender to whip up some margaritas or smoothies on your next boat trip or tailgate? Maybe you just want to always have music on hand with the waterproof bluetooth speaker or want to recharge your electronics with the built in USB charger?
There were some big changes regarding the product features bullet list. For the
re-launch they reconsidered not only when to include this list, but also its appearance.
As Table 3 presents, campaign one immediately after the product description each of its features were tediously described. A bullet list presenting the characteristics of the product was provided almost at the bottom of the sales page.
By contrast, for campaign two it was right after the product description when an easy-to-read bullet list was included. Then, after the presentation of the list of rewards, each of those features was described in about a paragraph.
This means that the relaunch provided the readers with an easy-to-digest general outlook of the product attributes at the beggining of the sales page, right after its desciption. Potential backers could quickly understand what they were getting even skipping the sales video. At the original campaign one needed to scroll almost all the way down to get a simple-to-understand scheme of those traits.
The new list of features was also easier to understand; it included small and simple representaive illustrations and its content just got right to the point (Image 9).
The rewards offered varied on the two projects. For contrasting both campaigns
we are going to consider the information written in the kickstarter pledge and the one on the right side of that web page separately. They drive us to different conclusions. First we are contrasting the in-text rewards info. Table 3 shows that the
introductthe page Campaigafter the Campaighit with tthe prodkeep them Image9
18 vocapa
Rechplayehourfrom
High
Virtureces
Built
Fullyin 36
60 qularge
Rein
The potecontributin the suwithout t As mentand engathe offerthe right
tion of the .
gn one showfeatures de
gn two showthe prizes s
duct descripm reading t
9:Productf
ON
olt battery powable of 60+ bat
hargeable, remer capable of ors per charge, w
m up to 50 feet
h strength, lock
ually unbreakassed and wate
t in bottle-top
y customizabl6 colors choice
uart, hard sideer than my pro
nforced, easy r
ential backetion after u
uccess of an the existenc
ioned on thagement. Fored rewards
(Table 10)
rewards in
wed the rewscriptions, p
wed the incecrolling justion and ththe publicati
featureslis
NE
wered, full siztches per char
movable Bluetoperating for while streaminaway
king bungee t
able LED lighrproof in the l
opener
e color skins, es
ed, rolling cooototype)
rolling wheels
ers want to understandin
initiative thce of compe
he theory, vior both laun
on their sa.
each camp
wards almosproduct evo
entives for st a little bithe presentatiion.
stcomparis
ze blender, rge
tooth music over 8 ng music
tie-down
hting lid
available
oler (20%
s
know the cng the prodhey like butensation.
isual stimulnches the Coales page pre
paign was in
st at the endolution and
pledging eadown. Rea
ion of its fe
son
compensatioduct. Potentt in most ca
lation is keyoolest team eventing the
ncluded at d
d of the textproject plan
arly on the saders can finfeatures, and
TW
on offered ial backers ses they wo
y in getting decided to
e user from
different po
t. They are nning.
sales page; nd them righd this will h
WO
in return foenjoy takin
ould not con
people’s atinclude ima
m having to
33
oints of
placed
we get ht after help to
or their ng part ntribute
ttention ages of look to
Image1
10:Offered
O
rewardsc
ONE
omparisonn
TWO
34
35
Image 10 reflects the appearance of both campaigns rewards presentation. The first attention catcher is the simplicity and straightforward interpretation of campaign 2. They made the rewards look like coupons with a white background, actual pictures of the incentives, big numbers and short texts. This second campaign provided a rewards picture that readers could understand at a glance. The provision of actual pictures of the rewards inspired readers to pledge. The backers could see the exact compensation they would get and not just a, perhaps misleading, drawing. This is another way that the Coolest team increased their perception of reliability in the readers’ eyes We now compare the rewards’ information that figures on the space provided at the right side of the page (See Annex 3). Not only the rewards have changed, but also the communication style used to make them more appealing for the potential supporters. The highest pledge level for which a reward was offered was reduced from $7,500+ (campaign one) to $2,000+ (campaign two). Also, the offered compensations were more physical than on the first attempt: no inventor or marketing training was offered but many more coolers, even a ten-units package. The rewards were more related to the backed product. The detailed description of every cooler’s feature was also modified for the
campaign relaunch. As we have already mentioned, some changes on the Coolest’s features were made, but they are not being considered for the purposes of this paper.
The biggest improvement was not on the texts that describe the attributes but on the associated illustrative pictures. This is ‘an image is worth a thousand words’ moment. They provided explanatory images and GIFs showing the actual functioning of those features. As we mentioned in the rewards section, humans are very visual and better images can change our whole perception of things. For campaign two the story of the project was cut down to a third of the length of campaign 1. For the relaunch he is skipping unnecessary filler content on the plan description and easens its understanding. This increases the founders’ credibility and leads potential backers to believe in the accuracy of estimated delivery date of the rewards, among other things. Even though the monthly-based scheme is almost identical in both campaigns, other parts of the story summary improved – especially on their tone. The re-launch gave a more defined and optimistic project development standpoint.
36
On campaign one Grepper seemed not to have tied all the loose ends on his
development and manufacturing plan for sentences like “We are close but we still
need your help to optimize our design for manufacturability with help from our preferred and highly-renowned industrial design firm”.
For campaign two Grepper created the impression of having more established procedures; he already had partnered with an experienced company and seems to have a ready-for-implementation plan: “We want you to have your COOLEST as soon as possible.” In this section he also let the reader know that he has experience developing and bringing products to the market. Unlike in the campaign one, in the second he names one project he successfully brought to the market, the Jello-shot catapult. The provision of a reference project that the potential backers can check increases the funder trust. Campaign 1 came across as valuing the inventor’s aspirations as higher than the consumer satisfaction. It stated: “This is where you come in. If we can reach our investment goal of $125,000, then we can bring the ‘Coolest’…” or “We are close but we still need your help to pay for blow-molding and injection molding tooling, a very expensive one-time cost.”
The risk and challenges section was barely modified.
The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section on campaign two assembles the
most frequent questions collected from campaign one. There are 25 solved relevant questions about every issue related with the project.
37
C. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
In these times of strong competition in business it may seem impossible for a small entrepreneur to get the capital required to set up his dreamed startup or carry out his project. The funding challenge might get even harder for those who live in those countries that have not emerged from economic and financial crisis yet. Those startups with no luck looking for bank loans or for support from business angels or venture capital funds might have found crowdfunding as their only possibility for making their projects a reality. This new way of financing makes it possible to realize innovative projects that seemed too risky for the traditional investors finance. There is an increasing interest in this fundraising alternative from the crowd’s side, as reflected by Google Trends data among other indicators (Figure 2). There is also an increase in the number of crowdfunding online platforms available for its four different models – donations, rewards, lending and equity. So now that entrepreneurs are aware of this funding possibility at their disposal, this question may arise in their minds: How can I make the most of this fundraising opportunity? This paper answers this question focusing just on the communication strategies – meaning how to communicate the project to the crowd in the most engaging way. To answer this question this paper analyzed a very particular project: The Coolest Cooler. This project was seeking funds on the most used rewards-based crowdfunding platform in the world, Kickstarter. This project particularity lies in the fact that two different crowdfunding campaigns were launched by its creator to finance its attainment: the first one did not succeed – did not make it to at least its funding goal – and the second one made it to record-holder on the crowdfunding industry by obtaining $13,285,226. The communication strategy of these two different campaigns – the unsuccessful and the record-breaking one – were insightfully compared. The differences found between them have then been classified on the basis of the ten key factors of persuasion discussed in the theory. Table 4 displays remarkable findings regarding each factor on campaigns one and two and the improvement made towards what, according to theory, persuasive communication should be like. Every of the ten factors has been classified under a broader category: Emotions (pink), Appeal (green) or Trust (blue). And there are two factors that do not appear on the table – social proof and liking, since no results could be achieved from the data analyzed in this paper.
38
Table4:SummaryofconclusionsFACTORSOFFUNDRAISING
CAMPAIGNONE CAMPAIGNTWO IMPROVEMENTS
Video content and transcript
* Asking for $: “This is where you come in. If we can reach our investment goal of $125,000, then we can bring the ‘Coolest’…”
* Final screen: In black (Image 7)
* Asking for $: “We want you to have your COOLEST as soon as possible.”
* Final screen (Image 7) YOUR Coolest
* Asking for $: From funding Grepper’s goal to deliver the product to the backers asap. * Final screen: Share > back project: so YOU (pledger) can get YOUR Coolest asap.
Sales page
* Sales page structure (see Table 3)
* Rewards: “…can find a reward level that helps us meet our goal…”
* Sales page structure (see Table 3)
* Rewards: “…for just a hundred and eighty dollars you can be one of the first people in the world with a cooler that’s actually cool.”
* Sales page structure: Info structured according to potential backer interests: main info-rewards-detailed info
* Rewards: Backing not to meet Grepper’s goal but to finance a project created for and because of the potential backers
Video content and transcript
* Background: Grepper talking to the camera, surrounded by few people *Features: descriptive (“…this 18 volts battery powered blender”)
* Asking for $ (see I. SELF-CENTERED) *Final screen: (see I. SELF-CENTERED)
* Background: Family & friends enjoying while Grepper talking via voice over. Smiles. *Features: how they benefit the user :using emotive content (…”become a summer time hero anytime, anywhere.”) * Asking for $: (see I. SELF-CENTERED) *Final screen: (see I. SELF-CENTERED)
* Background: good company at fun settings *Features: Benefits enjoyed on fun settings with good company > characteristics
* Asking for $: (see I. SELF-CENTERED) *Final screen: (see I. SELF-CENTERED)
Video content and transcript
* Asking for $: “…I’ve got the only prototype. […] if we can reach our goal up here, you can have one too. We all can”.
* Asking for $: “…by backing this Kickstarter campaign for just a hundred and eighty dollars you can be one of the first people in the world with a cooler that’s actually cool.”
* Asking for money: Offer the pledger to be one of the firsts ones to enjoy the product and cheaper than price market (exclusive).
I.SELF‐CEN
TERED
EMOTIONS
VI.EM
OTIONS
X.SCARCITY&
EXCLUSIVITY
39
Salespage
*Rewards:Mostofferedonalimitednumber.
*Rewards:Mostofferedonalimitednumber.
*Rewards:SAME.Limitedamount(scarce)Preselling:bethefirstCoolestownersandatacheaperprice(exclusive)
Video content and transcript
*Video intro: immutable useless cooler design lead to The Coolest creation
*Features: For each one they say the needs normal coolers don’t cover and The Coolest does.
* Video intro: immutable cooler design lead to The Coolest creation
*Features: For each one they say the needs normal coolers don’t cover and The Coolest does.
* Video intro; SAME: The Coolest is a radical change in the industry
*Features; SAME: stress the needs The Coolest covers that traditional coolers don’t
Sales page
* Product description: Enumerates many Coolest’s features
*Product description: Why normal coolers aren’t cool. Coolest’s most valued features and how they bring the fun
*Product description: Mentions normal coolers’ defects before describing The Coolest.
Video content and transcript
* Video intro: Grepper is alone in his garden with The Coolest
* Product intro: Grepper alone in a garden activates the Coolest’s noise blender (Image 3)
* Final screen: In black (Image 7)
* Video intro: Bbq with friends and the Coolest
* Product intro: Elegant and smooth panning up and out The Coolest and Grepper via voice over (Image 3)
*Final screen: Engaging screen asks for video share> project funding
* Video intro: appealing scenario with good company.
* Product intro: Get a good first impression. Simple and elegant shoots. * Final screen: Engages to share the campaign. Successful: see Image 8
Sales page
* Title: introduces some of the product features
* Title: word game *Title:Attentioncatcherwordgame
Video content and transcript
* Background: Park, cold, winter clothes * Product intro: Grepper alone on a garden. Noisy blender.
*Features: shows the attribute
* Background: lake beach, sunny, summer clothes, bbq * Product intro: Elegant a nd smooth panning up and out the Coolest
* Features: shows the
* Background: summery scenarios. Cooler shots > Grepper shots
* Product intro: Aesthetic and simple presentation. * Features: show them
II.CONTRAST
APPEAL
IV.BEGINNING
&ENDING
40
and its functioning.
attribute, its functioning and it being enjoyed at an appropriate setting.
being used at a scenario where useful and/or desirable: benefits > features.
Sales page
* Features’ bullet list: Some long descriptions, even though they were previously described. (See Image 9) * Rewards: Represented by drawings. Long texts. Small numbers (pledge amount). Colorful backgrounds hinder reading.
*Features description: text+ pictures
*Features’ bullet list: small drawing of each feature with concrete description. (See Image 9) * Rewards: Actual pictures of the rewards. Not much text. Big numbers. White background. * Features description: text + pictures + GIFs
* Features’ bullet list: Easy to understand enumeration.
* Rewards: Actual pictures make it more trustable. Bigger number and less text for an easy at-a-glance understanding.
* Features description: more representative pictures + GIFs.
Sales page
* Story: Monthly plan in case of campaign success. Seems unready: “We are close but we still need your help to […].”
*Story: Monthly plan in case of campaign success. Seems ready for implementation.
* Story: The plan is presented as ready to
implement. The on-time deliver of the rewards seems more feasible.
Video content and transcript &
Sales page * Asking for $ & Story: Talks about his previous experience: “I create products for a living…” Partnership with a veteran company but the design still to be optimized with them: “We are close but we still need your help to […].”
* Asking for $ & Story: Talks about his previous experience and mentions a product he successfully marketed:“I invent lots of things, but other than my Jello-shot catapult very few have brought so much fun to my life. ;)” Partnership with a veteran company: their strategy seems planned: “We want you to have your COOLEST as soon as possible. Here’s our plan to achieve that: […].”
* Asking for $ & Story: Previous experience more trustable by mentioning one of his successful projects. Plan with partners is ready to be implemented: on-time delivery of rewards.
Source:OwnelaborationThe classification of the factors of persuasion under three broader categories – Emotions, Appeal and Trust – makes it easier to expound the recommendations that emerge from the above analysis. The general recommendations that are offered below are primarily
V.VISUAL
ESTIMULI
IX.AUTHORITY
TRUST
III.TANGIBILITY
41
addressed to entrepreneurs who want to use a rewards-based crowdfunding platform to finance their projects or startups. 1. EMOTIONS
Entrepreneurs need to focus their campaign on the value they provide. Value means how the product/service they offer will improve the quality of the life of its consumer. When Grepper relaunched his campaign with a focus on the value the Coolest provides, he was eventually successful. The more an entrepreneur can market the core benefits of a product in his campaign instead of just a list of features, the easier it will be to reach funding goals. These core benefits relate to emotional rather than physical needs of the consumer. Grepper changed his campaign from a description of product features to a campaign of emotions connected to the Coolest. Consumers were able to relate to these emotional scenarios and were more willing to financially contribute. When looking for financing through crowdfunding, the focus should lie on what can be added or taken away to improve the quality of someone else’s life, rather than one’s own. It has much to do with making the backers feel special for offering them exclusive products/services. 2. APPEAL
Project owners should engage their potential backers by presenting them an innovative product/service that is going to benefit their needs. They should emphasize those advantages and that nothing else before was as satisfying as their product/service. The scenarios chosen for the video must represent an idyllic place where their product can be enjoyed. The people who appear in the video, their mood and appearance should be planned to represent what that particular product is going to bring to the pledger’s life. When Grepper relaunched his campaign the video was filmed on a summery day at the beach barbequing with a lot of friends and not at a park during winter. There is only one chance to make a good first impression. The title of the project, the introduction of the video and the introduction of the product are crucial for the viewer to feel attracted to the project at the platform’s main page and keep checking the rest of the content.
3. TRUST
The entrepreneur, for the potential backers to trust him and his project a detailed plan about its execution must be provided. In the rewards-based crowdfunding industry the on-time delivery of the rewards to the backers it is often an issue, so the plan, including the delivery dates, must be presented.
42
The project owner should let the potential backers know about his previous experience in business, especially on the field related to the project in question. The viewers must also know if there is a team behind the project (who they are and what they do for the project), or if the entrepreneur is partnering with or outsourcing from other companies. The allusions to the experience must be concrete, providing the names or access to successful projects previously executed.
For the elaboration of this analytical paper I faced the following constraints: first, I have considered the two coolers offered in both campaigns exactly alike when they are not. Also, this paper did not perform an off-the page study. The data considered on these pages had been all taken from the Kickstarter’s sales page of both campaigns. Part of the communication strategy carried out by the Coolest team was off Kickstarter; this directly leads to the recommendations for further research. Future study should focus on the scope and importance that off-the-platform variables have for the success of crowdfunding campaigns. It might be especially interesting to analyze the role and reach of the social media. This future research suggestion might complete our analysis by providing conclusion and recommendations about both factors social proof and liking.
43
D. REFERENCES
Agrawal , A. K., Catalini , C., & Goldfarb , A. (2011). The Geography of Crowdfunding. Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Barabas, R. (2012). Crowdfunding: Trends and Developments Impacting Entertainment Entrepreneurs. NYSBA Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal , 37-40.
Belleflamme , P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2010). Crowdfunding,: An Industrial Organization Perspective . Pariser Konferenz: Digital Business Models: Understanding Strategies.
Blasingame, J. (1 de August de 2014). Crowd Funding Is Not New, But Crowdfunding Is. Recuperado el 15 de October de 2014, de Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimblasingame/2014/08/01/crowd-funding-is-not-new-but-crowdfunding-is/
Briggman, S. (2014). Ultimate Tips for Relaunching a Kickstarter Campaign. Recuperado el 10 de November de 2014, de Crowd Crux: http://www.crowdcrux.com/ultimate-tips-for-relaunching-a-kickstarter-campaign/
Burnett, K. (2 de June de 2012). The emotional brain. Recuperado el 10 de November de 2014, de Showcase Of Fundraising Innovation and Inspiration: http://sofii.org/article/the-emotional-brain
Carazo, P. C. (2006). El método de estudio de caso Estrategia metodológica de la investigación científica. Revista científica Pensamiento y Gestión .
Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Chicago. Corcoran, D. (2014). NeuroMarketing - Top 7 Insights to Unlocking Your Customer's
Brain for Instant Sales. Recuperado el 11 de November de 2014, de Business Know-How: http://www.businessknowhow.com/marketing/neuromarketing.htm
Consumers with Neuromarketing. Crowdfund Insider. (2013). Recuperado el 30 de October de 2014, de
Crowdfund Insider: http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/ Cryder, C., & Loewenstein , G. (2011). The Critical Link Between Tangibility and
Generosity. Carnegie Mellon University. Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain . Dellorso, M. (25 de June de 2014). The Promise -- And Challenges -- Of Equity
Crowdfunding. Recuperado el 1 de November de 2014, de Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2014/06/25/the-promise-and-challenges-of-equity-crowdfunding/
Dooley, R. (2012). Brainfluence: 100 Ways to Persuade and Convince Einstein, A. (s.f.). Everts, T. (5 de January de 2012). Web performance today: Colonoscopies, cold
water and pain: How our memory works and how this relates to web performance. Recuperado el 1 de November de 2014, de Web performance today: http://www.webperformancetoday.com/2012/01/05/colonoscopies-cold-water-and-pain-how-our-memory-works-and-how-this-relates-to-web-performance/)
Georges, P. M., Bayle-Tourtoulou, A. S., & Badoc, M. (2014). Neuromarketing in
44
Action: How to Talk and Sell to the Brain. Google Trends. (1 de February de 2015). Trends: Explore. Recuperado el 1 de February de 2015, de Google: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=crowdfunding Grepper, R. (8 de July de 2014). Kickstarter. COOLEST COOLER: 21st Century
Cooler that's Actually Cooler: FAQ. Recuperado el 29 de October de 2014, de Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/coolest-cooler-21st-century-cooler-thats-actually?ref=nav_search
Grepper, r. (8 de July de 2014). Kickstarter: COOLEST COOLER: 21st Century Cooler that's Actually Cooler. Recuperado el 10 de October de 2014, de Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/coolest-cooler-21st-century-cooler-thats-actually?ref=nav_search
Grepper, R. (26 de November de 2013). Kickstarter: The Coolest: Cooler with Blender, Music and So Much More. Recuperado el 10 de October de 2014, de Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/the-coolest-cooler-with-blender-music-and-so-much?ref=nav_search
Harms, M. (2007). What Drives Motivation to Participate Financially in a Crowdfunding Community? . Thesis Master in Marketing , Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Hemer, J. (2011). A snapshot on crowdfunding. Recuperado el 1 de November de 2014, de http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isien/p/publikationen/arbpap_unternehmen_region.php
Invesdor. (24 de February de 2014). Donation, reward, lending and equity: putting order into crowdfunding. Recuperado el 1 de Novermber de 2014, de Invesdor: https://www.invesdor.com/finland/en/blog/150
Kazmark, J. (18 de July de 2013). Kickstarter Blog: Kickstarter Before Kickstarter. Recuperado el 15 de October de 2014, de Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-before-kickstarter
Kleeman, F., Voss, G. G., & Rieder, K. (2008). Un(der)paid Innovators: The Commercial Utilization of Consumer Work through Crowdsourcing, Science, Technology & Innovation Studies.
Lee, D. H., DeWester, D., & Park, S. (2008). Web 2.0 and Oppurtunities for Small Businesses, Service Businesses.
Massolution. (2013). 2013CF- The Crowdfunding Industry Report. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Belmont: Wadworth Publishing
Company. Mollick, E. (13 de August de 2013). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An
exploratory study . Journal of Business Venturing . MVC. (2013). Communication Strategies. Training Manual, Moreno Valley
College. Prive, T. (27 de November de 2012). What Is Crowdfunding And How Does It
Benefit The Economy. Recuperado el 15 de October de 2014, de Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2012/11/27/what-is-crowdfunding-and-how-does-it-benefit-the-economy/
Prive, T. (6 de November de 2012). Inside The JOBS Act: Equity Crowdfunding.
45
Recuperado el 1 de November de 2014, de Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2012/11/06/inside-the-jobs-act-equity-crowdfunding-2/
Prive, T. (12 de October de 2012). Top 10 Benefits Of Crowdfunding. Recuperado el 2 de November de 2014, de Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2012/10/12/top-10-benefits-of-crowdfunding-2/ Ramos, J., & Stewart, J. (2014). Crowdfunding and the Role of Managers in
Ensuring the Sustainability of Crowdfunding Platforms. European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014. Redelmeier, D. A., Katz, J., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial.
Reiman, T. (2013). The Human Voice - Pitch. Recuperado el 10 de November de 2014,de Body Language University: http://www.bodylanguageuniversity.com/public/203.cfm
Renvoise, P., & Morin, C. (2007). Neuromarketing. Sawers, P. (9 de January de 2014). The past, present and future of crowdfunding.
Recuperado el 16 de October de 2014, de The Next Web: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/01/09/past-present-future-crowdfunding/
Schroter, W. (13 de May de 2014). The Politics of Crowdfunding. Recuperado el 16 de October de 2014, de Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/wilschroter/2014/05/13/the-politics-of-crowdfunding/
Schwienbacher, A., & Lambert, T. (2010). An Empirical Analysis of Crowdfunding.
Schwienbacher , A., & Larralde, B. (2010). Crowdfunding of Small Entrepreneurial Ventures. En A. Schwienbacher, & B. Larralde, Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance.
Schwienbacher , A., & Larralde, B. (2010). Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance. En A. Schwienbacher, & B. Larralde, Crowdfunding of small entrepreneurial ventures.
Stengel, G. (28 de August de 2014). Crowdfunding: Raise Money And Build Your Fan Base. Recuperado el 2 de November de 2014, de Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/geristengel/2014/08/27/crowdfunding-raise-money-and-build-your-fan-base/
Willems, W. (2013). What characteristics of crowdfunding platforms influence the success rate? Master thesis Cultural Economics & Entrepreneurship , Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Windle, R., & Warren, S. (2014). CADRE. Section4: Communication Skills. Recuperado el 10 de Novermber de 2014, de Direction Service: http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/section4.cfm
Wittmann, B. C., Daw, N., Seymour , B., & Raymond , D. J. (2008). Striatal Activity Underlies Novelty-Based Choice in Humans. Cell Press .
46
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Failed campaign video transcript This insulated box has been called cooler for over sixty years. But what’s it really cooler than? We demand innovation from every other category but all this box does is two things: keeps the drinks cold – doesn’t let the Mayonnaise kill anyone. When I get time to get outdoors with my family and friends I wanna make sure everything is as much fun as possible. That’s why I decided the cooler wasn’t cool enough so I created the Coolest. The Coolest is a complete refresh of what a portable cooler can be. The first big improvement is this 18 volts battery powered blender. You don’t realize the number of places you could really go for a blended drink or smoothie until you have one built in the lid of your cooler. And did you know that less than no percent of coolers come with a bluetooth speaker built right in? Well, the Coolest changes all that. This handy, rechargeable, loud speaker uses the latest bluetooth technology to connect any smartphone and stream wireless music for over 8 hours per charge…. At this size, I would have thought the sound would be tiny, but speaker technology has also come a long way and big sound can come from small packages. Now, it is hard enough to make the time, to plan an outing, so I wanted to make sure that the Coolest eliminated all those annoying little shortfalls that I have noticed with other coolers over the years. I have tried various other ways of getting my gear to my destination in one trip but it has always been a challenge. And I love that you can get a cooler with wheels but I hate that it refuses to carry anything else. It is like having a friend with a pick-up who won’t help you move. That’s why I have designed the Coolest with an adjustable locking bungee so you can get all of your gear to and from the car to your site in one trip. And how about those late nights when you’re elbow deep in ice-water hopelessly searching for one last whatever. Well, the Coolest has you covered with this simple flashlight built into the lid. And is it too much to ask that a cooler come with a bottle-opener? My grandpa’s cooler did, so does the Coolest. The biggest problem with the Coolest right now is that I’ve got the only prototype. That’s where you come in, Kickstarter community. See, if we can reach our goal up here, you can have one too. We all can. Think of all the Coolest places you could use yours. Hi! I am Ryan Grepper, full-time inventor, product developer and advocate for inventor education. I have licensed over a half dozen products and I have also successfully brought to market two products that I manufactured, sourced and designed on my own. With the Coolest I’ve already done the heavy lifting. I have lined up suppliers and back-up suppliers for every component but every new product comes with its own challenges and that’s where I’m gonna need your help. Manufacturing a large product like this requires expensive tooling to create the molds for the cooler body and the cooler lid and they require a level of expert knowledge to be done correctly. To address this, I have contracted with an experienced engineering firm who can take the Coolest design and create the most durable best insolated and highest quality Coolest possible. Now I wouldn’t be her asking for your support and trust if I wasn’t prepared to deliver. You see, I also educate and train other inventors on how to get their products to market.
47
So you might say my professional reputation is on the line. In fact, I am documenting my entire Kickstarter process so I can share with others what I am learning so they can Kickstart their own projects. But none of this is possible without your support. Take a look over here and see if you can find a reward level that helps us meet our goal, so we can make the Coolest idea, the Coolest product.
Annex 2: Successful campaign video transcript That is the sound of a cooler coming down of the shelf. It’s the sound of imminent fun. So, why haven’t cooler designs changed in almost fifty years? Boring coolers are boring, break easily and are a pain to get to and from your destination. I wanted a cooler that was really well built yet had so much fun build into it that I would look for excuses to get out and enjoy it. So, I created the Coolest. The Coolest is a complete redesign of what a cooler can be. First, you got this 18V rechargeable blender. You don’t realize the number of places you could really go for a blended cocktail or smoothie until you got a blender built right into the lid. You’re already carrying around a cooler full of ice and tasty beverages, why not blend them up and become a summer time hero anytime, anywhere. And what’s a party without music? The Coolest comes with a removable bluetooth speaker that connects to any smartphone to wirelessly stream music from up to thirty feet away. It’s amazing where speaker technology has come in the last few years. You can skip songs and adjust the volume right from your phone, and this little box can really put out some sound. And, since you have this 18V battery for the blender, why not get the most out of it? Maybe your camera battery is low, or maybe you have an iPhone and wanna use it after two in the afternoon. Recharge your gear wherever you are with this this waterproof usb charger. The party doesn’t stop just because the sun goes down and you shouldn’t have to freeze your fingers searching endlessly for your favorite drink. The Coolest has waterproof LED lights embedded in the lid so you can easily find what you are looking for with the push of a button. One of the biggest hassles of outdoor fun is hauling your gear back and forth from the car and I’ve experimented with various ways to solve the problem. I love coolers with wheels but I hate that they refuse to help carry anything else. The Coolest has you covered with locking tie-down bungees so you can carry all your stuff in just one trip. And what about getting organized to go out in the first place? The Coolest helps out almost like a picnic basket, to make sure you always have a few key essentials with built-in storage for reusable plates/ cutting boards and this awesome rust-proof ceramic knife. Plus, the removable divider gives you a whole new level of flexible packing options. You can pull the drain plug on one side and your Coolest can stay dry and cool just like your refrigerator. Say good-bye to soggy sandwiches. Regular cooler tires are flimsy and sink right into the sand. We designed the Coolest wheels to be twice as wide to ride twice as easily. And, how many hours of your life have you lost looking for a bottle-opener? My grandpas’ cooler had one, so does the Coolest. I create products for a living and to manufacture the Coolest I’ve lined up a world-class sourcing company with years of experience making top-shelf products and they are standing by to coordinate all the stages of production and logistics. Just to make sure that not only you get your Coolest on time but is the highest quality Coolest we can possibly make.
Shortblurb
Projeccatego(outo13)
Salevide
Salespage(starts
As ythe nbuy oIf yoover and eactua
Anne
ctoryof
eseo
s)
ou can see wnext stage reour compon
ou are to go five hundre
eighty dollaally cool.
ex 3: Kicks
we have ouequires expenents at a voout today a
ed dollars. Wars you can b
starter pro
r design finensive toolinolume discoand get all thWell, by bacbe one of th
ject’s top p
nalized and rng to pay fo
ount. he gear we pcking this Khe first peop
page appe
ready for thor all the Co
packed in thKickstarter cple in the w
earance
he big leaguoolest parts
he Coolest icampaign foorld with a
ue. But to mand the cap
it would cosor just a huncooler that’
48
ove to pital to
st you ndred ’s
Protitle
Numofbac
Totplemo
Fungoa
Prolentim
Procreinfo
Offerewfromtohple
ojecte
mber
ckers
taldgedney
ndingal
ojectgth:
meleft
ojectatoro
feredwards:mlowerhigherdges
GRADO
La
FACUL
O EN ADM
a impor
el e
C
LTAD DE C
R
TRABA
MINISTRA
rtancia cro
estudio
Autora: DTutora: Dr
CURSO A
CIENCIAS
RESUME
AJO FIN DE
ACIÓN Y
de la cowdfund
de un
Dª Carmen Ora. Cristina
ACADÉMI
EMPRESA
EN
E GRADO
Y DIRECC
comuniding: caso de
Ortega HernOlarte-Pasc
ICO 2014-
ARIALES
CIÓN DE
cación
e éxito
náez cual
-2015
EMPRES
en el
SAS
2
En estos tiempos de crisis económica en los que la competencia en el mundo de los negocios se ha multiplicado, el encontrar financiación para llevar a cabo proyectos y crear empresas puede verse como un imposible para muchos emprendedores. Gracias al desarrollo de Internet, esos emprendedores sin suerte en su búsqueda de capital han encontrado en el crowdfunding su único camino para financiar la realización de sus proyectos.
El crowdfunding se puede definir como una actividad online mediante la cual se solicita la aportación de dinero para la realización de un proyecto a cambio de una contraprestación económica, material, de reconocimiento social o de auto-estima (Estelles, 2013).
El interés por este método de financiación ha crecido en los últimos años (Google Trends, 2015). Las cifras, además, demuestran que su peso cada vez es mayor habiendo pasado de recaudar 0,53 billones de dólares en el año 2009 a recaudar 6,1 en 2013(Ramos & Stewart, 2014).
Existen cuatro modelos de crowdfunding para obtener financiación: donaciones, recompensas, préstamos e inversiones (Barabas, 2012). Estos modelos son tan distintos entre sí que algunos los consideran como industrias distintas catalogadas bajo un mismo nombre (Hemer, 2011). A continuación se mencionan los rasgos más representativos de cada modelo y el porcentaje que representan sobre el total del uso del crowdfunding (Massolution, 2013):
Donaciones (29%): provisión de financiación de manera altruista.
Recompensas (43%): o Las recompensas simples son aquellos artículos materiales que se consiguen
por apoyar el proyecto. o Patrocinios a cambio de visibilidad pública (por ejemplo, aparecer en los
créditos de la película que se ha ayudado a financiar). o Pre-venta: provisión de financiación para costear la posterior producción.
Préstamos (13%), a devolver en un momento del tiempo determinado a cierto tipo de interés.
Inversión/financiación participativa (15%): participaciones cuya rentabilidad dependerá del rendimiento del proyecto (Schwienbacher & Larralde, 2010).
Cada una de las dos partes participantes en el proceso de crowdfunding tiene distintos incentivos para intervenir. Por un lado, los creadores de los proyectos buscan uno o varios de los siguientes resultados: financiación, visibilidad pública y/o obtención de feedback (Willems, 2013; Schwienbacher & Lambert, 2010). Por otro lado aquellos que contribuyen económicamente lo hacen por el retorno prometido a cambio y/o por el sentimiento de pertenencia a una comunidad de individuos con intereses y pasiones comunes (Stengel, 2014; Willems, 2013).
3
Ahora que los emprendedores conocen cada vez más esta nueva forma de financiar sus planes, es posible que se hayan cuestionado el cómo aprovechar al máximo esta oportunidad de recaudar fondos. El éxito de sus campañas en búsqueda de financiación dependerá en gran medida de la estrategia de comunicación empleada.
A continuación se recogen los elementos clave para una comunicación persuasiva exitosa:
Renvoise y Morin identificaron en su libro Neuromarketing (2007) una serie de incentivos para animar al cerebro primitivo en la toma de decisiones:
o Egocentrismo: el foco de todo mensaje tiene que estar puesto en el potencial cliente.
o Contraste: la toma de decisiones innovadoras hace que el cerebro libere dopamina, haciendo que el sujeto se sienta bien (Wittmann, Daw, Seymour & Raymond, 2008).
o Tangibilidad: conceptos tangibles y concretos sobre los abstractos (Georges, Bayle-Tourtoulou, & Badoc, 2014) ya que existe una relación positiva entre tangibilidad y generosidad (Cryder & Loewenstein, 2011).
o Comienzos y finales: haciendo referencia a la importancia de una primera impresión impecable. Además, las personas tienden a recordar las impresiones que deja el final de un comunicado y no sus partes intermedias.
o Estímulos visuales: una imagen vale más que mil palabras. En la toma de decisiones las imágenes prevalecen sobre las palabras.
o Emoción: la toma de decisiones tiene su base en las emociones y, posteriormente, aparece un intento de justificación racional.
Cialdini identificó varias armas de persuasión en su libro Influencia: La psicología de la persuasión (1987):
o Aprobación social: los sujetos tienden a comportamientos en concordancia a un determinado (sub)grupo social para sentirse aceptados y sentir que se reduce el riesgo de tomar decisiones equivocadas.
o Agrado: propensión a estar de acuerdo con aquellas personas hacia las que se siente simpatía y son similares a uno mismo.
o Autoridad: los sujetos tienden a confiar en emisores con credibilidad y experiencia.
o Exclusividad: hacer sentir especial al potencial cliente ofreciéndole ser uno de los pocos afortunados o de los primeros en disponer del producto/servicio.
Para la elaboración de una estrategia de comunicación también hay que conocer los tres elementos que la componen (Windle & Warren, 2014; MVC, 2013):
Mensajes verbales: las palabras elegidas.
Mensajes no verbales: el lenguaje corporal, que incluye expresión facial, posturas y gestos.
Mensajes paraverbales: la forma en que se dice algo, no lo que se dice. Se transmite a través del timbre, tono de la voz y la velocidad de palabra.
Partielabobasadcomeidentdos deno
Comno calcanrécor
Tabl
INL
F
D
D
Diporc
(R
UNI
E
iendo de estoración de udo en recomentados. Tratificó un cascampañas q
omina The C
mo hemos diconsigue elnzando la srd histórico
la 1. Ficha t
NFORMACILAS CAMP
Nombre
Lanzamie
Fin plazo finan
Duración del p
Objetivo fina
Dinero compro
inero compromcentaje sobre
de financiaDinero recau
Regla del todoResultad
IDADES DE A
Elementos ana
ta base teóruna estrategmpensas, seas una búsqso adecuadoque obtuvie
Coolest Coo
icho, este cal mínimo dsuma de 13de captació
técnica y un
IÓN DE PAÑAS
e
ento
nciación
proyecto
anciero
ometido
metido en el objetivo
ación udado o o nada) do
ANÁLISIS
alizados
rica y con egia de com
e identificó queda en dio ya que preeron resulta
oler y se lan
aso consta dde financia3.285.226 dón de fondo
nidades de a
CAThe Coolest:
Music anNevera con ba
26 de no
26 de Di
125
102
No
Vídeo 1 yhttps://www.kts/ryangrepp
with-blenmuch?
Vídeo 1: tranTexto de ventcontenido delRecompensas
el objetivo dmunicación e
un caso eniversas plataetendiendo ados opuesnzó en la pla
de dos camación que dólares ameos a través d
análisis.
AMPAÑA 1: Cooler with Bnd So Much Matidora música
más. oviembre de 2
iciembre de 2
31 días
5.000 dólares
2.188 dólares
81,75%
(<100%)
0 dólares o financiado
y texto de ventkickstarter.co
per/the-coolestnder-music-an?ref=nav_searcnscripción y cotas 1: estructul texto. s.
de ofrecer uexitosa para el que se paformas de financiar eltos (Tabla ataforma vi
mpañas, una se había fiericanos (en
de crowdfun
Blender,
More. y mucho
2
U2013
013
tas 1: m/project-cooler-d-so-ch
htt
ontenido.uración y
VídTexconRe
unas recomea campañaspudieran ancrowdfund
l mismo pro1). El casortual Kickst
primera qufijado – y n adelante ding
CAM
COOLE1st Century C
CUna nevera mod
8 de Ju
30 de A
5
50.0
13.285
2
(>
13.285Fin
Vídeo 2 y ttps://www.kicryangrepper/c
centuryactually?r
deo 2: transcrixto de ventas ntenido del texcompensas.
endaciones s de crowdfnalizar los fding americaoyecto se lao selecciontarter.
ue no tiene la posteriodólares), b
MPAÑA 2
EST COOLER:Cooler that's ACooler derna para el sigulio de 2014
Agosto de2014
52 días
000 dólares
5.226 dólares
26570%
>100%)
5.226 dólares nanciado
texto de ventackstarter.com/pcoolest-coolery-cooler-thats-ref=nav_searcipción y conte2: estructuracxto.
4
para la funding factores anas se anzaron nado se
éxito – or que, batió el
: Actually
glo XXI
4
as 2: projects/r-21st-
ch enido. ción y
5
De acuerdo con los modelos teóricos anteriores, el proyecto The Coolest Cooler se clasifica de la siguiente manera:
Modelo de crowdfunding: modelo de recompensas con dos tipos: o Simples recompensas para aportaciones menores a 165 dólares. o Pre-venta, si la aportación es igual o superior a 165 dólares el contribuyente
adquiere la nevera. Además cuentan con todo un programa de recompensas para las grandes aportaciones.
Motivos del creador del proyecto para buscar apoyo en una plataforma de crowdfunding:
o Financiación: es el motivo principal ya que el creador tiene un proyecto y un prototipo pero necesita dinero para costear la producción y comercialización.
o Atención y feedback del público: se consideran motivos secundarios. Este proyecto se hizo viral y el feedback fue muy útil para conocer la opinión pública y mejorar la segunda campaña lanzada.
Motivos para los que contribuyeron a la financiación del proyecto: o Retorno esperado a cambio de su contribución económica: recompensas
atractivas. o Sentirse parte de una comunidad: contribuir con un proyecto que dio mucho
que hablar y apuntaba a convertirse, como efectivamente hizo, en récord histórico de recaudación de fondos usando crowdfunding.
De los resultados alcanzados con el análisis comparativo aplicado sobre el caso se extraen recomendaciones para la elaboración de estrategias de comunicación efectivas para las campañas crowdfunding basado en recompensas. Las recomendaciones se clasifican en tres categorías, emociones, atracción y confianza:
1. Emociones
Los emprendedores o empresas en busca de financiación deben enfocar sus campañas al público objetivo, que es quien potencialmente se inclinará a contribuir monetariamente a sus proyectos. Los contenidos de la campaña deben apelar a la emociones de los receptores cuando describen como el producto/servicio en cuestión aumentará su calidad de vida; es esencial que se describan los beneficios que les aportan y no una lista de prestaciones y características.
2. Atracción
Crear una buena primera impresión es determinante para el éxito de una campaña de crowdfunding basada en recompensas. Elementos como el título o la introducción del proyecto condicionan el que el espectador siga leyendo o haga clic para regresar al menú principal de la plataforma y abandonar.
En la presentación de un proyecto se debe enfatizar en cómo el producto/servicio que se propone es diferente a todo lo que ya existe en el mercado remarcando aquellas necesidades que ningún otro producto/servicio satisface y que el ofertado cubrirá.
6
Los lugares en los que se contextualiza el vídeo, el clima y la ropa, entre otros, son elementos a cuidar en los vídeos e imágenes publicados. Se recomienda presentar entornos reales en los que el producto/servicio se disfrutaría o sería útil. El público objetivo debe sentirse identificado.
3. Confianza
Los proyectos deben incluir un plan detallado de cómo se ejecutaran cuando la financiación que buscaban sea entregada. Este plan debe ser coherente y factible ya que la entrega a tiempo de las recompensas a los contribuyentes – siempre en cuestión – les preocupa especialmente.
Para reforzar la confianza del potencial financiador en el emprendedor o empresa al frente del proyecto se deben ofrecer evidencias verificables que les prueben como expertos en la materia como casos previos de éxito.
Con este caso hemos visto como un emprendedor lanza un proyecto inicial que no consigue financiación. En un momento posterior rectifica, mejora y relanza el proyecto en la misma plataforma alcanzado el éxito. La identificación, análisis y redacción de este Trabajo Fin de Grado ha supuesto una mejora en mi formación que me prepara para afrontar el futuro profesional con una mente más amplia, abierta al cambio y con la posibilidad de afrontar nuevos proyectos a través del crowfunding.
7
Bibliografía
Barabas, R. (2012). Crowdfunding: Trends and Developments Impacting Entertainment
Entrepreneurs. NYSBA Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal , 37-40.
Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Chicago.
Cryder, C., & Loewenstein , G. (2011). The Critical Link Between Tangibility and
Generosity. Carnegie Mellon University.
Georges, P. M., Bayle-Tourtoulou, A. S., & Badoc, M. (2014). Neuromarketing in
Action: How to Talk and Sell to the Brain.
Google Trends. (1 de February de 2015). Trends: Explore. Recuperado el 1 de February
de 2015, de Google: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=crowdfunding
Grepper, R. (8 de July de 2014). Kickstarter: COOLEST COOLER: 21st Century
Cooler that's Actually Cooler. Recuperado el 10 de October de 2014, de Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/coolest-cooler-21st-century-cooler-thats-actually?ref=nav_search
Grepper, R. (26 de November de 2013). Kickstarter: The Coolest: Cooler with
Blender, Music and So Much More. Recuperado el 10 de October de 2014, de Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/the-coolest-cooler-with-blender-music-and-so-much?ref=nav_search
Hemer, J. (2011). A snapshot on crowdfunding. Recuperado el 1 de November de 2014,
http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-en/p/publikationen/arbpap_unternehmen_region.php
Massolution. (2013). 2013CF-The Crowdfunding Industry Report.
MVC. (2013). Communication Strategies. Training Manual, Moreno Valley College.
Ramos, J., & Stewart, J. (2014). Crowdfunding and the Role of Managers in Ensuring the
Sustainability of Crowdfunding Platforms. European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014.
Renvoise, P., & Morin, C. (2007). Neuromarketing.
Schwienbacher, A., & Lambert, T. (2010). An Empirical Analysis of Crowdfunding.
Schwienbacher , A., & Larralde, B. (2010). Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance. En A.
Schwienbacher, & B. Larralde, Crowdfunding of Small Entrepreneurial Ventures.
8
Stengel, G. (28 de August de 2014). Crowdfunding: Raise Money And Build Your Fan
Base. Recuperado el 2 de November de 2014, de Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/geristengel/2014/08/27/crowdfunding-raise-money-and-build-your-fan-base/
Willems, W. (2013). What characteristics of crowdfunding platforms influence the
success rate? Master thesis Cultural Economics & Entrepreneurship , Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Windle, R., & Warren, S. (2014). CADRE. Section4: Communication Skills. Recuperado
el 10 de November de 2014, de Direction Service: http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/section4.cfm
Wittmann, B.C., Daw, N., Seymour, B., & Raymond, D.J. (2008). Striatal Activity
Underlies Novelty-Based Choice in Humans. Cell Press.