crowd-funding wordpress plugins

18
Crowd- funding WordPress Plugins Jonathan Bishop Wordcamp 2015, Birmingham

Upload: jonathan-bishop

Post on 17-Aug-2015

67 views

Category:

Internet


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Crowd-funding

WordPress Plugins

Jonathan BishopWordcamp 2015, Birmingham

Jargon, jargon and more neologisms

KEY THEMES RO BE EXPLORED

Geo-demographic factors

Online advertising

Intellectual property

Project management

SPECIALIST TERMINOLOGY

WordPress Plugins

Agile development

Big Data

Contingent working

Crowd-funding

Format of presentation

PART 1 – INTROUDCTION TO CROWD-FUNDING

Extent and nature of crowd-funding

PledgeBank (failure)

IndieGoGo (successful)

WordPress + PayPal (successful)

Person-to-Person (successful)

PART 2 – THE ROLE OF ONLINE ADVERTISING

Geo-demographic factors

Crowd-funding supported through online advertising

Equality issues

Big Data

PART 3 – PROJECT MANAGENENT ISSUES

Agile Development

Contingent-working

User testing

Archeology (Bonacchi, 2015)Renovation and Sustainable development (Kunkel, 2015)

The Built and Human Environment

Bitcoins and currency exchangeAnonymity issues

Election campaigning

Marketable via plugin websiteCode must be open sourceSubscriptions possibleLimited financial return

WordPress plugins

PART 1

The extent of crowd-funding

• Difficult to follow up if target has not reached

• Do people trust you?

• How many actually use it?

PledgeBank

• Purpose-built

• Secure funding

• Brand awareness

• Social proof

IndieGoGo + AdWords

• Completely customisable

• Uses trusted payment platform

• Dedicated websites can be linked to from many sources and search engine optimised.

WordPress + PayPal

PART 1

Conclusions from Part 1

END OF PART 1

Extent and nature of crowd-funding Can be used for many projects, but be mindful of the law

PledgeBank Did not work because of trust and unsuitable design

IndieGoGo Secured users because it was purpose built and trustworthy

WordPress + PayPal Secured funding due to detail and trust

Person-to-Person People do business with people, who they know and trust.

Using Big Data to identify geo-demographic factors in advertising crowd-funding projects

PART 2

Source: J. Bishop (2014).

This is an example of an advert on Google and its partner website in order to entice people into supporting the development of QPress through crowd-funding.

For the data the CV was 1.786 , which was good. The data showed the most salient factors affecting success are impressions and average position. Clicks are also a factor, but the costs to the advertiser are not.

Factors affecting success of advertising crowd-funded projects

Advertising your crowd-funding project

PART 2

Equality issues in crowd-funding project advertising

Comparing Portugal’s (lowest) online ad expenditure with the United States’ (highest)using Big Data metrics

Comparing Spain’s (highest) percentage of NEETs with Japan’s (lowest) using Big Data metrics

PART 2

Equality and diversity issues in crowd-funding project advertising

Comparing Mexico’s (lowest) rooms in house and education outcomes with the United States’ (highest( using Big Data metrics

Comparing Spain’s (highest) percentage of NEETs with Japan’s (lowest) using Big Data metrics

PART 2

Conclusions from Part 2

END OF PART 2

Crowd-funding supported through online advertising Increase reach through targeted marketing

Geo-demographic factors Ensure appropriate markets are tapped into, but avoid

those who just want ad income

Equality issues Ensure all are considered and included

Big Data Measuring performance and finding trends

Agile Development

Stage 1 - Q/Qu (data collection)

Q-sort data collection

Questionnaire data collection

Stage 2 - QPress 0.5 (activities)

Administrator Panel

Create surveys

Stage 3 – QPress 1 (data exporting)

Export data to standardised packages (e.g. SPSS, PQMethodl PCQ, Excel)

Export data in bundled formats (i.e. UK Data Archive; RTF, Excel, SPSS)

Stage 4 – QPress 2 (data analysis)

Administrator Panel

Create surveys

PART 3

Contingent Working

Employee-based Model

Employees have to work set hours

Can be moved from project to project

Have to be paid for any work done, including overtime, even if they didn’t do it correctly

Are employed even when there is no work to do

Must do things the way their manager tells them, even if they would prefer otherwise

Sub-contractor based model

Can work at a time and place most suited to them

Only work on the projects their skills are required for

Are paid a fixed rate to do a particular task regardless of how long it takes

Are only engaged for a specific task as and when needed

Must do things the way they want, so long as the outcomes are achieved

PART 3

User Testing

Scenario-based Can identify expectations Can highly problems to solve

Software testing Can identify problems early Can provide suggestions for

improvement

Marketing and community Can build a loyal user base Can assist ‘buy-in’

PART 3

Conclusions from Part 3

END OF PART 3

Agile Development Means plugins can be put together as separate

embodiments as money comes in, not after

Contingent-working Means workers are taken on when the money is there to

pay them, rather than having to pay an ongoing salary

User testing Testing on users can cut out many of the costs of

redeveloping plugins as a result of design flaws

A conceptual frameworkBEGINNING OF THE END

Questions and feedback

ANY QUESTIONS?

Agile development

Contingent working

Crowd-funding

Geo-demographics

NEXT SPEECH

I will be speaking at the 12th International Conference on Web Based Communities and Social Media 2015, 22 – 24 July, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.

Ask for a discount form for my book: “Gamification for Human Factors Integration: Social, Educational and

Psychological Issues”

MIDDLE OF THE END

References and further reading

Bishop, J. (2014). Digital Teens and the ‘Antisocial Network': Prevalence of Troublesome Online Youth Groups and Internet trolling in Great Britain. International Journal of E-Politics (IJEP), 5(3), 1-15.

Bishop, J. (2011). Mum’s the WordPress: A Comparative Analysis of Political and Mommy Bloggers. In Hamid R. Arabnia; Victor A. Clincy & Ashu M. G. Solo (Eds.) Proceedings of The 2011 Internet Conference on Internet Computing (ICOMP’2011). July 18-21, 2011. Las Vegas Nevada, USA.

Bonacchi, C., Bevan, A., Pett, D., & Keinan-Schoonbaert, A. (2015). Developing Crowd-and Community-fuelled Archaeological Research. Early results from the MicroPasts project.

Kunkel, S. (2015). Green Crowdfunding: A Future-Proof Tool to Reach Scale and Deep Renovation?. In World Sustainable Energy Days Next 2014 (pp. 79-85). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

THE END