Although crowdfunding
is a relatively new method of funding for start-ups and small ventures, it has become an increasingly relevant means of alternative financing. Researchers and scholars have started to investigate this phenomenon in the attempt to construct a theoretical model that could fully explain the dynamics behind crowdfunding, focusing on two main aspects: (1) the incentives and disincentives for starting or taking part in crowdfunding projects (see, e.g., Gerber et al.
2012; Agrawal et al.
2014; Allison et al.
2015) and (2) factors associated with successful campaigns (see, e.g., Agrawal et al.
2011; Mollick
2014; Colombo et al.
2015; Giudici et al.
2018).
Investigating initiators’ incentives for starting a crowdfunding
project, research shows that fundraisers consider crowdfunding as an opportunity (1) to finance their company at a lower cost of capital; (2) to receive public attention; and (3) obtain feedback on the product or service offered (Gerber et al.
2012; Agarwal et al.
2014; Belleflamme et al.
2014). Crowdfunding platforms are easily accessible and thereby represent an opportunity for entrepreneurs to test the marketability of the project and receive suggestions. Nevertheless, embracing crowdfunding entails a great deal of public exposure and information disclosure (Agarwal et al.
2014). If creators are unable to collect the necessary funds from the crowd they will face the threat of not only reducing their chances of receiving future investments but also that others may steal their ideas.
Funders, on the other hand, finance crowdfunding campaigns
to support an innovative idea, to help others to realise their dreams, to gain early access to new products, and to be part of a community (Zhang
2012; Agarwal et al.
2014). The exchange of resources, followed by continuous interactions among members (both supporters and creators) of these platforms, generates a sense of belonging to a community where individuals share similar views and beliefs. Nonetheless, funders face some disincentives in engaging in crowdfunding projects. Early-stage companies that generally approach crowdfunding
are inherently risky and often funders and creators are overoptimistic about projects outcomes (Mollick
2014). Moreover, crowdfunding is a fertile ground for fraudulent behaviours. Creators could provide false information to promote their company and information asymmetries are very high (Agarwal et al.
2014). Lastly, in crowdfunding, virtual meetings replace real-life encounters, making it more challenging for the crowd to understand what businesses and what intermediary can be trusted (Schwienbacher and Larralde
2010).
1.2.1 Investment Models
Although it represents the greatest share of the crowdfunding market, there is a relatively small literature on lending crowdfunding. Lending crowdfunding
is best suited for ventures that have built a viable product and generates some initial revenue, demonstrating early traction (Paschen
2017). Scholars have analysed the role of networks within peer-to-peer lending
crowds and their effect on crowdfunding campaigns’ performance. Network relations provide larger proportions of loans
, lending four times more than strangers. Investors with preexisting network ties also respond to loan requests on average 59.5% sooner than strangers (Horvát et al.
2015). These results are in line with extant research on other crowdfunding models highlighting the importance of relations and network in online fundraising success (Agrawal et al.
2011; Mollick
2014; Colombo et al.
2015; Butticè et al.
2017).
Scholars have further investigated the lending behaviour in P2P crowdfunding platforms. Cummins et al. (
2018), comparing lending
practices of non-banking institutional investors and retail investors, found that institutional investors generally outperform retail investors, achieving higher returns upon repayments and having a lower likelihood of loan
default than retail investors. Along the same lines, Kgoroeadira et al. (
2018), investigated whether P2P small business lending has different characteristics than traditional small business
lending. Unlike traditional lenders
, P2P online lenders, in deciding whether or not to lend money
to businesses, focus more on entrepreneurs’ personal characteristics—e.g. person’s credit score
, employment, picture, etc.—than business characteristics. This suggests that entrepreneurs should approach online markets, tailoring their pitch as personal rather than focusing on firm characteristics, since the latter are the main determinants of securing funding.
Similarly, while equity crowdfunding
has reached significant investment volumes, the number of research studies on the area is relatively small. One of the first studies tackling the equity crowdfunding phenomenon was conducted by Ahlers et al. (
2015) examining the impact of project quality (human capital, social capital, and intellectual capital) and perceived level of uncertainty on the success of a campaign. The authors found that while entrepreneur’s human capital was relevant in attracting a higher number of investors and capital, social, and intellectual capital did not appear to be key success factors. They also highlighted the importance of providing detailed information about the company—e.g. financial roadmaps, risk factors, etc.—to prospective backers to reduce information asymmetry
. Nevin et al. (
2017), focusing on the role of social media activities in equity-crowdfunding campaign success, show that being active on social media, engaging with the crowd, and understanding social media
selectivity—using different social media according to the target audience—positively impact the outcome of a crowdfunding campaign. Lynn et al. (
2017) provide insights on the crowdfunding network on Twitter—comprising multiple subcommunities, hubs, and influencers–illustrating the geographical concentration of crowdfunding in specific areas or communities and highlighting the importance of the social media
use during crowdfunding campaigns.
Looking at the post-equity funding performance of crowd-backed start-ups in the UK, Signori and Vismara (
2018) found that 18% of them were not active anymore, whereas 35% raised further funding from either traditional investors (9%) or follow-on crowdfunding offering (25%). Lastly, taking a qualitative perspective, the study by Di Pietro et al. (
2018c) illustrates how entrepreneurs leveraging investor networks generated in the course of equity-based crowdfunding
campaigns
, contributes to the success of start-up firms. Crowd investors can provide firm founders with knowledge related to the product, strategy, and market as well as network ties with industry players and other stakeholders.
1.2.2 Non-investment Models
Agrawal et al. (
2011) conducted one of the first studies investigating how online reward-based crowdfunding
platforms
reduce investors’ costs related to early-stage financing (e.g. collecting initial information, monitoring, providing inputs, etc.) and eliminate most of the distance-related economic frictions. Their study shows that Family and Friends (F&F) investors
are mostly local and invest in the project in the early phases of the funding process, whereas non-F&F investors are more geographically disperse and willing to fund as the capital raised increases. Mollick (
2014), taking a broader perspective, focused on the role of the founders themselves in determining the success (or failure) of their online reward-based campaigns. The perceived quality of the underlying project, which can be signalled, for example, by including videos, providing frequent updates, and avoiding spelling errors, together with the founders’ social network
size, increase the chances of success of a crowdfunding
campaign. The effects of geography on the success of the project were also considered, in terms of proximity to funders, supporting Agrawal et al. (
2011) findings.
Colombo et al. (
2015), investigating reward-based crowdfunding
from
a social capital perspective, show that during the first stages of the campaign, when the level of uncertainty concerning the proposed projects is high, the founders’ relationships within the crowdfunding community are necessary to spread information and attract early backers. The relationships and social contacts developed among founders and backers within the same online platform—
internal social capital—appears to be crucial in attracting both early-capital and early-backers, which are strong predictors of a campaign’s success. Internal social capital
, reducing the information asymmetry
between founders and backers, triggers imitating behaviours of other investors that feel more confident in endorsing the proposed project. Along this line, Butticè et al. (
2017) showed that serial projects’ proponents in reward-based crowdfunding
platforms
were able to build internal social capital
by launching several successful campaigns, increasing their chances of succeeding also in their subsequent campaigns. By supporting the same project throughout its whole creative process, backers become part of a virtual community sharing common views and goals and this creates an emotional connection with other members of the group and with the entrepreneur as well.
The importance of social capital in reward-based crowdfunding
and, in general
, the characteristics of the geographic area where project’s proponent reside were also examined by Giudici et al. (
2018). Their study demonstrates that
local altruism—the level of altruism shared by people living in the founder’s city—represents a key success factor for crowdfunding
projects and this effect is strengthened by the entrepreneur’s personal social networks
, supporting the findings of Mollick (
2014), and
local relations among residents. More recently, Di Pietro et al. (
2018a), looking at the characteristics of the geographic area where investors reside, suggest that
local religiosity can play a significant role in enhancing the fundraising of cross-regional crowdfunding projects.
On the topic of donation-based crowdfunding
, scholars
have focused their attention mainly on the determinants of funding behaviours (Gleasure and Feller
2016), considering the benefits that donors achieve through donations. In some cases, financial benefits are gained in the form of tax deductibility as suggested by Meer (
2014), but more frequently social benefits represent the main reward for donors. From this perspective, the way in which projects are described and the anonymity of users influence the propensity and the amount of donations (Smith et al.
2013; Burtch et al.
2015). Di Pietro et al. (
2018b), analysing crowdfunding donations collected in Italy by Mary’s Meals Charity over a 15-month period, illustrate that (lower)
digital divide, i.e. access to infrastructure such as broadband connection, and user’s
digital literacy, i.e. habitual use of Internet
, enhance funder’s propensity to use a crowdfunding
platform for donation purposes. The findings also support the hypothesis that the use of social media
, in particular Facebook sharing, positively influences donations.
Overall, research in both investment and non-investment crowdfunding
models illustrate that (1) funding is not geographically constrained although geographical proximity matters since most of the capital flows to the same regions (e.g. Agrawal et al.
2011; Lynn et al.
2017; Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance
2018); (2) funding propensity grows with collected capital, highlighting the importance of friends and family as well as entrepreneurs’ internal social capital
as they invest early in the funding cycle (e.g. Agrawal et al.
2011; Mollick
2014; Colombo et al.
2015; Butticè et al.
2017); and that (3) funding is influenced by the characteristics of the local area in which entrepreneurs and investors live (e.g. Di Pietro et al.
2018a; Giudici et al.
2018).