Content uploaded by Gloria Gómez-Diago
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gloria Gómez-Diago on Apr 04, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
171© Springer-Verlag London 2015
N. Zagalo, P. Branco (eds.), Creativity in the Digital Age,
Springer Series on Cultural Computing, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6681-8_10
Chapter 10
Communication in Crowdfunding Online
Platforms
Gloria Gómez-Diago
10.1 Introduction
The internet is the media, or sum of media, which have probably provoked the most
relevant revolution in the last decades. This revolution has utterance at different con-
texts of the citizens’ lives. Searching a job, being in touch with people who are far
away, being informed about issues of interest, streaming videos, listening to music,
buying and or reading books and cocreating documents are all activities now per-
formed online by most of the 40 % of the world population who have internet con-
nection ( Internet Live Stats , Internet Usage Statistics ). Collective creation can be
done with ease on the cyberspace by using any of the multitude of devices and options
available. In another place (Gómez- Diago 2010 , 2012 ), we have illustrated the suit-
ability of virtual worlds such as Second Life® for working collaboratively online.
According to Stohl ( 2014 ) ‘the crowds of today encapsulate new forms of politi-
cal, economic, and creative power’. The ease with which users take part in social
networks stimulates the creation of a social capital, the one that ‘is result of the
value of the connections among individuals and of the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that arise from them’ (Putnam 2000 ).
An example of social capital produced on the net is free and open-source
software, created under a methodology named The Bazaar by Raymond ( 1998 )
and which is characterised by the fact that being the source code available, many
persons contribute to develop the software, to fi x it and to improve it.
Free and open-source software is much more accessible than privative software
which is unaffordable for most of the population, and more important, its use
encourages citizens to program by allowing them to study its source code, to install
the software in several computers, to update it, etc.
G. Gómez-Diago (*)
Department of Communication Sciences II, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos , Madrid , Spain
e-mail: gloriagdiago@gmail.com; dpto.cc.ccII@urjc.es
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
172
Despite the ongoing development of free software and despite its availability
through directories such as the free software directory , there are still a lot of people
and enterprises that are slaves of privative software. This is caused mainly for two
reasons. Firstly, because of piracy, which, as Bill Gates stated, has permitted him to
reach a large long-term market, avoiding users from using free open-source soft-
ware ( Chopra and Dexter 2011 ). Secondly, privative software is used and promoted
in the context of formal education. Sadly, we can fi nd on the net syllabus of master
courses that base its signifi cance on the learning of a privative software package.
During the academic course 2011–2012, when teaching the privative software
Illustrator® at the University of Vigo, we witnessed the problems encountered by
most of the pupils (Gómez-Diago 2013a ) through a pilot study underpinned by
observant participation and by the realisation of open questionnaires; we ascer-
tained how using privative software obstructs the learning process by restricting the
learning environment to the classroom and by limiting the computer literacy.
Rushkoff ( 2010 : 143) points out that due to the potential of technologies and
networks to infl uence the economy, it is needed that many people participate in the
design of the interaction patterns whereby the cyberspace is articulated. Educative
institutions should empower students to create their own tools and to maintain their
safety (Gómez-Diago 2014 ).
Development and accessibility of technology is helping people to create and to
cocreate in a cyberspace where there are no physical barriers. Chatzimilioudis et al.
( 2012 ) highlight the role of smartphones in making collaboration easier and omni-
present, ‘enabling new crowdsourcing applications by including capabilities, such
as geolocation, light, movement, or audio and visual sensors’.
We can fi nd examples of online collective creative works such as Life in a Day ,
a crowdsourced documentary produced by Ridley Scott and directed by Kevin
Macdonald. The documentary, which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival and is
free and available on the internet, comprises a selection made from 80,000 videos,
which were uploaded to the YouTube platform by thousands of users, from 192
nations. These videos show part of the lives of the authors that occurred on July 24,
2010.
In this chapter we centre on crowdfunding, but it is important to highlight the
relationship between crowdsourcing and crowdfunding. So, both concepts are
bound to the collective effort of the crowd to achieve an objective. While in crowd-
sourcing participants contribute with their talent to a collective process of creation,
in crowdfunding, the participation mainly implies funding a project for turning it
into real. The success of this fi nancial method reveals the interest of users around
the world on contributing to the development of cultural actions, ideas and even
political parties, which are being created with the help of crowdfunding actions.
Since 2012, the online crowdfunding platform Kickstarter ‘raises more money for
the arts annually than the total funding provided through the US government‐run
National Endowment for the Arts’ (Mollick and Nanda 2014 ).
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
173
10.2 Crowdfunding
Several examples of crowdfunding happened long before the appearance of the
internet. Among them, we can cite the composers Mozart and Beethoven funding
their concerts through advance subscriptions or the Statue of Liberty, which was
funded by small donations from the American and French people (Hemer 2011 ).
The campaign made by Joseph Pulitzer in 1885 (Davies 2013 ) is a successful
crowdfunding example that occurred in a time where the internet did not exist.
Seeing that city policymakers did not reach an agreement to fund the pedestal for
the Statue of Liberty, in March 16, 1885, Pulitzer published a text in his own Journal,
the New York World . He made a direct appeal to American patriotism and the
working- class solidarity, encouraging people to respond to the gift made by
the French working people. The effectiveness of the campaign was motivated by the
emotive text but also by the reward method designed by Pulitzer. He created a sec-
tion on his journal where he published the names of the donors and the quantity of
money given by each one of them. By this action, Pulitzer generated transparency
and rewarded the supporters, transmitting credibility, trust and engagement, three
issues we consider central in the communication taking place in crowdfunding
online platforms.
One hundred twenty-nine years after the campaign made by Pulitzer, the data
provided by Statista website says that the number of crowdfunding platforms world-
wide was 342 in 2012 and that the volume of funds obtained by crowdfunding plat-
forms was around one and a half billion US dollars, in 2013.
Depending on the relationship established between creators and donators, we can
distinguish four types of crowdfunding (Young 2012 ; De Buysere et al. 2012 ):
donation-based crowdfunding, reward-based crowdfunding, debt-based crowdfund-
ing and equity-based crowdfunding.
Donation-based crowdfunding is based on collecting funds from groups of peo-
ple for specifi c projects or goals, and it does not require giving rewards to the
pledgers .
Reward-based crowdfunding is the usual crowdfunding exerted by platforms
such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo. The campaigns encourage people to donate so that
a specifi c project can be done in exchange of rewards linked to the project itself. For
example, fi lmmakers usually offer DVDs of their fi lms, artists offer copies of their
artwork, etc.
Debt-based crowdfunding, also named peer-to-peer lending (P2P) or social lend-
ing, is defi ned as a fi nancial transaction between individuals, or ‘peers’, without a
fi nancial intermediary implicated.
Finally, equity-based crowdfunding offers the crowd the possibility to buy a
piece of a business. They can invest in the company and receive shares in it.
Bellow, we identify the most important reasons that move creators and support-
ers to participate in crowdfunding actions.
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
174
10.3 Motivations of Supporters and Creators to Participate
in Crowdfunding
To know how crowdfunding performs, it is important to understand the motivations
that move creators and supporters to participate in this collective fi nancing method.
Helm ( 2011 , cited by Damus 2014 ) identifi ed factors for fi nancially supporting
crowdfunding projects by grouping them in three categories: intrinsic self-
determined, extrinsic self-determined and foreign-extrinsic. She also indicates the
weight and infl uence of each factor from 1, most relevant, to 9, less relevant.
Below we include a diagram (see Fig. 10.1 ) that illustrates how Helm under-
stands the functioning of supporter’s motivations.
By seeing the motivations expressed in Fig. 10.1 , we perceive the active role of
donors who, when funding projects, apart from helping people to develop their
ideas, also perform actions such as being involved in a group or recognising and
exerting a responsible action. To complete the proposal of Helm ( 2011 ), we sum-
marise some of the motivations that creators and supporters have to participate in
crowdfunding actions according to Bellefl amme et al. ( 2010 ), Gerbner and Hui
( 2012 ) and Hemer ( 2011 , cited by Willems 2013 ).
The motivations included on the table (see Table 10.1 ) comprise motives of cre-
ators and of donors to participate in crowdfunding projects. Studying the type of
projects most funded could help to guess which type of creations users prefer. In this
line, Jian and Usher ( 2014 ) analysed the behaviour of the donors in a crowdfunding
journalism platform named Spot.Us . They found that users funded reports focused
on news ‘you can use’, that is, news topics that are of immediate utility to them in
daily living.
Creators and supporters who participate at crowdfunding projects share the inter-
est on contributing in communities and/or in collective causes. This interest of being
Intrinsic
self-determined
2. Entertainment
5. Curiosity
Extrinsic
self-determined
1. Idealism
3. Membership
4. Empathy
Foreign-extrinsic
6. Consideration
7. Recognition and
sponsibilityresponsibility
8. Guilt
9. Subjective norm
Fig. 10.1 Motivation factors for supporting crowdfunding projects, according to Helm ( 2011
cited by Damus
2014 )
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
171© Springer-Verlag London 2015
N. Zagalo, P. Branco (eds.), Creativity in the Digital Age,
Springer Series on Cultural Computing, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-6681-8_10
Chapter 10
Communication in Crowdfunding Online
Platforms
Gloria Gómez-Diago
10.1 Introduction
The internet is the media, or sum of media, which have probably provoked the most
relevant revolution in the last decades. This revolution has utterance at different con-
texts of the citizens’ lives. Searching a job, being in touch with people who are far
away, being informed about issues of interest, streaming videos, listening to music,
buying and or reading books and cocreating documents are all activities now per-
formed online by most of the 40 % of the world population who have internet con-
nection ( Internet Live Stats , Internet Usage Statistics ). Collective creation can be
done with ease on the cyberspace by using any of the multitude of devices and options
available. In another place (Gómez- Diago 2010 , 2012 ), we have illustrated the suit-
ability of virtual worlds such as Second Life® for working collaboratively online.
According to Stohl ( 2014 ) ‘the crowds of today encapsulate new forms of politi-
cal, economic, and creative power’. The ease with which users take part in social
networks stimulates the creation of a social capital, the one that ‘is result of the
value of the connections among individuals and of the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that arise from them’ (Putnam 2000 ).
An example of social capital produced on the net is free and open-source
software, created under a methodology named The Bazaar by Raymond ( 1998 )
and which is characterised by the fact that being the source code available, many
persons contribute to develop the software, to fi x it and to improve it.
Free and open-source software is much more accessible than privative software
which is unaffordable for most of the population, and more important, its use
encourages citizens to program by allowing them to study its source code, to install
the software in several computers, to update it, etc.
G. Gómez-Diago (*)
Department of Communication Sciences II, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos , Madrid , Spain
e-mail: gloriagdiago@gmail.com; dpto.cc.ccII@urjc.es
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
172
Despite the ongoing development of free software and despite its availability
through directories such as the free software directory , there are still a lot of people
and enterprises that are slaves of privative software. This is caused mainly for two
reasons. Firstly, because of piracy, which, as Bill Gates stated, has permitted him to
reach a large long-term market, avoiding users from using free open-source soft-
ware ( Chopra and Dexter 2011 ). Secondly, privative software is used and promoted
in the context of formal education. Sadly, we can fi nd on the net syllabus of master
courses that base its signifi cance on the learning of a privative software package.
During the academic course 2011–2012, when teaching the privative software
Illustrator® at the University of Vigo, we witnessed the problems encountered by
most of the pupils (Gómez-Diago 2013a ) through a pilot study underpinned by
observant participation and by the realisation of open questionnaires; we ascer-
tained how using privative software obstructs the learning process by restricting the
learning environment to the classroom and by limiting the computer literacy.
Rushkoff ( 2010 : 143) points out that due to the potential of technologies and
networks to infl uence the economy, it is needed that many people participate in the
design of the interaction patterns whereby the cyberspace is articulated. Educative
institutions should empower students to create their own tools and to maintain their
safety (Gómez-Diago 2014 ).
Development and accessibility of technology is helping people to create and to
cocreate in a cyberspace where there are no physical barriers. Chatzimilioudis et al.
( 2012 ) highlight the role of smartphones in making collaboration easier and omni-
present, ‘enabling new crowdsourcing applications by including capabilities, such
as geolocation, light, movement, or audio and visual sensors’.
We can fi nd examples of online collective creative works such as Life in a Day ,
a crowdsourced documentary produced by Ridley Scott and directed by Kevin
Macdonald. The documentary, which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival and is
free and available on the internet, comprises a selection made from 80,000 videos,
which were uploaded to the YouTube platform by thousands of users, from 192
nations. These videos show part of the lives of the authors that occurred on July 24,
2010.
In this chapter we centre on crowdfunding, but it is important to highlight the
relationship between crowdsourcing and crowdfunding. So, both concepts are
bound to the collective effort of the crowd to achieve an objective. While in crowd-
sourcing participants contribute with their talent to a collective process of creation,
in crowdfunding, the participation mainly implies funding a project for turning it
into real. The success of this fi nancial method reveals the interest of users around
the world on contributing to the development of cultural actions, ideas and even
political parties, which are being created with the help of crowdfunding actions.
Since 2012, the online crowdfunding platform Kickstarter ‘raises more money for
the arts annually than the total funding provided through the US government‐run
National Endowment for the Arts’ (Mollick and Nanda 2014 ).
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
173
10.2 Crowdfunding
Several examples of crowdfunding happened long before the appearance of the
internet. Among them, we can cite the composers Mozart and Beethoven funding
their concerts through advance subscriptions or the Statue of Liberty, which was
funded by small donations from the American and French people (Hemer 2011 ).
The campaign made by Joseph Pulitzer in 1885 (Davies 2013 ) is a successful
crowdfunding example that occurred in a time where the internet did not exist.
Seeing that city policymakers did not reach an agreement to fund the pedestal for
the Statue of Liberty, in March 16, 1885, Pulitzer published a text in his own Journal,
the New York World . He made a direct appeal to American patriotism and the
working- class solidarity, encouraging people to respond to the gift made by
the French working people. The effectiveness of the campaign was motivated by the
emotive text but also by the reward method designed by Pulitzer. He created a sec-
tion on his journal where he published the names of the donors and the quantity of
money given by each one of them. By this action, Pulitzer generated transparency
and rewarded the supporters, transmitting credibility, trust and engagement, three
issues we consider central in the communication taking place in crowdfunding
online platforms.
One hundred twenty-nine years after the campaign made by Pulitzer, the data
provided by Statista website says that the number of crowdfunding platforms world-
wide was 342 in 2012 and that the volume of funds obtained by crowdfunding plat-
forms was around one and a half billion US dollars, in 2013.
Depending on the relationship established between creators and donators, we can
distinguish four types of crowdfunding (Young 2012 ; De Buysere et al. 2012 ):
donation-based crowdfunding, reward-based crowdfunding, debt-based crowdfund-
ing and equity-based crowdfunding.
Donation-based crowdfunding is based on collecting funds from groups of peo-
ple for specifi c projects or goals, and it does not require giving rewards to the
pledgers .
Reward-based crowdfunding is the usual crowdfunding exerted by platforms
such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo. The campaigns encourage people to donate so that
a specifi c project can be done in exchange of rewards linked to the project itself. For
example, fi lmmakers usually offer DVDs of their fi lms, artists offer copies of their
artwork, etc.
Debt-based crowdfunding, also named peer-to-peer lending (P2P) or social lend-
ing, is defi ned as a fi nancial transaction between individuals, or ‘peers’, without a
fi nancial intermediary implicated.
Finally, equity-based crowdfunding offers the crowd the possibility to buy a
piece of a business. They can invest in the company and receive shares in it.
Bellow, we identify the most important reasons that move creators and support-
ers to participate in crowdfunding actions.
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
174
10.3 Motivations of Supporters and Creators to Participate
in Crowdfunding
To know how crowdfunding performs, it is important to understand the motivations
that move creators and supporters to participate in this collective fi nancing method.
Helm ( 2011 , cited by Damus 2014 ) identifi ed factors for fi nancially supporting
crowdfunding projects by grouping them in three categories: intrinsic self-
determined, extrinsic self-determined and foreign-extrinsic. She also indicates the
weight and infl uence of each factor from 1, most relevant, to 9, less relevant.
Below we include a diagram (see Fig. 10.1 ) that illustrates how Helm under-
stands the functioning of supporter’s motivations.
By seeing the motivations expressed in Fig. 10.1 , we perceive the active role of
donors who, when funding projects, apart from helping people to develop their
ideas, also perform actions such as being involved in a group or recognising and
exerting a responsible action. To complete the proposal of Helm ( 2011 ), we sum-
marise some of the motivations that creators and supporters have to participate in
crowdfunding actions according to Bellefl amme et al. ( 2010 ), Gerbner and Hui
( 2012 ) and Hemer ( 2011 , cited by Willems 2013 ).
The motivations included on the table (see Table 10.1 ) comprise motives of cre-
ators and of donors to participate in crowdfunding projects. Studying the type of
projects most funded could help to guess which type of creations users prefer. In this
line, Jian and Usher ( 2014 ) analysed the behaviour of the donors in a crowdfunding
journalism platform named Spot.Us . They found that users funded reports focused
on news ‘you can use’, that is, news topics that are of immediate utility to them in
daily living.
Creators and supporters who participate at crowdfunding projects share the inter-
est on contributing in communities and/or in collective causes. This interest of being
Intrinsic
self-determined
2. Entertainment
5. Curiosity
Extrinsic
self-determined
1. Idealism
3. Membership
4. Empathy
Foreign-extrinsic
6. Consideration
7. Recognition and
sponsibilityresponsibility
8. Guilt
9. Subjective norm
Fig. 10.1 Motivation factors for supporting crowdfunding projects, according to Helm ( 2011
cited by Damus
2014 )
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
175
part of something bigger than oneself can be considered one of the causes of the
success of online crowdfunding platforms, environments where people around the
world participate with ease in a collective aim.
10.4 Online Crowdfunding Platforms
There are a multitude of online crowdfunding platforms around the world that we
can fi nd easily by using a search engine or by utilising any directory such as global
databases made by CrowdCafe or CrowdingIn, a directory created by the indepen-
dent charity named Nesta, which facilitates individuals or organisations in the
United Kingdom to choose the crowdfunding platform which better suits their
project.
Crowdfunding platforms provide possibilities that are worth to know with detail
when designing a project proposal. Depending on how creators use the space dis-
posed for the projects, they will reach their objective or not. Mollick (
2014 : 8)
identifi ed quality indicators to predict the success of crowdfunding projects. Among
them, he points out: the inclusion of video, doing quickly updates, not including
spelling mistakes and having a reasonable number of Facebook friends.
Mollick and Nanda ( 2014 ) discovered a pattern regarding the characteristics of
projects most liked by the crowds: they offer multiple tiers of rewards and provide
more updates. To guide the design of crowdfunding support tools, Hui et al. ( 2014 : 1)
Table 10.1 Motivations for participating in crowdfunding projects. Creators and supporters
Motivations for participating in crowdfunding actions
Creators Supporters
1. The expectation of attracting founders x
2. Get an overall control over their works x
3. Helping testing, promoting and marketing their products, in gaining
a better knowledge of their consumer’s tastes and in creating new
products or services altogether
x
4. Being part of a network which have similar interests and forming
connections
x x
5. The chance to expand one’s own personal network x x
6. Personal identifi cation with the project’s subject and its goals x
7. Enjoying contributing to an innovation or being among the pioneers
of new technology or business
x
8. Support a cause x
9. To help others x
10. Contribution to a societal important mission x
11. To be rewarded with a material object or an experience x
Based on Bellefl amme et al. (
2010 ), Gerbner and Hui ( 2012 ) and Hemer ( 2011 cited by Willems
2013 )
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
176
propose: ‘(1) to measure the size of support network, (2) to uncover motivations for
different audiences and (3) to identify opportunities to build reputation’.
Yi and Gerbner ( 2012 ) consider that crowdfunding is an emerging creativity tool
which supports collaboration in a community of users who share technical knowl-
edge as well as monetary resources. According to the authors crowdfunding plat-
forms encourage people to get their creative ideas shown, recognised, validated and
supported. These platforms generate a pressure which gives discipline to the proj-
ects (Damus 2014 ) and which is exerted by delivering an idea online, sharing it with
a critical mass, agreeing to a deadline to achieve the goal and accepting the all-or-
nothing approach, that is, achieving the requested sum and receiving it or not getting
anything.
This all-or-nothing approach is the only possibility in most of online crowdfund-
ing platforms, but there are exceptions such as Indiegogo, which allows creators to
choose a fl exible project. If the authors do not meet the goal or purpose , they will
obtain the money given by the donors until the last day of the campaign. In this case,
Indiegogo will keep a 7 % of the amount obtained.
Shneiderman’s Genex Framework, conceived to help human-computer interac-
tion researchers and user interface designers to design effective tools to support
creativity, proposes four activities representing the process of creative work – col-
lect, relate, create and donate – defi ned by smaller tasks (Shneiderman 2000 : 9) (see
Fig. 10.2 ).
1. Collect: learn from previous works stored in libraries, the Web, etc.
2. Relate: consult with peers and mentors at early, middle and late stages.
3. Create: explore, compose and evaluate possible solutions.
4. Donate: disseminate the results and contribute to the libraries.
Aiming to identify the attributes of online crowdfunding platforms related to the
creation process, Yi and Gerbner ( 2012 ) applied Shneiderman’s Genex Framework,
to the top three platforms – Kickstarter, RocketHub and Indiegogo – by grouping
1. Searching and browsing digital
2. Consulting with peers and mentors.
3. Visualizing data and processes.
4. Thinking by free associations.
5. Exploring solutions, what-if tools.
6. Composing artifacts and performances
7. Reviewing and replaying session histories.
8. Disseminating results.
1. Collect.
2. Relate.
3. Create.
4. Donate.
Fig. 10.2 Genex phases and their related primary activities, according to Shneiderman ( 2000 : 9 )
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
177
some of their features in the four phases involved in the creation of a project
according to Shneiderman.
Their proposal is very interesting because it approaches crowdfunding platforms
as a creative tool, as an environment where creators carry out different actions
involved in the creative process. Their perspective is situated between the creators
and the platforms, so Yi and Gerbner focused on the elements of the cited platforms,
which allowed achieving the actions needed to be completed in the creative process,
according to Shneiderman’s Genex Framework.
By applying Shneiderman’s Genex Framework , they do not only link the features
of the platforms to the activities included on the framework. They also identifi ed the
lack of features and/or tools of the platforms to perform the actions involved on the
framework. Below we include a table elaborated by Yi and Gerbner ( 2012 ) to illus-
trate their work (see Table 10.2 ).
Table 10.2 Overview of crowdfunding platform design features as seen through the Genex
Framework
Genex Framework Implications to crowdfunding
Phase Activities
Design features on crowdfunding
platforms Crowdfunding platforms
a
Collect Search 1. Keyword search KS, RH, IG
2. Advanced search IG
3. Browsing by categories KS, RH, IG
Visualisation 4. Visualisation of steps of projects Lack of visualisations of
project info.
5. Launch and project information KS, RH, IG
Relate Consult 1. Online contact form, e-mails KS, RH, IG
2. Updates, comments, blog KS, RH, IG
3. Discussion forum, real-time F & Q IG
4. Social networking tools KS, RH, IG
5. Online tutorials KS, RH, IG
Create Think 1. Visualisation tools to identify
association of ideas
None
Explore 2. Space for experimentation None
Compose 3. Exemplars from successful
experience
None
Review 4. Online sections of projects and
funding records
None
Donate Collect 1. Press media and social networking
media
KS, RH, IG
2. Listserv, digital library None
3. Recommendation and selective
dissemination of info services
None
Yi and Gerbner (
2012 : 1603)
a Abbreviations of crowdfunding platforms: KS Kickstarter, RH RocketHub, IG Indiegogo
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
178
As we ascertain on the table (see Table 10.2 ), there are phases and activities of
Shneiderman’s Genex Framework, which have no design features at crowdfunding
platforms. In this way, neither of the crowdfunding platforms studied have design
features referred to the Create phase: (1) visualisation tools to identify association
of ideas, (2) space for experimentation, (3) exemplars from successful experience
and (4) online sections of projects and funding records. The same occurs with the
features included in the Donate phase: (1) press media and social networking media;
(2) Listserv, digital library; and (3) recommendation and selective dissemination of
info services.
As we know, online crowdfunding platforms are evolving continuously. For this
reason, when writing this chapter, the online crowdfunding platforms studied here,
Kickstarter and Indiegogo, allow users to navigate around projects successfully
funded, and it is also possible to see which campaigns are the most funded. On the
other hand, Indiegogo has a newsletter to which users can subscribe.
The work of Yi and Gerbner is articulated from the perspective of a user who
navigates the platform while creating or while thinking about creating an idea or a
project, but it skips the fact that, apart from being oriented to creators, online crowd-
funding platforms are targeted to donors, who will fund the projects. So, there are
many elements that are mainstream in online crowdfunding platforms but not con-
sidered in their proposal.
In this context, we introduce this research. Taking into consideration that online
crowdfunding platforms are environments intended to generate an interaction with
users, and among users interested both in funding the projects and in submitting
projects to be funded, we make an approach from a communicative perspective.
This means that for identifying the features whereby Kickstarter and Indiegogo
engender credibility, trust and engagement on the users, we take into consideration
the different agents involved in the context of the crowdfunding platforms and the
relationships that emerge between them.
10.5 Theoretical Framework and Method Employed
We agree with Rogers and Kincaid’s approach ( 1981 : 75), when placing communi-
cation as convergence assumption. They highlight the importance of studying how
interaction takes place by pointing out that information sharing creates and defi nes
a relationship between two or more individuals. In other words, it is in the interac-
tions where meaning is placed (Marchiori and Buzzanell 2012 ).
Following Rogers and Kincaid, we consider that communicative behaviour
should be studied as a dependent variable in communication research. The authors
made their proposal in comparison with the research where communication was
used as an independent variable to predict dependent variables indicating effects
such as votes, consumer behaviour, violence, etc., variables which were taken by
communication researchers from other disciplines such as political science, market-
ing or psychology.
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
179
According to the investigators, ‘until communication research begins to focus on
the communicative behaviour rather than on the varied effects of communication in
other behaviours, a consistent discipline of communication may not emerge’.
By approaching communication as something which is designed, we are apply-
ing the design concept in a way that enables to study the social world from the point
of view of communication (Gómez-Diago 2013b ). From this perspective, we con-
ducted research oriented to propose and defi ne through item criteria to evaluate the
quality of the communication performed by websites (Gómez-Diago 2004 , 2005 ).
By analysing the features of the websites in hundreds of checklists proposed by
libraries and by web festivals, we established fi ve levels to evaluate the quality of
websites which integrated issues that referred to content, to design and to technol-
ogy. From these levels, we proposed ten criteria to evaluate the quality of web com-
munication (see Fig. 10.3 ).
As we saw on the checklists studied and published by libraries to evaluate the quality of
information web, credibility is a mainstream concept applied to determinate the quality of
a website. By ordering all the elements proposed by the checklists studied, we reached to
propose three criteria to determinate the quality of a website: sources, critics and relation-
ship with advertisement. (see Fig.
10.4 ) Some of the items included in each of these criteria
can be also applied to evaluate the credibility of a crowdfunding platform. This is the case
of the items covered by the criteria named “critics”: linked by websites of reference, testi-
monials and awards. These three items are related to the support that others give to a any
website or to an online crowdfunding platform. They are very important to get more users.
Both, testimonials and awards are items which can also be applied to any creative product
in the physical context but on the Cyberspace testimonials are not made by famous people
as happen in TV commercials. Users publish their comments about products, services,
etcetera in the several range of platforms available, contributing to the “collective intelli-
gence”; based on the users sharing their experiences to have more knowledge.
The approach presented is intended to analyse how communicative elements
work for a certain purpose. We consider credibility, trust and engagement as depen-
dent variables. From this perspective , we will be identifying the features and
1. Legality.
2. Accessibility and Visibility.
3. Composition.
4. Integration and Innovation.
5. Adequacy and effectiveness.
1. Searchability.
2. Accessibility.
3. Identity.
4. Credibility.
5. Coverage.
6. Novelty.
7. Reading.
8. Manipulation.
9. Action.
10. Resources.
Fig. 10.3 Levels and criteria to evaluate the quality of web communication (Gómez-Diago 2004 ,
2005 )
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
180
elements which the online crowdfunding platforms Kickstarter and Indiegogo
include for generating credibility, trust and engagement on users, that is, the ele-
ments of the cited crowdfunding platforms which are determinant to making them
credible to their users, to be of trust and to make their users engaged in them.
10.6 Identifying Elements Which Generate Credibility, Trust
and Engagement in Indiegogo and Kickstarter
We are interested in identifying how online crowdfunding platforms generate cred-
ibility, trust and engagement because we consider these three feelings to be central
when convincing users to submit their projects to the platforms or when convincing
users to fund one project.
Credibility, trust and engagement are concepts we know and manage at the phys-
ical world. When translating them to the virtual sphere, we are aware of how they
acquire an active dimension motivated by the condition of the users, who, on the
net, can obtain information with ease, test a tool or a device, check if data is real,
etc. The three terms refer to three levels of an overall relationship between the user
and the crowdfunding platform. The minimum level required for establishing con-
tact is the credibility. Secondly, taking into account that these platforms are con-
ceived to encourage users to donate money, it is needed to be of trust, and, fi nally,
we situate the engagement as the condition to maintain users interested in using
platforms.
Here we are identifying which elements of Kickstarter and Indiegogo online
crowdfunding platforms contribute to generate credibility, trust and engagement. It
would be possible to identify elements or features, which are not included in the
framework here proposed; however, our aim in this chapter is not to include all the
elements of the referred platforms, but to focus and analyse in depth only three of
them.
Critics
Content edited
More than one point
of view
Testimonials
Awards
Sources
Author experience
(Google verification)
Relationship
with advertisement
Link to the sponsor
Advertisement adequate
to the target
Differentiation between
advertisement and
information
Linked by websites of
reference
Fig. 10.4 Three criteria to evaluate the credibility of websites (Gómez-Diago 2004 )
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
181
10.6.1 Credibility
Credibility is given to us by others, meaning that it needs a context of interaction.
The ways to obtain credibility depends on the context we have. Gradim ( 2009 : 69)
says that while old media obtained their credibility from authority and from a labo-
riously built brand name, in new media credibility and/or authority depends on the
ongoing communicative process and of the quality of the collective intelligence that
is generated. In the same line Benkler ( 2008 : 54) states ‘our old forms of assigning
credibility and authority to a claim were closely aligned with the institutional ori-
gins of the claim. As information production becomes radically decentralized, new
models of authority are seeking similar recognition’.
We could also add that to cyberspace, credibility can be tested. In this way the
possibility we have to recover information published in the past, to fi nd information
published in other countries, to use search engines to localise information, etc., are
mainstream.
Even more important is the fact that on the internet, users are part of a social
network through which they can communicate easily, working as reporters from
their own neighbourhoods, towns or countries. The points of view of users who are
from different places around the world about a topic, a person or a project are very
relevant to build credibility. We differentiate three levels on which Indiegogo and
Kickstarter assemble elements that help to build credibility for users: support, iden-
tity and trajectory.
There are three dimensions of support, given by the online crowdfunding plat-
forms: support based on alliances, support based on experience and support based
on popularity. Firstly, support based on alliances means to have partners. Both
crowdfunding online platforms, Indiegogo and Kickstarter, have partners. Indiegogo
is supported by enterprises, organisations and institutions such as YouTube, UC
Santa Barbara Technology Management Program or the American Red Cross.
Among the partners of Kickstarter are Sundance Institute and The Guardian.
Support based on experience is visible through testimonials of people who have
achieved their goals. These testimonials are composed by the name and the surname
of the creators and sentences expressed by them. Kickstarter includes also the quan-
tity of money they raised, the number of backers who supported their project and the
name of their projects. One example of testimonial from Kickstarter reads:
‘Kickstarter creates a community of people interested in what you’re doing, and the com-
munity that’s created is important’. Braxton Pope. raised $159,015 from 1,050 backers for
‘The Canyons’
One testimonial from Indiegogo says:
‘With Indiegogo I found supporters for my fi lm from around the globe. People who have
not only become new collaborators but new friends’ Anna Newman. Pinball Donut Girl.
Finally, support based on popularity refers to Twitter followers and to Facebook
friends. Indiegogo Twitter account has 163,000 followers, and 235,427 persons
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
182
have indicated they like it on their Facebook page. Kickstarter Twitter account has
892,000 followers and 974,000 likes users have liked it on their Facebook page.
The other two criteria that referred to credibility of platforms we have included
are identity and trajectory. Identity refers to the fact that both Kickstarter and
Indiegogo give information about the creators and the persons who manage the
platforms. Indiegogo has a section called ‘About us’ where it is possible to see the
photos, the names and phrases of three persons who work on the platform. Kickstarter
is much more transparent than Indiegogo in presenting their team. They include the
name and surname of the 89 people based in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, who work in the
platform.
To share their trajectory, the platforms publish data that referred to the amount of
money collected by them, and also they publish data that referred to the number of
projects funded. Kickstarter states that since 2009, 6.9 million people have pledged
one billion dollars, funding sixty-eight thousand and one hundred creative
projects.
Indiegogo does not include on their website the data about the money collected
or about the projects successfully done. Highlighting their international vocation,
they refer to the fact that 224 countries and territories have developed one project by
using this platform. In the same line, they point out that the platform manages fi ve
currencies and four languages (see Table 10.3 ).
10.6.2 Trust
Credibility is a characteristic attributed to individuals, institutions or their commu-
nicative products. Nevertheless, we do not only trust individuals or organisations
but also technical and sociotechnical systems. Belsky et al. ( 2010 ) explain that ‘trust
in computer science is used to characterise the success of a system that removes the
Table 10.3 Elements which generate credibility in Kickstarter and Indiegogo platforms
1. Credibility
1.1. Support Alliances K, IG Partners
Experience K, IG Testimonials
Popularity K, IG Number of Twitter followers and Facebook friends
1.2. Identity Identity K, IG Section ‘About us’ where the members of the platform
team are shown
Trajectory K, IG Amount of money collected since its birth, number
of projects funded
IG Two hundred and twenty-four countries and territories
had a project. Manage fi ve currencies and four
languages
Note: Abbreviations of crowdfunding platforms: K Kickstarter, IG Indiegogo
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
183
possibility of human defection or error. That is the purpose of trusted computing
platforms. When used, thus, trust is not a design level at all but rather a description
of the outcome of a system, which signifi es confi dence in its performance’.
Choi and Scott ( 2012 ) carried a research whereby they found that the social net-
work sites’ usage intensity is positively linked to some of the aspects of users’
relational social capital (trust and identifi cation), which have a positive effect on
electronic word-of-mouth quality.
Trust at crowdfunding platforms is highly needed because the mainstream moti-
vation of these websites is to get people funding the projects, and that means users
making online payments. Reimink ( 2014 ) identifi ed eight factors which may be
important for the intention to invest in a crowdfunding initiative: ‘quality of the
project, amount of money, rewards, geography, network involvement, shared values,
trust and duration’.
Brogan and Smith ( 2012 : 215) elaborated a formula which should help to calcu-
late trust in a virtual environment: ‘C (credibility) × R (reliability) × I (intimacy)/S
(self-orientation)’. The formula says that ‘the more credible and reliable a person
appears, and the lesser I am in doubt about his altruism, the more I will trust him or
her’.
To generate trust, both platforms, Kickstarter and Indiegogo, state clearly the
conditions that they impose to creators and to donors. Furthermore, they have a
tracking income system, which is visible and updated immediately to let users see
the changes that occurred in the project’s state. This tracking income system is cen-
tral to these online platforms because it permits users to dispose of the funding data
immediately, creating an environment where all is done with transparency. If a per-
son funds any project, he or she can see how the money is automatically added to
the chosen project. This improves notably the method created by Pulitzer, which
consisted on publishing on his newspaper the name of the donors and the quantity
they had given. It is possible to know immediately the changes that occurred in the
state of a project, seeing the quantity of money received, the number of donors and
even the quantity given by each donor.
Kickstarter and Indiegogo state clearly which are the fees they keep and also
explain the payment methods that supporters can use. Kickstarter obtains 5 % from
the amount of money if a project is successfully funded. Indiegogo permits users to
choose a fl exible option which means that in case the project does not achieve the
goal aimed, the creators still receive the money that the donors gave to them until
the last day of the campaign. In this case, the platform will keep 7 % of the amount
collected.
Both platforms indicate how to do the payments and also refer to their security
servers and to the possession of certifi cates certifying trust on the operations. It is
important to highlight that, as it is explained at the platforms, there are payment
processing fees of 3 or 5 % (see Table 10.4 ).
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
184
10.6.3 Engagement
According to Goodman ( 2012 , in Paykacheva 2014 : 14), ‘engagement process
mainly consists of providing customers with a memorable experience that would
encourage the consumers to spread the word of mouth about the company’s prod-
ucts. Essentially, it generates a special connection between the company and its
customers, thus, providing the customers with additional value to the products’. She
describes an engagement marketing cycle as having the following phases: providing
service experience, entice to stay in touch, engaging into communication and cus-
tomer endorsement.
Thinking about crowdfunding online platforms, engagement consists on provid-
ing users with a memorable experience, which encourages them not just to support
projects, or to submit them, but to participate in comment threads and to spread the
content provided in the platforms by the creators of the projects. These are the usual
expectations of creators to raise awareness about the project.
Platforms generate engagement with the user through different elements. Firstly,
it is needed to have a usable interface design. Secondly, platforms must introduce
the use and the link to social media whereby the users can be connected and can
generate social participation. Ta Lu et al. ( 2014 ) carried a research intended to
analyse how the use of social media contributes to the success of a crowdfunding
Table 10.4 Elements which generate trust in Kickstarter and Indiegogo online crowdfunding
platforms
2. Trust
2.1. Conditions Fees K If a project is successfully funded, 5 % of the total
amount of money. No fees if a project is not
successfully funded
IG It permits fl exible funding. If goal is not reached,
creators keep the money collected and the platform
keeps 7 % of the amount obtained
Intellectual
property
K, IG Authors retain the intellectual property
Payment
method
K US-based projects: Amazon payments. Non-US
projects: third-party payment processor. Payment
processing fees: 3–5 %. Credit card and prepaid card
IG PayPal and credit card
Security K Transactions through secure server. Software
protocol Secure Sockets Layer Secure
IG Trusted Certifi ed Privacy and BBB Accredited
Business
2.2. Tracking income K, IG It is possible to know immediately the changes of a
project: quantity of money received, number of
donors and quantity given by each donor
Note: Abbreviations of crowdfunding platforms: K Kickstarter, IG Indiegogo
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
185
project. From their empirical work, they concluded that promotional activities on
social media have positive impacts on the crowdfunding projects. They also found
that the results of a project are much more correlated to the early promotional activi-
ties on social media rather than to its own characteristics such as project duration or
fundraising goal, and they demonstrated that promotion in social media must be
combined with the performance of actions outside the social media because while
promotion to friends increases the size of a group, the external actions through dif-
ferent channels expose the project to more groups.
Moisseyev ( 2013 : 17) points out that crowdfunding backers support projects not
only by providing funds but also by using social seals of approval. After studying
several successful crowdfunding projects, the author states 546 Facebook likes as a
number of ‘likes’ that a project is supposed to have in order to achieve its goal.
According to the author, the index of social media seals of approval has a direct
connection with the fund obtained and with the number of supporters of the proj-
ects. His research also concludes that the number of social media followers has a
direct relation with the index of social media seals of approval.
The researcher concludes that the connection between fundraising total and
‘likes’ shows that, without enough ‘likes’, the project will not reach its objective.
Following this idea, he states that even if an author has a social profi le with few
‘friends’, it is better to include it because social media can rapidly transform real-
life connections into social media followers.
We grouped in eight criteria the features of Kickstarter and Indiegogo platforms
referred to engagement: (1) accessibility, (2) navigation, (3) networking, (4) feed-
back, (5) source of information, (6) time constraint, (7) applications and (8) free-
dom (see Table 10.5 ). Each of this criterion is responsible for the overall engagement
developed with platform, but essentially with each project: (1) accessibility contains
the features, which refer to the coverage of the platforms and how to access them;
(2) navigation helps also to engage users. In this criteria we include the features
oriented to facilitate the navigation through the platforms: (3) networking embraces
the social networks where platforms have presence; (4) feedback cover forms to
establish asynchronous and synchronous communication through the platforms; (5)
source of information refers to the elements included in the platforms intended to
help creators to use them; (6) time constraint, as its name indicates, refers to the
time established as maximum to reach the amount of money stated as needed by the
creators; (7) applications concern tools and devices oriented to facilitate the use of
the crowdfunding platforms; (8) fi nally, freedom refers to the possibility that donors
have to contribute to the projects anonymously.
10.7 Conclusions
In a context where the diffi culties that people fi nd to have a job are pushing them to
their limits, a collective interest on helping others and on sharing things, time and
effort is visible on the cyberspace through the existence of a multitude of online
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
186
platforms whereby users share cars, houses and even lend money in exchange of
interests which usually are lower than required by the fi nancial system.
The success of online crowdfunding platforms takes place in this context where
users are interested in being part of projects, in participating in the building of our
society and of our environment; this is specially clear in the case of the named civic
crowdfunding platforms, whereby users who live in the same neighbourhood or vil-
lage contribute with their money to repair and/or to install or create any element of
their surroundings.
It is important to highlight the role that crowdfunding is playing in the political
arena. New political parties are emerging thanks to the money collected from the
crowd, fostering a political renovation in different countries. Even when some
Table 10.5 Elements which generate engagement in Kickstarter and Indiegogo online
crowdfunding platforms
3. Engagement
3.1.
Accessibility
Coverage K To launch a project, it is needed to be within the
United States, United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand
IG Anybody can launch a project
Registration K, IG It is possible to enter with a Facebook account
3.2. Navigation Searcher IG Advanced search engine. Localise projects by
geographic area and by categories
Categories K Art, comics, crafts, dance, design, fashion, fi lm
and video, food, games, journalism, music,
photography, publishing, technology and theatre
IG Art, comics, community, dance, design,
education, environment, fashion, fi lm, food,
gaming, health, music, photography, politics,
religion, small business, sports, technology,
theatre, transmedia, video/web, writing
3.3. Networking Social networks K Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Vine
IG Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Google +
3.4. Feedback Asynchronous K, IG Forum which is answered in 24 h
Synchronous IG Offers ‘DIWO Live! Service’ every Friday at
12 pm. It brings users the possibility to ask
questions in real time, receive tips from the
founders and learn from other members
3.5. Source of
information
Periodical K, IG Weekly newsletter blog
Non-periodical K, IG Creator Handbook (Kickstarter)
Indiegogo Playbook
3.6. Time constraint K, IG Sixty days as maximum to fund a project
3.7. Applications K, IG App for I phone
3.8. Freedom K, IG Possibility to fund without being registered as
donor, that is, anonymously
Note: Abbreviations of crowdfunding platforms: K Kickstarter, IG Indiegogo
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
187
governments around the world are defi ning regulations intended to reduce the capa-
bility of crowdfunding, this fi nancial method seems unstoppable.
Online crowdfunding platforms, similarly as free software, are a great example
of creative technologies. They do not work only as tools but as environments where
it is possible to perform actions that in another space could be more diffi cult, or even
impossible, to achieve. Crowdfunding platforms, in a technological dimension,
allow users to propose projects to be funded. From a social perspective, they are
contributing to generate a kind of template to present creative projects, which can
be useful to develop innovative projects to attract the interest not only of the users
but also of the industry. So, a new industry might be developed. In this way and as
an example of how crowdfunding projects, and indirectly their supporters, are being
introduced in the industry, we point out the Oscar for Best Documentary Short 2013
was won by ‘Inocente’, a movie funded with $52,527 through Kickstarter, on a goal
of $50,000.
References
Bellefl amme P, Lambert T, Schwienbacher A (2010) Crowdfunding: an industrial organization
perspective. Paper presented at digital business models: understanding strategies conference
held in Paris on 25–26 June 2010. Retrieved from
http://economix.fr/pdf/workshops/2010_
dbm/Bellefl amme_al.pdf
Belsky L, Kahr B, Berkelhammer M, Benkler Y (2010) Everything in its right place: social coop-
eration and artist compensation, 17 Mich Telecomm Tech Law Rev 1 (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.mttlr.org/volseventeen/belsky.pdf
Benkler Y (2008) The university in the networked economy and society: challenges and opportuni-
ties in the tower and the cloud: higher education in the age of cloud computing. In: Katz RN
(ed) EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7202f.pdf
Brogan C, Smith JS (2012) The impact equation: Are you making things happen or just making
noise? Penguin, New York
Chatzimilioudis et al. (2012) Crowdsourcing with smartphones. IEEE Internet Computing.
Published by the IEEE Computer Society, September–October 2012, pp 36–34. Retrieved from
http://staff.frederick.ac.cy/com.ca/AndreasConstantinides/Docs/ieeeIC12.pdf
Choi JHE, Scott J (2012) Electronic word of mouth and knowledge sharing on social network sites:
a social capital perspective. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jtaer/v8n1/art06.pdf
Chopra S, Dexter S (2011) Free software and the economics of information justice. Ethics Inf
Technol 13:173–184. doi
10.1007/s10676-010-9226-6
Crowdfunding Platforms Database. The crowdcafe. Retrieved from
http://www.thecrowdcafe.
com/crowdfunding-platforms/database
Crowdfunding Platforms: Global Database. The crowdcafe. Retrieved from
http://www.thecrowd-
cafe.com/crowdfunding-platforms/database/
CrowdingIn. Crowdfunding in the UK. Retrieved from
http://crowdingin.com/about
Damus M (2014) Crowd funding. Developing concepts for supportive instruments beyond the
funding phase. Universität Bremen. Hochschule Bremerhaven. Institut for Kommunication in
sozialen Medien. Retrieved from
http://www.epubli.de/shop/buch/37608/excerpt
Davies R (2013) Civic crowdfunding from the statue of liberty onwards. Retrieved from
http://
rodrigodavies.com/blog/2013/02/19/civic-crowdfunding-from-the-statue-of-liberty-to-now.
html
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
188
De Buysere K, Gajda O, Kleverlaan R, Marom D (2012) A framework for European crowdfund-
ing. Retrieved from v
http://www.europecrowdfunding.org/fi les/2013/06/FRAMEWORK_
EU_CROWDFUNDING.pdf
Gerbner E, Hui J (2012) Crowdfunding: motivations and deterrents for participation.
Retrieved from
http://egerber.mech.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/
Gerber_Crowdfunding_MotivationsandDeterrents.pdf
Global List of Crowdfunding Sites. The Soho Loft. Retrieved from
http://thesoholoft.com/
global-list-of-crowdfunding-sites/
Gómez-Diago G (2004) Una perspectiva evaluadora de documentos web desde la Ciencia de la
Comunicación/A perspective for evaluating web documents from communication science.
Razón y Palabra . Retrieved from
http://www.razonypalabra.org.mx/anteriores/n40/ggomez.
html
Gómez-Diago G (2005) Tres criterios para evaluar la calidad informativa en Internet: Credibilidad,
Cobertura, Novedad/Three criteria for evaluating the quality of information on the Internet:
credibility, coverage, novelty. Global Media J. Retrieved from
http://gmje.mty.itesm.mx/articu-
los4/gomez_g.html
Gómez-Diago G (2010) Brainfl owing, virtual/physical space and the fl ow of communication: an
explanatory approach to the metaverse through a tool designed for brainstorming. Metaverse
Creat 1(1):49–65. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/mvcr.1.1.51_1
Gómez-Diago G (2012) Cyberspace and cyberculture. In: Kosut M, Golson JG (eds) Encyclopedia
of gender in media. SAGE Reference Publication, Thousand Oaks
Gómez-Diago G (2013a) Identifi cación de Consecuencias negativas de incluir la enseñanza y/o
aprendizaje de software privativo en el aula universitaria. Estudio Piloto./ Identifi cation of
Negative effects of include learning of privative software in the university classroom. Pilot
Study. Razón y Palabra 82. Retrieved from.
http://www.razonypalabra.org.mx/N/N82/
V82/28a_Gomez_V82.pdf
Gómez-Diago G (2013b) Aplicando el concepto de diseño de la comunicación para realizar inves-
tigación aplicada. Dos posibles vías: Diseñando herramientas de comunicación y metodologías
de diseño. Brainfl owing/Applying the concept of communication design for applied research.
Two possible routes: designing communication tools and design methodologies. Brainfl owing,
pp 1019–1029. National conference on research methodology in communication. Spanish
Association of Communication Research. Segovia, 2–3 May 2013. Retrieved from
http://dial-
net.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4230554.pdf
Gómez-Diago G (2014) Emancipative technology in formal education: the case for free and open
source software (FOSS). In: Stochetti M (ed) Media and education in the digital age. A critical
introduction. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Wien
Goodman G (2012) Engagement marketing: how small business wins in a socially connected
world. Wiley, Hoboken
Gradim A (2009) Digital natives and virtual communities: towards a new paradigm of mediated
communication. Estudos em Comunicação no 5:53–73 Maio . Retrieved from
http://www.
ec.ubi.pt/ec/05/pdf/03-gradim-digital.pdf
Growth of Crowdfunding Platforms Worldwide. Statista. Retrieved from
http://www.statista.com/
statistics/251567/growth-r-of-crowdfunding-platforms-worldwide/
Helm M (2011) Träume fi nanzieren 2.0 Eine quantitative Befragung zu den Motivationen der
fi nanziellen Projektunterstützung auf deutschsprachigen Crowdfunding-Plattformen, Master
thesis, Institute of Media and Communication Studies, Technical University of Ilmenau,
Germany
Hemer J (2011) A snapshot on crowdfunding. Working papers fi rms and region, No. R2/2011.
Retrieved from
https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/52302/1/671522264.pdf ,
https://www.facebook.com/LYNCHthree
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
189
Hui J, Gerbner E, Gergle G (2014) Understanding and leveraging social networks in crowdfund-
ing: implications for support tools. Retrieved from
http://collablab.northwestern.edu/pubs/
DIS2014_HuiGerberGergle.pdf
Internet Live Stats. Internet users in the world. Retrieved from
http://www.internetlivestats.com/
internet-users//
Internet Usage Statistics. The internet big picture. World internet users and population stats.
Retrieved from
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Jian L, Usher N (2014) Crowd-funded journalism. J Comput-Med Commun 19:155–170.
doi:
10.1111/jcc4.12051
Life in a Day (Documentary Film). Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/user/lifeinaday
Marchiori MR, Buzzanell MP (2012) Communities of interaction. A Brazilian NGO sustainability
case study. European Group for Organizational Studies, 28th EGOS Colloquium 2012. Aalto
University & Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland, 5–7 July 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.uel.br/grupo-estudo/gefacescom/images/EGOS_2012_n77Fg_
MARCHIORIBUZZANELL_FINAL_PAPER.pdf
Moisseyev A (2013) Effect of social media on crowdfunding project results. Retrieved from
http://
digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=businessdiss
Mollick E (2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study. J Bus Ventur 29:1–16,
Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088390261300058X
Mollick E, Nanda R (2014) Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in
funding the arts. Harvard Business School Entrepreneurial Management, Working paper
No. 14–116. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443114
Paykacheva V (2014) Crowdfunding as a customer engagement channel. Thesis Kajaani University
of Applied Sciences, School of Business and Administration Degree Program in International
Business. Spring 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.theseus.fi /bitstream/handle/10024/72731/
Paykacheva_Valeriya.pdf?sequence=1
Percentage growth of crowdfunding platforms worldwide between 2008 and 2012. Retrieved
from
http://www.statista.com/statistics/251567/growth-r-of-crowdfunding-platforms-
worldwide
Putnam R (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of the American community. Simon &
Schuster, New York
Raymond ES (1998) The cathedral and the bazaar. First Monday 3, No. 3. Retrieved from
http://
www.fi rstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/raymond/
Reimink M (2014) Crowdfunding in Dutch small and medium enterprises: an empirical analysis of
factors infl uencing the intention to invest in a crowdfunding initiative. Retrieved from
http://
essay.utwente.nl/65168/1/Reimink_MA_MB.pdf
Rogers E, Kincaid DL (1981) Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research. Free
Press, New York
Rushkoff D (2010) Program or be programmed. Ten commands for a digital age. OR Books,
New York
Shneiderman B (2000) Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation. ACM Trans
Comput-Human Interact 7(1):114–138. Retrieved from
http://hcil2.cs.umd.edu/trs/99-
01/99- 01.pdf
Stohl C (2014) Crowds, clouds, and community. J Commun. doi: 10.111/jcom.12075. Retrieved
from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12075/pdf
Ta Lu, Chun Xie, Sihonh, Kong, Xiangnan, Yu, Philip S (2014) Inferring the impacts of social
media in crowdfunding. In: WSDM ’14 proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference
on web search and data mining, pp 573–582. ACM, New York. doi
10.1145/2556195.25562.51 .
Retrieved from
http://users.wpi.edu/~xkong/paper/wsdm14_lu.pdf
The Free Software Directory. Retrieved from
http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page
10 Communication in Crowdfunding Online Platforms
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
190
Willems W (2013) What characteristics of crowdfunding platforms infl uence the success rate?
Kunst- & Cultuurwetenschappen, 30 August. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.
net/2105/15182
Yi Kuo, Pei & M. Gerbner, Elizabeth (2012) Design Principles: Crowdfunding as a Creativity
Support Tool. CHI 2012, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA. Retrieved from
http://www.
researchgate.net/profi le/Pei_Yi_patricia_Kuo/publication/261360075_Design_principles_
crowdfunding_as_a_creativity_support_tool/links/00463533f733865c48000000.pdf
Young Elliott T (2012) The everything guide to crowdfunding. Adams Media, Avon
G. Gómez-Diago
gloriagdiago@gmail.com
