Conference PaperPDF Available

Match-Funding as a Formula for Crowdfunding: A Case Study on the Goteo.org Platform

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Since crowdfunding first appeared, and with the proliferation of platforms in recent years, various systems and formulas of operation have appeared within the general crowdfunding model. One such system, still in its early days, is match-funding (co-funding between citizens and institutions), which permits public and private organizations to double financial contributions for projects from individual users. This paper focuses on the Goteo.org platform, a pioneer in the international development of this model. The advantages and impact of this method of crowdfunding compared to the traditional method is analyzed using data collected on the behavior in 14 match-funding calls for projects on Goteo.org in the last 5 years. The results show that match-funding campaigns are more likely to be successful, significantly increase average donations and generate new dynamics of institutional cooperation and proximity in the support for initiatives.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Match-Funding as a Formula for Crowdfunding
A Case Study on the Goteo.org Platform
Enric Senabre
Internet Interdisciplinary Institute
Open University of Catalonia
Barcelona, Spain
esenabre@uoc.edu
Mayo Fuster Morell
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Harvard University
Cambridge, USA
mayo.fuster@eui.eu
ABSTRACT
Since crowdfunding rst appeared, and with the proliferation of
platforms in recent years, various systems and formulas of opera-
tion have appeared within the general crowdfunding model. One
such system, still in its early days, is match-funding (co-funding
between citizens and institutions), which permits public and private
organizations to double nancial contributions for projects from
individual users. This paper focuses on the Goteo.org platform, a
pioneer in the international development of this model. The advan-
tages and impact of this method of crowdfunding compared to the
traditional method is analyzed using data collected on the behavior
in 14 match-funding calls for projects on Goteo.org in the last 5
years. The results show that match-funding campaigns are more
likely to be successful, signicantly increase average donations and
generate new dynamics of institutional cooperation and proximity
in the support for initiatives.
CCS CONCEPTS
Information systems Crowdsourcing
;Collaborative and
social computing systems and tools;
KEYWORDS
Crowdfunding, match-funding, collaboration, open source.
ACM Reference Format:
Enric Senabre and Mayo Fuster Morell. 2018. Match-Funding as a Formula
for Crowdfunding: A Case Study on the Goteo.org Platform. In Proceedings
of 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration (OpenSym’18), Matt
Germonprez (Ed.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 4, 5 pages. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3233391.3233967
1 INTRODUCTION
Crowdfunding, one of the most signicant phenomena in online
collaboration in recent years, is a method for funding a wide variety
of new projects. It enables individuals or groups with projects of
varying aims (for prot, culture, social, political and other aims)
to request funds from a large number of people, often in exchange
for future products, symbolic thank-you gifts of dierent types or
equity [
9
]. Creators and entrepreneurs who require funds for their
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the rst page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
OpenSym’18, August 2018, Paris, France
©2018 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 123-4567-24-567/08/06.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3233391.3233967
projects present them in specic campaigns, normally via special-
ist online platforms. Crowdfunding projects may vary greatly in
both their goals and size, ranging from small artistic projects to
entrepreneurs looking for thousands of euros in starting capital as
an alternative to traditional investment mechanisms such as risk
capital [
12
]. It has grown exponentially in popularity and accep-
tance, from a relatively small market of crowdfunding pioneers
in 2010 with a turnover of
e
750 million, to 2014, when turnover
exceeded
e
13 billion [
2
]. The study Reshaping the crowd’s engage-
ment in culture [
5
] shows that in the European cultural and creative
sector alone individuals and cultural organizations all over Europe
have launched some 75,000 crowdfunding campaigns since 2013,
collecting a total of
e
247 million, most particularly in the United
Kingdom and France.
One of the most signicant ndings from the European data is
that only half of crowdfunding campaigns have been successful
in meeting their target. Particularly striking is the fact that these
e
1247 million collected in total represent only 7% of the total com-
mitted amount (which was
e
13.4 billion). This means there is a
’black hole’ of over
e
13 billion that eventually was not assigned
to campaigns, as their minimum funding goals were not reached.
Besides suggesting that unsuccessful campaigns are over-ambitious
in their demands for money, this also demonstrates one of the most
common rules of crowdfunding platforms: when projects fail to
reach an established funding target within a given time, the all
donations received from users are refunded at no extra cost.
Another signicant nding in Reshaping the crowd’s engagement
in culture is the relative ’delocalization’ of platforms. Although up to
600 crowdfunding platforms have been active at any given time in
Europe, almost half the campaigns started by creators of European
projects were hosted on US-based platforms, mainly Kickstarter
and Indiegogo. These two platforms have a global reach and are, by
a large margin, world leaders in hosting campaigns from dierent
countries [15].
In relation to these deciencies and possibilities in the develop-
ment of crowdfunding, in parallel with other methods such as equity
crowdfunding [
11
], in 2013, some platforms started pilot projects in
match-funding. The method allows money successfully obtained in
a campaign to be increased with capital from an institution provid-
ing additional funds. Before the appearance of crowdfunding, the
concept of match-funding with matching donations or payment of
funds was already in use in the contexts of charity, philanthropy or
the public good [
8
]. For institutions, the most popular model was
one whereby a public organization, sponsoring body or corporate
social responsibility department completed funding in the form of
investment (a subsidy or loan) in a project that had already obtained
OpenSym’18, August 2018, Paris, France Enric Senabre and Mayo Fuster Morell
a substantial amount of its target funding from other sources. The
rst crowdfunding platforms in Europe that tried dierent forms
of match-funding in 2013 were Goteo in Spain, with the support
of the International University of Andalusia (UNIA), and KissKiss-
BankBank in France, with the support of La Poste, while in the US
it was Indiegogo, with the support of the Kapor Foundation [4].
1.1 Goteo match-funding calls
Goteo was one of the rst platforms to start operating locally and
internationally from Spain in 2011, covering dierent sectors and
elds within so-called ’civic crowdfunding’ [
3
]. Its activity is now
undergoing sustained growth, making it especially rich in the types
of campaign and diversity of its users and initiatives [
6
]. Goteo has
been chosen for a number of factors that make this case a paradig-
matic example of how the match-funding method is applied and
develops within crowdfunding. Firstly, it was one of several pio-
neering platforms and the rst to oer the match-funding method
internationally [
13
]. Secondly, it now has consolidated experience
in this form of funding (between 2013 and 2018 there were a total
of 14 match-funding calls for projects, varying in size and success)
1
.
In addition, in line with its philosophy of open knowledge and a
commons-based approach [
7
], it includes a number of transparency
measures that make it particularly suitable for third-party research
and analysis and an API that permits the generation of related
applications to access open data on its operations [14].
Goteo’s calls for projects are coordinated around sponsoring
bodies, which are both private and public institutions, who call for
projects in specic elds they wish to promote, announcing the to-
tal amount of capital provided (the so-called ’match-funding pool’)
to double individual donations, along with the other details and
conditions for the call for projects. Managers of projects looking
for funding can then oer proposals for specic campaigns within
a given period, using the Goteo form. In the nal stage, projects are
selected that can then access capital from the match-funding pool.
This selection phase is normally preceded by a period of training,
involving crowdfunding workshops co-organized by the funding
institutions, to help project managers design and improve their
proposals in line with the most important crowdfunding mecha-
nisms. Since 2013, the platform has worked following this model
with universities, regional governments, private foundations, local
councils and local innovation agencies in calls for projects related to
sociocultural innovation, educational innovation, childhood and co-
operation, culture and public domain assets, entrepreneurial spirit,
health, smart city projects, education, cultural heritage and the arts.
Once selected and published, the campaigns are given a time
limit to reach their established nancial target. During this period,
each time a user makes a donation, the established match-funding
pool directly and simultaneously contributes an equivalent amount
to the same campaign. Thus, the contribution instantly doubles the
individual donation, displayed on a graphic progress thermometer
for each campaign. As agreed beforehand with the organizing in-
stitution, limits are established regarding the extent to which the
system can double contributions, so that particularly large contri-
butions (such as hundreds of euros) cannot ’drag in’ more than
e
50
1
Complete list of Goteo.org match-funding calls. Retrieved June 14 from
https://en.goteo.org/#matchfunding
Figure 1: Project campaigns within a match-funding call.
Figure 2: Website of Goteo open data statistics.
or other pre-dened maximum amounts. This measure guarantees
maximum diversity and a minimum participation level, while pre-
venting fraudulent use of the system. Finally, if campaigns fail to
reach their funding target, the same mechanism as used in other
campaigns is activated and the displayed donations are refunded,
at no extra cost, to both individual users and the organizing institu-
tions.
2 METHODOLOGY
Data collection for this analysis was based on access to Goteo’s
public statistics page
2
, which shows both the aggregate overall
behaviour of campaigns and that of specic match-funding calls for
projects. As shown in Table 1, the 14 calls for projects since 2013
have involved a variety of dierent volumes in the selected cam-
paign projects, contributions and participants, covering a total of
123 initiatives that accessed match-funding, supported by a variety
of institutions.
The study is based on an analysis comparing some of these data
on the behaviour of match-funding campaigns with averages from
the other Goteo campaigns since the platform started in November
2011 (a total of 948 projects). In addition, a supplementary part of
the analysis is based on data from an experimental website
3
for
geolocated viewing of donations and the source of capital in the
match-funding pool in Goteo.
2Goteo.org stats page. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from https://stats.goteo.org/home/es
3
Goteo.org match-funding visualizations. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from
https://matchfunding.goteo.org
Match-Funding as a Formula for Crowdfunding OpenSym’18, August 2018, Paris, France
Table 1: Statistics on Goteo match-funding calls and organizing institutions
Title of match-funding call Selected
projects Successful
projects
Total
funding
(e)
Feeder
capital
assigned
(e)
Contribution
from
institution
Capital not
mobilised
(e)
Sociocultural innovation (2013) 5 4 25,988 10,000 31% 2,000
Innovation in healthcare 1 (2013) 5 3 24,897 12,000 38% 2,663
Innovation in education and open knowledge (2013) 5 5 34,715 10,000 27% 560
Entrepreneurship (2013) 10 5 28,002 20,000 42% 8,322
Innovation in cooperation and childhood care (2014) 5 4 26,882 10,000 28% 2,517
Innovation in healthcare 2 (2014) 5 5 33,949 12,000 35% 0
Cultural heritage and digital remix (2015) 5 4 26,979 10,000 33% 1,064
Crowdfunding Zaragoza 1 (2015) 4 3 20,054 12,000 42% 3,485
Gipuzkoa cultural projects (2016) 20 20 151,024 70,000 44% 3,428
Strike a match for education (2016) 3 2 16,572 10,000 44% 3,509
Supporting education (2017) 13 11 62,924 40,000 39% 17,419
Meta Gipuzkoa (2017) 16 15 159,343 70,000 40% 7,369
Crowdfunding Zaragoza 2 (2018) 4 4 35,041 14,000 40% 0
Conjuntament Barcelona (2018) 23 22 231,336 96,000 42% 0
Sum / average of all match-funding calls 123 107 877,706 396,000 38% 52,336
3 RESULTS
Results indicate that match-funding oers a number of advantages
with regard to traditional crowdfunding: it helps to provide addi-
tional funds for project campaigns, signicantly increases the aver-
age amounts of donations and, accordingly, improves the chances
of success for campaigns.
3.1 The eectiveness of match-funding
As Table 1 shows, one of the main issues to consider is how 107
out of the 123 campaigns selected in Goteo calls for projects since
2013 nally received the previously dened funding. As shown in
Table 2, this 83% success rate is signicantly higher than the normal
65% rate for the platform, already among the highest success rates
in crowdfunding platforms on the market [
10
]. This indicates that
the match-funding method can indeed achieve a higher rate in
channeling individual and common funds to projects, an important
factor for projects and initiatives that choose crowdfunding at a
specic moment in their development.
This is even more relevant when one considers that Goteo cam-
paigns normally require an average of 123 individual donors to
successfully obtain funding. By contrast, in the match-funding cam-
paigns analyzed since this method was rst oered, the number
drops by half, with an average of 69 users required. Another ob-
servation from the overall analysis of match-funding campaign
behavior, compared to that of traditional crowdfunding campaigns
(lacking this additional multiplying component), is that the aver-
age contribution from users is higher in the case of match-funding
(average
e
48) than in other Goteo campaigns (approximately
e
41).
Another relevant aspect with regard to general match-funding be-
havior on Goteo over time is that only 38% of the
e
877,706 collected
up to mid 2018 by this system came from the institutional match-
funding pool (therefore 62% came from individual donors). This
suggests that match-funding oers a motivation and incentive for
the public to nance projects and is thus a formula that supports
the assignment of funds and validates social interest in new initia-
tives, without covering all or even half of the funds needed for their
implementation. In other words, the way in which match-funding
works on Goteo could provide appropriate dynamics for channeling
signicant amounts from public or private funds through a dona-
tion system that facilitates public participation above and beyond
what the funds themselves could achieve. Other similar large-scale
initiatives, such as the recent Arts Council England Heritage Lot-
tery Fund match-funding case study, carried out by NESTA in the
United Kingdom [
1
], indicate similar behavior, although based on
less developed match-funding formulas (where the contribution is
provided at the end): from a starting multipliable capital of £251,500
an additional £405,941 was eventually raised (i.e. twice the capital
initially committed for multiplying).
3.2 The local dimension
Another key aspect, noted in the introductory section of this study
on international ’delocalization’ dynamics of crowdfunding, using
large American platforms such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo as the
technological solutions, suggests a need to establish mechanisms
for local participation in this sector. Only 50% of crowdfunding
campaigns for European organizations and projects use platforms
whose headquarters and main business activity are in EU member
states or the European continent, while the rest mostly choose the
two large global platforms.
This is a problem, given that match-funding requires agreements
and alliances with public and private bodies, often aiming to have
an impact on a local area or a specic eld. Thus mechanisms
that strengthen proximity between crowdfunding platforms and
organizations that have traditionally funded innovative, risky or
minority projects need to be explored. An example of this behavior
from match-funding, favoring dynamics of local support among
OpenSym’18, August 2018, Paris, France Enric Senabre and Mayo Fuster Morell
Table 2: Statistics on Goteo match-funding projects compared with regular crowdfunding campaigns
Title of match-funding call
Average revenue
in projects
(e)
Percentage of
funding goal Success
rate
Average
of donors
Average
individual
donation
(e)
Sociocultural innovation (2013) 6,390 123% 80% 70 32
Innovation in healthcare 1 (2013) 7,629 139% 60% 98 41
Innovation in education and open knowledge (2013) 6,943 118% 100% 66 36
Entrepreneurship (2013) 5,340 135% 50% 44 52
Innovation in cooperation and childhood care (2014) 6,549 119% 80% 68 42
Innovation in healthcare 2 (2014) 6,790 117% 100% 66 50
Cultural heritage and digital remix (2015) 6,715 116% 80% 67 45
Crowdfunding Zaragoza 1 (2015) 6,548 109% 75% 54 58
Gipuzkoa cultural projects (2016) 7,551 166% 100% 70 54
Strike a match for education (2016) 7,551 118% 67% 60 56
Supporting education (2017) 5,276 137% 85% 51 49
Meta Gipuzkoa (2017) 10,447 171% 94% 81 65
Crowdfunding Zaragoza 2 (2018) 8,760 125% 100% 63 47
Conjuntament Barcelona (2018) 10,518 131% 96% 104 52
Sum / average of all match-funding calls 7,358 130% 83% 69 48
Sum / average rest of crowdfunding
campaigns in Goteo (no match-funding) 5,288 121% 65% 123 41
Figure 3: A match-funding call in Goteo indicating the
source of donations.
institutions and local communities, can be found in the Goteo geolo-
cation tool, which provides a clear display of how funds activated
by the match-funding usually ow from the area of inuence of the
’match-funder’ institutions.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Our aim in this study was to determine if match-funding represents
a viable alternative to crowdfunding, and to what extent it can
represent a set of improvements in the usual mechanisms and rules
behind the usual crowdfunding platform mechanisms. The data an-
alyzed from Goteo supports the idea that the match-funding model
of crowdfunding can help provide additional funds to projects, in-
crease the chances of a campaign’s success, signicantly increase
the average amounts donated and generate new dynamics of insti-
tutional cooperation and proximity in the support for initiatives.
In line with the report Reshaping the crowd’s engagement in cul-
ture [4], in both culture and other frequently related sectors (educa-
tion, technology, social sectors, among others), the growing use of
crowdfunding by communities of creators in Europe and the world
will increase further in forthcoming years. Therefore, options such
as match-funding and its tendency to associate trans-institutional
funding strategies, where initiatives with a social impact are re-
quired, could represent an improvement not just in eectiveness
but also in the local visibility and impact of these still new hybrid
forms of funding.
In the case of the match-funding model studied here, based on
the specic characteristics of the Goteo platform, mechanisms for
viewing data help track and analyze behavior in calls for projects.
This tracking and analysis permits comparisons of campaign behav-
ior (as in this case) but also interpretations by public and private
institutions of their expanded area of inuence. This can help pro-
vide proactive mapping of areas of needs and initiatives to which
funding with institutional cooperation should be targeted.
When one also considers that another specic feature of Go-
teo campaigns is that they indicate the non-monetary resources
that might be needed for their implementation (materials, infras-
tructure, donations of time, etc.), match-funding thus becomes a
tool that, if broadened, could facilitate coordinated collective and
institutional action in the participatory assignment of resources,
with an open data mechanism and transparent management. It is
also signicant that the match-funding training actions provided
Match-Funding as a Formula for Crowdfunding OpenSym’18, August 2018, Paris, France
with calls for projects are co-organized. These tools involve various
levels of learning and familiarization with the specic Goteo model,
while creating a symbiotic relationship between institutions and
the common goal.
5 FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Considering the behavior of Goteo’s match-funding calls described
above, a wider analysis would need to extend the comparison to
new match-funding campaigns and also permit comparisons with
other platforms that begin to apply the model. This is particularly
important because the application of the model to other types of
institutions is steadily growing in Goteo, as is the total volume of
capital in match-funding pools for multiplying funds.
It would also need to carry out new analyses of data comparing
match-funding platform users as opposed to other collaborative
funding mechanisms, such as municipal participative budgets, social
currencies and digital time banks. Advancing in this direction could
provide more in-depth knowledge of viable alternatives for social
initiatives that otherwise lack resources in a number of areas.
Advances are also needed in the development of the Goteo data
viewing mechanisms, both graphs and maps. It is to be hoped that
other platforms will start applying match-funding mechanisms that
provide similar open data, as this would permit even broader and
richer comparisons with regard to their scope, thereby advancing
this signicant phenomenon in online collaboration dynamics.
Another element to mention is the dynamic of continual im-
provement and development of the platform, which, as well as
being an open code repository
4
, continues to incorporate dierent
functions in a modular format. Many of these have an impact on
the match-funding model analyzed here. Specically, results from
match-founding so far as described in this study, would lead to a
number of specic actions:
More and better tools for viewing all local needs in a given
call for projects, thus making it a more eective tool for the
organizing institutions in general.
A user prole that permits capital contributions to the match-
funding pool by individuals and groups of users, not just
institutions, and the activation of similar mechanisms to
attract third-party donations.
Activating data entry forms for projects and the organizing
institutions, which permit continual match-funding actions
(not just for specic topic-based calls for projects) that dy-
namically match ’supply and demand’ for capital in match-
funding pools.
Advancing in the development of more versatile congura-
tions to view and adapt match-funding to dierent contexts
and types of user, following the example of new algorithms
that permit the display of the minimum number of micro-
sponsors required to reach the minimum funding level.
In our opinion these potential improvements for an open source
crowdfunding platform, conrmed and validated by the type of
action-research that makes the basis of this paper, as well as the
results we have discussed here, represent an opportunity for both
4
Goteo Version 3, the Open Source Crowdfunding Platform. Retrieved June 14, 2018
from https://github.com/GoteoFoundation/goteo
open innovation and civic crowdfunding, which have in match-
funding practices a growing and promising eld.
REFERENCES
[1]
Peter Baeck, Jonathan Bone, and Sam Mitchell. 2017. Matching the crowd. London:
Nesta (2017).
[2]
Chance Barnett. 2015. Trends show crowdfunding to surpass VC in 2016. Forbes,
June 9 (2015).
[3]
Rodrigo Davies. 2014. Civic crowdfunding: participatory communities, en-
trepreneurs and the political economy of place. (2014).
[4]
Rodrigo Davies. 2015. Three provocations for civic crowdfunding. Information,
Communication & Society 18, 3 (2015), 342–355.
[5]
Isabelle De Voldere. 2017. Crowdfunding - Reshaping the crowd’s engagement
in culture. Technical Report. NC-01-17-333-EN-N. Publications Oce of the
European Union. Available on:< https://publications. europa. eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/7e10916d-677c-11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1.
[6]
Joan Francesc Fondevila Gascón, Josep Rom Rodríguez, Judit Mata Monforte, Eva
Santana López, and Pere Masip Masip. 2015. Crowdfunding As a Formula for
the Financing of Projects: An Empirical Analysis. Revista Cientíca Hermes 14
(2015).
[7]
Mayo Fuster Morell, Joan Subirats, Marco Berlinguer, Rubén Martínez, and Jorge
Salcedo. 2015. Procomún digital y cultura libre: ¿Hacia un cambio de época? Icaria.
[8]
Markus Görsch. 2001. Komplementäre Kulturnanzierung: das Zusammenwirken
von staatlichen und privaten Zuwendungen bei der Finanzierung von Kunst und
Kultur. dissertation. de.
[9]
Ethan Mollick. 2014. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study.
Journal of business venturing 29, 1 (2014), 1–16.
[10]
Fátima Solera Navarro. 2015. Crowdfunding para la producción cultural basada
en el procomún: el caso de Goteo (2011-2014)/Crowdfunding for commons-based
cultural production: the case of Goteo (2011-2014). Historia y Comunicación Social
20, 2 (2015), 447–464.
[11]
Sean Nevin, Rob Gleasure, Philip O’Reilly, Joseph Feller, Shanping Li, and Jerry
Cristoforo. 2017. Social Identity and Social Media Activities in Equity Crowdfund-
ing. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Open Collaboration.
ACM, 11.
[12]
Armin Schwienbacher and Benjamin Larralde. 2010. Crowdfunding of small
entrepreneurial ventures. (2010).
[13]
Enric Senabre. 2015. Goteo: Crowdfunding to build new Commons. In Patterns
of commoning, David Bollier and Silke Helfrich (Eds.). Commons Strategy Group
and O the Common Press.
[14]
Ivan Vergés Pascual. 2016. Una API per a la plataforma de crowdfunding Goteo.
(2016).
[15]
Shavarsh Zohrabyan, Paula Odete Fernandes, Rui Pedro Lopes, and José Álvarez
García. 2017. Connecting funding to entrepreneurs: a prole of the main crowd-
funding platforms. In Cooperative and Networking Strategies in Small Business.
Springer, 97–129.
... Se necesitan llevar a cabo nuevos análisis de datos que comparen a los usuarios de una plataforma de matchfunding con otros mecanismos de financiación colaborativos, como los presupuestos participativos municipales, las monedas sociales y los bancos de tiempo digitales. Esto podría proporcionar un conocimiento más profundo de alternativas viables para iniciativas sociales que de otro modo carecerían de recursos (Senabre y Morell, 2018). ...
... En la etapa final, se seleccionan proyectos que luego pueden acceder al capital del matchfunding. A su fase de selección normalmente le sucede un período de capacitación, que involucra talleres de crowdfunding para ayudar a los gerentes de proyecto a diseñar y mejorar sus propuestas en línea con los objetivos del crowdfunding (Senabre y Morell, 2018). De los diez millones y medio recaudados por Goteo, 750.000€ provienen de fondos de matchfunding captados por la fundación Goteo. ...
... Entre otras, el ayuntamiento de Barcelona o la Obra social la Caixa han sido algunas de las instituciones que han aportado fondos. Un análisis realizado por la plataforma Goteo descubrió que las campañas de matchfunding tienen más probabilidades de ser exitosas, aumentar significativamente las donaciones promedio y generar nuevas dinámicas de cooperación institucional (Senabre y Morell, 2018). ...
Article
La economía colaborativa se ha convertido en una de las formas de innovación social que más desarrollo ha experimentado en los últimos años. Los retos y oportunidades que se plantean a escala local son muy importantes y todavía poco estudiados. El presente documento se centra en el matchfunding, una de sus modalidades orientada a la obtención de financiación. Tras unos primeros apartados dedicados a conceptualizar la innovación social y la economía colaborativa, el hilo argumental presenta el matchfunding desde la perspectiva de las políticas públicas locales. Explora los retos y oportunidades que el matchfunding ofrece a las entidades locales para el desarrollo de sus competencias, haciendo especial énfasis en el ámbito del desarrollo rural, la agricultura y la alimentación. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The collaborative economy has become one of the forms of social innovation that has developed the most in recent years. The challenges and opportunities of the collaborative economy at the local level are very relevant, butthere is still a knowledge gap on this topic. This document focuses on matchfunding, one form of social innovation geared to raise funding. The initial sections of the document are dedicated to conceptualize social innovation and the collaborative economy. This is followed by an analysis of matchfunding from a local public policies perspective. The study examines challenges and opportunities that matchfunding offers to local administrations,with a focus on rural development, agriculture and food. https://www.comunidad.madrid/sites/default/files/matchfunding_y_politicas_publicas_locales_serie_estudios_imidra_5.pdf
... The central incentive involved in a matchfunding scheme is surely accessing extra monetary funds which is translated into higher income to platforms operating in a competitive environment. Next to the financial incentives, platforms increase their legitimacy by welcoming the credibility signal of established institutions with good public reputation (Senabre and Morell, 2018). Similar to the credibility signals expected of crowdfunding campaigns, platforms too are subject to the same quality judgement. ...
Article
Full-text available
Markets and governments have been increasingly intertwined when it comes to funding for the arts. This is the case with matchfunding schemes in which governments explore the crowd’s validation by providing funds to successful cultural projects. By matching public funds with the “crowd”, four parties benefit from this process: the artists, the platform, the donors, and the public institutions. Artists benefit from accessing more funds and credibility signals for their projects; the platform benefits from enlarging the scope of funds given to artists; donors benefit from increasing the likelihood of project success; and public institutions benefit from granting part of the decision-making process on cultural budget to the crowd and cutting expenses on project management. This article conceptually explores the benefits, consequences, and the constraints of matchfunding mechanisms for policymaking. We argue that while matchfunding brings benefactors closer to policymaking and governments closer to novel funding models through online means, it also reduces the role of governments in elaborating cultural policy. It is vital to ponder the benefits and hindrances of this model given that matchfunding can potentially shift the structure of policymaking for the arts and culture.
... Even after a crowdfunding call has run its course, any apparent success also provides signals of quality to other investors. For instance, some cultural policy makers have started considering crowdfunding results when allocating funding to specific cultural organizations or projects (so-called matchfunding; Baeck et al., 2017;Senabre & Morell, 2018). 9 ...
Article
Full-text available
Crowdfunding is an innovation from the cultural sector that has found broad applications in other aspects of the economy. We document that cultural economics provides a refined structure to explain much of the crowdfunding phenomenon, which will be useful for any research on this topic. Based on central themes of cultural economics (including quality and demand uncertainty, socially interdependent demand formation, public good attributes, and intrinsic motivation to create), we extend on the current understanding in the crowdfunding literature regarding three fundamental questions: (1) under what circumstances is crowdfunding a superior alternative to traded means of financing innovative projects? (2) What types of crowdfunding are best suited for specific (cultural and creative) industries (CCI)? (3) What is the potential of crowdfunding for cultural and creative industries? Overall, we describe crowdfunding as a flexible tool for mitigating various, fundamental challenges in CCI and beyond. We also identify limitations of crowdfunding, which for now, severely restrict its application. Arguably, the main boon of crowdfunding for cultural economics is not so much that it makes markets (for cultural products) much more efficient and fosters growth. Instead, crowdfunding enables sophisticated empirical research on central topics of cultural economics, and a rich and diverse literature has begun lifting that treasure.
... org/), between February 2017 and May 2019. Goteo represents a unique approach to data transparency as one of the few open source crowdfunding platforms in the world 16 , allowing full public scrutiny of its main funding dynamics, campaigns and backer behaviours. The dataset includes the typology of campaigns, differentiating between those following the usual crowdfunding mechanism (392) and those with match-funding models (95) which have been implemented by the platform in recent years for various pilot projects. ...
Article
Full-text available
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight priority areas for global sustainable development, such as reducing inequalities and protecting the environment. Digital platforms, such as Goteo.org, facilitate financial support from individuals for SDG-related initiatives through crowdfunding and match-funding campaigns. Match-funding is a type of crowdfunding, where individual donations are matched or multiplied by public and private organizations. There remains a lack of open data, however, to study the effectiveness of match-funding as a way to finance these civic initiatives. The Goteo.org platform’s approach to data transparency and open source principles have allowed these data to be collected, and here we present a dataset for 487 civic crowdfunding campaigns. This dataset presents a unique opportunity to compare the behaviour of different crowdfunding modalities in parallel with the SDGs.
Article
Full-text available
Crowdfunding is known as a funding solution for creative projects. Creators and business ventures consider crowdfunding as an outlet for promoting creative projects and raising funds. The literature and the media coverage overemphasized its benefits without taking into account key limitations for specific sectors. Based on exploratory, qualitative data gathering, this article investigates what artists expect from crowdfunding and what results from their successful engagement with this funding model. The findings organized in three sequential moments (pre-campaign, during and after) revealed that artists see crowdfunding as a contingent funding resort when other preferred methods are unavailable (subsidies, sponsorship, or labor market opportunities). While expecting to enter markets, artists remain restricted to their social networks, thus reaching successful, yet low funding targets. Artists report that the “investments” in their work resemble gift-giving practices of a costly nature. We interpret these findings as the result of a relative difficulty to reach out to other audiences and match one’s expectations with this funding model.
Article
Full-text available
El crowdfunding cívico se puede entender como una modalidad de finanzas sostenibles, ya que toma en consideración no solo la valoración económica de los proyectos, sino también cuestiones sociales y medioambientales. El presente artículo tiene como objetivo analizar el crowdfunding cívico y el matchfunding como herramienta para financiar los Objetivos de desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) desde la escala local y regional. Para ello se analizan los resultados de la experiencia piloto de microfinanciación comunitaria con apoyo institucional “Matchfunding Madrid Km Región” que busca promover la innovación en proyectos de canales cortos de comercialización de alimentos sostenibles y de proximidad. Además, se realizaron entrevistas con los responsables políticos de 35 municipios de la Comunidad de Madrid acerca de la aceptación, beneficios y barreras que podría tener el matchfunding en las entidades locales. El crowdfunding cívico, y en concreto el matchfunding, es una herramienta que tiene potencial para financiar proyectos locales que contribuyan al desarrollo sostenible y marcar una agenda política y social en torno a los ODS. Entre otros beneficios, se fomentan la participación ciudadana y la actividad empresarial. Para impulsar su uso es necesaria una mayor difusión de buenas prácticas e investigación sobre estos mecanismos en el ámbito local y regional.
Preprint
Crowdfunding is an innovation from the cultural sector that has found broad applications in other aspects of the economy. We document that cultural economics provides a useful structure to explain much of the crowdfunding phenomenon, which will be useful for any re-search on this topic. Based on central themes of cultural economics (including quality and demand uncertainty, socially interdependent demand formation, public good attributes, and intrinsic motivation to create), we extend on the current understanding in the crowdfunding literature regarding three fundamental questions: (1) under what circumstances is crowd-funding a superior alternative to traded means of financing innovative projects? (2) What types of crowdfunding are best suited for specific (cultural and creative) industries? (3) What is the potential of crowdfunding for cultural and creative industries? Overall, we de-scribe crowdfunding as a sophisticated and flexible tool for mitigating various, fundamental challenges in CCI and beyond. We also identify limitations of crowdfunding, which for now, severely restrict its application. Arguably, the main boon of crowdfunding for cultural economics is not so much that it makes markets (for cultural products) much more efficient and fosters growth. Instead, crowdfunding enables sophisticated empirical research on central topics of cultural economics, and a rich and diverse literature has begun lifting that treasure.
Article
Public good crowdfunding, an emerging online channel, provides a novel way for forestry projects to raise funds from a large number of donors to make contribution to the ecological benefits. A number of crowdfunding platforms have developed rapidly in China. However, it is not clear yet if the platforms are similar in helping the fundraisers of projects about forestry to reach their funding goal. Based on the theories of trust and motivation crowding, we proposed the hypothesis that differences in platform governance strategies affect the performance of projects about forestry. One step further, we investigated matching's impact on the funding outcome of forestry crowdfunding projects. By conducting both qualitative and quantitative analysis using data collected from three Chinese major crowdfunding platforms, we found that platform heterogeneity has a significant impact on the performance of crowdfunding projects about forestry and matching, funds from the corporation when individual donor contribute, crowds out the private provision of public good. These results can help to improve the understanding of platform governance and provide important managerial insight for fundraisers and the platform managers. This evidence shows that we may take advantage of crowdfunding to provide funds for forestry-related ecological services about public projects to further promote and develop ecosystem protection.
Chapter
Full-text available
Abstract The general purpose of this chapter is to describe and analyse the financing phenomenon of crowdfunding and to investigate the relations between crowdfunders, project creators and crowdfunding websites. More specifically, it also intends to describe the profile differences between major crowdfunding platforms, such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo. The results showed that both Kickstarter and Indiegogo are among the most popular crowdfunding platforms. Both of them have thousands of users and these users are generally satisfied. Most of them rely on individual approaches for crowdfunding. Despite this, Kickstarter and Indiegogo could benefit from further improving their services. Furthermore, according to the results, it was possible to observe that there is a direct and positive relationship between the money needed for the projects and the money collected from the investors for the projects, per platform.
Article
Full-text available
Crowdfunding oferece enormes possibilidades para o marketing e comunicação, uma vez que facilita a circulação de novos projetos, gera o público e cria uma base social leal. No entanto, as experiências de crowdfunding pode ser diversa. Os objetivos desta investigação são três; analisar crowdfunding plataformas da Espanha, por meio de métodos de pesquisa quantitativos e qualitativos (descritiva e relacional); realizar um estudo comparativo do índice de eficiência de campanhas de crowdfunding para projetos com fins lucrativos, em comparação com as campanhas para arrecadar dinheiro para causas sociais; e propor orientações sobre boas práticas listando os pontos-chave de uma campanha bem sucedida. Os resultados obtidos indicam que a percentagem de campanhas com fins lucrativos de sucesso não é maior do que para aqueles de caridade, e que a conformidade com os pontos-chave nas orientações de boas práticas propostas é mais propensa a resultar em uma campanha de crowdfunding bem sucedido.
Article
Full-text available
Crowdfunding allows founders of for-profit, artistic, and cultural ventures to fund their efforts by drawing on relatively small contributions from a relatively large number of individuals using the internet, without standard financial intermediaries. Drawing on a dataset of over 48,500 projects with combined funding over $237 M, this paper offers a description of the underlying dynamics of success and failure among crowdfunded ventures. It suggests that personal networks and underlying project quality are associated with the success of crowdfunding efforts, and that geography is related to both the type of projects proposed and successful fundraising. Finally, I find that the vast majority of founders seem to fulfill their obligations to funders, but that over 75% deliver products later than expected, with the degree of delay predicted by the level and amount of funding a project receives. These results offer insight into the emerging phenomenon of crowdfunding, and also shed light more generally on the ways that the actions of founders may affect their ability to receive entrepreneurial financing.
Article
Full-text available
An inherent problem that entrepreneurs face at the very beginning of their entrepreneurial initiative is to attract outside capital, given the lack of collateral and sufficient cash flows and the presence of significant information asymmetry with investors. Recently, some entrepreneurs have started to rely on the Internet to directly seek financial help from the general public (the “crowd”) instead of approaching financial investors such as business angels, banks or venture capital funds. This technique, called “crowdfunding”, has made possible to seek capital for project-specific investments as well as for starting up new ventures. In this book chapter (forthcoming in the Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance at Oxford University Press), we discuss crowdfunding as an alternative way of financing projects, with a focus on small, entrepreneurial ventures. We provide a description of crowdfunding and discusses existing research on the topic, putting crowdfunding into perspective of entrepreneurial finance and thereby describing factors affecting entrepreneurial preferences for crowdfunding as source of finance. We elaborate different business models used to raise money from the crowd, in particular with respect to the structure of the crowdfunding process. Building on this discussion, we present and discuss extensively a case study, namely Media No Mad (a French startup). Finally we conclude with recommendations for entrepreneurs seeking to make use of crowdfunding and with suggestions for researchers about yet unexplored avenues of research.
Conference Paper
The existence of crowdfunding platforms has helped creators to bring their innovative products to market. In recent years, equity crowdfunding has increased in popularity as an alternative form of finance, and has helped thousands of innovating entrepreneurs to raise money, and join a broader conversation with large numbers of potential investors. Early-stage startup investment is no longer restricted to venture capital firms and high net worth angel investors. Using Social Identity Theory (SIT) as a basis, we look at a sample of crowdfunding campaigns from the UK-based platform, Crowdcube. In this study we are trying to understand how groups of potential crowdfunding investors act in relation to the social media activities of those campaigns. We examine how different social media activities of can have an impact upon the funding of a crowdfunding campaign. This study has significant implications for fundraisers who want to utilize social media to increase their chances of a successful crowdfunding campaign. In our study we identify that by being more active on social media, and having a higher level of engagement with the crowd, this will have a positive impact on the overall funding of a crowdfunding campaign.
Article
The search for financial alternatives after the 2008 banking collapse attracts a growing attention towards crowdfunding. This paper begins with a conceptual review and then focuses on donation-based crowdfunding linked to commons-based cultural production, selecting the Spanish platform Goteo as case study. We develop an exploratory analysis of the 158 cultural projects launched on Goteo from 2011 to May 2014. Even if the takings are modest and not very diversified, we conclude that this model grows stronger every year, thus challenging the neoliberal view of crowdfunding as a replacement for public funding at the expense of exhausting the supporting communities.
Article
Crowdfunding, the raising of capital from a large and diverse pool of donors via online platforms, has grown exponentially in the past five years, spurred by the rise of Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. While legislative attention in the US has turned to the potential to use crowdfunding as a means of raising capital for companies, less attention has been paid to the use of crowdfunding for civic projects - projects involving either directly or indirectly, the use of government funds, assets or sponsorship, which may include the development of public assets. This project analyzes the subgenre of civic crowdfunding from three perspectives. First, it provides a comprehensive quantitative overview of the subgenre of civic crowdfunding, its most common project types and its geographic distribution. Second, it describes three edge cases, projects that, while uncommon, demonstrate the current limits, aspirations and potential future path of the subgenre. Third, it analyzes the historical and intellectual paradigms within which civic crowdfunding projects and platforms are operating: whether they are best located within the historical context of community fundraising, participatory planning, entrepreneurial culture or a combination of the three. In addressing these questions, the thesis will explore the potential benefits and challenges of using crowdfunding as a means of executing community-oriented projects in the built environment, and offer proposals for how public and non-profit institutions can engage with crowdfunding to realize civic outcomes.
Article
The rapid rise of crowdfunding in the past five years, most prominently among US-based platforms such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, has begun to attract the attention of a wide range of scholars, policymakers and practitioners. This paper considers civic crowdfunding – the use of crowdfunding for projects that produce community or quasipublic assets – and argues that its emergence demands a fresh set of questions and approaches. The work draws on critical case studies constructed through fieldwork in the United States, the UK and Brazil, and a discourse analysis of civic crowdfunding projects collected from platforms by the author. It offers three provocations to scholars and practitioners considering the practice, questioning the extent to which civic crowdfunding is participatory, the extent to which it addresses or contributes to social inequality, and the extent to which it augments or weakens the role of public institutions. In doing so, it finds that civic crowdfunding is capable of vastly divergent outcomes, and argues that the extent to which civic crowdfunding produces outcomes that are beneficial, rather than harmful to the public sphere, will be determined by the extent to which the full range of stakeholders in civic life participate in the practice.
Crowdfunding -Reshaping the crowd's engagement in culture
  • Isabelle De Voldere
Isabelle De Voldere. 2017. Crowdfunding -Reshaping the crowd's engagement in culture. Technical Report. NC-01-17-333-EN-N. Publications Office of the European Union. Available on:< https://publications. europa. eu/en/publicationdetail/-/publication/7e10916d-677c-11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1.