High-Tech Entrepreneurship in Crowdfunding: the ...



42767254232910Supervisor: Pourya DarnihamedaniDate: July 2015020000Supervisor: Pourya DarnihamedaniDate: July 2015centercenterHigh-Tech Entrepreneurship in Crowdfunding: the implications of online communities on the formation of hi-Tech venturesAn analysis of the crowdfunding platform KickstarterKandzia, N.J.W.Bachelor Thesis9410077300High-Tech Entrepreneurship in Crowdfunding: the implications of online communities on the formation of hi-Tech venturesAn analysis of the crowdfunding platform KickstarterKandzia, N.J.W.Bachelor ThesisSummary:Crowdfunding is a new concept of drawing funds for a variety of projects, allowing entrepreneurs to make use of a vast amount of investors, namely the consumers of their product. The rapid growth of crowdfunding leads to the assumption that it is not merely a short-lived phenomenon, but an interesting new concept with rising demand from both entrepreneurs and consumers alike. By using a dataset of over 56,600 projects attracting over US$ 1 billion in funding regarding crowd-funding platform Kickstarter, I will try to describe the challenges and prospects regarding crowdfunding. By first studying literature involving crowdfunding, entrepreneurship and a combination of the two, a deeper understanding and a link between the two disciplines will be established. Afterwards, an analysis regarding descriptive statistics of Technology-based crowdfunding projects will offer a means of setting high-tech entrepreneurs apart from other entrepreneurs in crowdfunding endeavours. I find that high-tech entrepreneurs are more successful and attract larger funding than other types of entrepreneurs on crowdfunding platform Kickstarter. A final conclusion and discussion offers last remarks regarding this research, and gives remarks regarding possible future research in the field. Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Chapter I. Introduction PAGEREF _Toc425153503 \h 3Chapter II. Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc425153504 \h 6II-I. High-Tech Startups PAGEREF _Toc425153505 \h 7II-II. Entrepreneurial Finance PAGEREF _Toc425153506 \h 8II-III. Opportunities in Crowdfunding PAGEREF _Toc425153507 \h 9II-IV. Scepticism of Crowdfunding for Entrepreneurs PAGEREF _Toc425153508 \h 12Chapter IV. Hypotheses PAGEREF _Toc425153509 \h 13Chapter V. Data PAGEREF _Toc425153510 \h 15V-I. Variables of Interest PAGEREF _Toc425153511 \h 16Chapter VI. Methodology PAGEREF _Toc425153512 \h 17Chapter VII. Results PAGEREF _Toc425153513 \h 19Chapter VIII. Discussion of findings PAGEREF _Toc425153514 \h 22VIII.I – Discussion of hypotheses PAGEREF _Toc425153515 \h 23Chapter IX. Interpretation & Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc425153516 \h 24IX-I. Implications of this research PAGEREF _Toc425153517 \h 25IX-II. Limitations & Future Research PAGEREF _Toc425153518 \h 25Chapter X. Bibliography PAGEREF _Toc425153519 \h 28Chapter XI. Appendix PAGEREF _Toc425153520 \h 36Chapter I. IntroductionEver since the invention of the internet, and its applications in households it has allowed for the introduction of a new marketplace where sellers can present goods to customers regardless of time and place. Online shops like or eBay have in little over twenty years become the shopping centres of the twenty first century with combined revenues of over US$ 100 billion in 2014 (, 2015; eBay, 2015). This shift away from a traditional brick-and-mortar marketplace has allowed for the introduction of another more recent phenomenon – crowdfunding. Crowdfunding falls into the broader category of collaborative consumption, defined as a “Peer-to-peer-based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services” (Hamari, Sj?klint, & Ukkonen, 2015). The term was coined in 2007 through an article by Ray Algar as he was describing platforms like Wikipedia in which many people contribute towards the creation and collection of content for society (Algar, 2007). Crowdfunding itself was first mentioned in a 2006 blog-post in fundavlog (Sullivan, 2006). Typically two main types of crowdfunding can be identified: Rewards-based crowdfunding (RB), and equity-based crowdfunding (EB) CITATION Bae14 \l 2057 (Baecker, Collins, & Bryan, 2014). In RB crowdfunding, a company sets out rewards, like the finished product itself, to attract backers. By pledging a certain amount of money to the project, the backer will in turn be rewarded with the product/service once it is finished. The most notable RB platform at the moment is Kickstarter CITATION Tay13 \l 2057 (Taylor, 2013). In 2014, 22,252 projects were successfully funded with US$ 529 million in total (Kickstarter, 2015). As for the project raising the highest amount of funds so far, Star Citizen, a video game currently still in development has raised over US$ 83 million to date in various campaigns since September 2012 (RSI, 2015). The Pebble is another example of a very successful RB crowdfunding project. Reward-based crowdfunding has experienced a 524% compound annual growth rate between 2009 and 2012 (The World Bank, 2013).EB crowdfunding can be considered a more traditional investment approach whereby backers of projects receive shares of the respective company. This form of crowdfunding is less wide-spread due to current legal issues in several countries (Hemmil?, 2012). Nevertheless, as the popularity of crowdfunding grows, many countries have already brought forth legislation for making equity-based crowdfunding more accessible. However, in order to avoid pitfalls associated with current legal structures for several countries, of which many are prone to change in the near future, this research’s scope will be limited to RB crowdfunding, specifically an extensive dataset harvested of every project from Kickstarter. The potential of crowdfunding can be better understood by considering that the most crucial resource of a new business venture was found to be financing (Kortum & Lerner, 2000; Cosh, Cumming, & Hughes, 2009). The most prominent example of crowdfunding to date is the Pebble Smartwatch, a innovative high-tech smartwatch created by the startup venture Pebble Technology. While the company was able to raise US$ 375,000 from angel investors, its founders were unable to find investors for an additional US$ 100,000 required for the production of the finished product and therefore launched a Kickstarter campaign asking for the additional money CITATION Mil12 \l 2057 (Milian, 2012). Within two hours of the 37 day long campaign, the goal was already reached, and when the campaign ended, US$ 10,266,845 were collected from 68,928 people, 10,266% of the original goal. To date, the Pebble Smartwatch is the third most funded project on Kickstarter of all time, only bested by a futuristic cooler, and the Pebble Time, its successor, which was able to raise US$ 20,388,986 CITATION Kic \l 2057 (Kickstarter, 2015).The concept of entrepreneurship has created discussion among economists for a long time already. Even the definition of entrepreneurship itself is so far not consistent. One of the most prominent definitions of entrepreneurs was set up by Alois Schumpeter, who defined an entrepreneur merely as an innovator, and not necessarily as the manager of said business (Schumpeter, 1934). And as Cunningham and Lischeron explain, the term has so far been used to explain “activities such as creation, founding, adopting, and managing a venture” (Cunningham & Lischeron, 1991). In order to not be stuck within the debate of what an entrepreneur is and is not, this research will therefore adopt the basic concept that an entrepreneur is the creator of an innovative business. By choosing this definition, entrepreneurship can be represented in a broad and yet simple manner.The field of entrepreneurs has not only gained more attention in the academic world, but also in every day life. A trend analysis of the word “entrepreneur” from search engine Google trends shows a clear increase in the interest of the term in past years. While initially having a search index ranking of 29-50, since 2009 however the term has experienced a near doubling of searches CITATION Goo15 \l 2057 (Google, 2015). This could be interpreted as a rising interest in entrepreneurship by society. As the research on crowdfunding and its relation to entrepreneurship is still in an early stage, empirical research on the field is scarce. Therefore this research will try to add to the few existing academic papers in the field in order to broaden researchers’ understanding of the potential impact crowdfunding can have on high-tech startup companies.Specifically, I will try to answer the question “Is crowdfunding a potential financing choice for new entrepreneurial high-tech ventures in the European Union and the United States of America?”. In order to answer this question, first a literature review will be conducted which gives an in-depth understanding about current research in crowdfunding and new business-ventures. The purpose of this review is two-fold. Firstly, it will create a more in-depth understanding of prior and current research in the fields of crowdfunding and entrepreneurship. Secondly, it will aid in finding short-comings in the existing literature and create a guidance for this research paper. Afterwards, hypotheses which will aid to answer the research question will be established. Further, the data for this research paper will be introduced, and a methodology regarding the use of the data will be established. After this, the paper will provide an empirical analysis of the data with a comparison of high-tech ventures and non-high-tech ventures. This will allow me to draw a conclusion about the research and present insights for future researchers.While the risks of crowdfunding certainly exist, it is important to understand that not only platforms themselves try to show credibility through manual review procedures CITATION Kic152 \l 2057 (Kickstarter, 2015), but so do governments CITATION Eur151 \l 2057 (European Commission, 2015). Due to increasing attention towards crowdfunding by policy makers (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2012) as well as crowdfunding platforms to contain fraudulant behaviour, the biggest threat to a crowdfunder’s reward seems to be mismanagement (Johnston, 2014). Chapter II. Literature ReviewIn order to further broaden our understanding of crowdfunding, a more in depth analysis of its roots is in place. Crowdsourcing is essentially about the introduction of the “working consumer” CITATION Kle08 \l 2057 (Kleemann, Vo?, & Rieder, 2008). The working consumer builds a bridge between the previously differentiated spheres of consumption and production by taking a more active role in the latter. The concept of the working consumer was already established with the introduction of fast-food chains and stores like IKEA through the concept of self-service. Crowdsourcing takes the working consumer concept and implements it into web-based activities. A prerequisite for crowdsourcing was identified as the introduction of the Web 2.0 CITATION Bra08 \l 2057 (Brabham, 2008). This evolution of the internet introduced the end-user to the ability to create new or add to existing content. The establishment of crowdfunding from crowdsourcing is therefore the commercialisation of crowdsourcing: One participant develops an idea for a product or a service which other participants can then financially support in order for it to be brought to the market CITATION Sch121 \l 2057 (Schwienbacher & Larralde, 2012). The first introduction of a crowdfunding platform occurred in 2003, when the online platform ArtistShare launched with the concept of letting participants donate money to music bands in order for them to create a professional music album CITATION Fre15 \l 2057 (Freedman & Nutting, 2015). Through the introduction of new crowdfunding platforms, the concept was further refined and eventually attracted not only small scale projects but also individuals hoping to establish a business venture and established entrepreneurs hoping for financing CITATION Sch121 \l 2057 (Schwienbacher & Larralde, 2012). Mollick highlights, that of the 50 highest funded Kickstarter campaigns in 2012, 45 are now entrepreneurial firms CITATION Mol14 \l 2057 (Mollick, 2014).As Hemer (2011) pointed out, the majority of existing papers on crowdfunding research regard specific sub-categories and sectors, while not much attention has been paid to the bigger picture. So far, the largest amount of research regarding crowdfunding has been done for the field of psychology, which is interested in the “wisdom of the crowd” and group donation psychology. Following, the few accounts of psychologial and economic research in crowdfunding will be summarised. II-I. High-Tech StartupsThe aforementioned importance of technology in the creation of crowdfunding plays an important role, namely in that of the ventures seeking funding themselves. While the growth of crowdfunding platforms has brought forth a virtue of new ventures, those involved in high-tech products are often times the most complex ones CITATION Man14 \l 2057 (Manchanda & Muralidharan, 2014). The success of these technology based startups stems from technological advances in everyday situations CITATION Bro89 \l 2057 (Brock & Evans, 1989). These technological advances are two-folded: they create the possibility of entirely new products, but more importantly they make yesterday’s high-tech projects smaller, better, and more affordable to everyone today. Previous research often times lead to the conclusion that high-tech entrepreneurship is a geographically clustered CITATION Lar12 \l 1033 (Larson & Pearson, 2012). However, due to the the capabilities of the modern internet, this geographical barrier may slowly degrade. As VCs tend to be more sceptical of high-tech projects than any other ones due to the higher risk associated with those, and often times a lack of knowledge concerning new technologies, it seems that crowdfunding may be able to close this gap CITATION Rel15 \l 1033 (Relander, 2015). Notabely, the attention hypothesis suggests that the internet as a marketplace for high-tech projects brings two-folded benefits to entrepreneurs. Firstly, the attention hypothesis suggests that this larger marketplace increases the exposure of projects which is unatainable otherwise CITATION Cum08 \l 2057 (Cumming & Dai, 2008). Secondly, it gives individuals an insight into the capabilities of modern technology CITATION Kle99 \l 2057 (Klein & O'Keefe, 1999).As Gans, Hsu, and Stern (2000) found, high-tech startups don’t only increase a product horizon for consumers, but it puts pressure on incumbent firms to continuously innovate as well. Further they found that increased competition among high-tech startups can lead to market failure in terms of ideas. While this threat may cause potential ideas to fail, the crowdsourcing movement aims to erradicate this market failure through the corporation between innovators rather than through competition amongst them CITATION Bel141 \l 2057 (Belleflamme, Lambert, & Schwienbacher, 2014).Kakati found that an important difference between high- and low-tech ventures is often times not the product itself, but rather the ability of the entrepreneur to meet unique customer requirements CITATION Kak03 \l 1033 (Kakati, 2003). Continuous product differentiation in high-tech ventures is often hard to achieve due to the fast rate of innovation and catch-up by competitors. This rate of innovation is achieved through the large research and development investments of high-tech firms. While conventional firms tend to possess large amounts of tangible assets, this is often not the case for technology based firms. These firms operate mainly with extensive amounts of R&D CITATION Col \l 2057 (Colombo, Kuukkonen, Mustar, & Wright, 2010).Further, many believe that the growth of the internet and technology in general has had two important effects on the field of entrepreneurship. First, it made if more difficult for large companies to keep up with technological development thus lowering entry barriers to markets CITATION Wad14 \l 2057 (Wade, 2014). Arora et al. (2010) also find that the fast rate of innovation in high-tech industries creates another effect, namely that a new innovation potentially lowers the barriers to entry for all subsequent firms. Second, the internet itself acts as a new innovative marketplace of conducting business CITATION Mat05 \l 2057 (Matlay & Westhead, 2005). II-II. Entrepreneurial FinanceMost literature to date regarding entrepreneurial finance is limited to traditional means of equity and debt funding (Denis, 2004; Winton & Yerramilli, 2008; Storey & Greene, 2010; Kerr, Lerner, & Schoar, 2014). Chen, Miao and Wang (2010) point out the extensive liability associated with these traditional means of financing, most notabely the inability of entrepreneurs to diversify their own financial risk in most cases. The 2008 financial crisis can be regarded as another determinant making traditional sources of finance less attractive for entrepreneurial finance. Rejection rates for small businesses applying for loans rose from 3.9% in 2004 to 16.3% past 2008 for the United Kingdom CITATION Fra09 \l 2057 (Fraser, 2009). Many businesses which require financing feel discouraged from even applying for loans. The risks for entrepreneurs in combination with the financial crisis which caused the availability of bank loans to fall sharply in the post-2008 time, is partially seen as one of the causes for the fast increase in crowdfunding since then (Mitra, 2012; Harrison, 2013). The process of attaining funds from VCs can be long and difficult, and those wo gain investments often times give up significant parts of their ownership to the investor, thus dilluting their potential effort in the endeavour and losing autonomy over their company CITATION Tye84 \l 2057 (Tyebjee & Bruno, 1984).This trend is especially visible for high-tech startups CITATION Con13 \l 2057 (Conti, Thursby, & Rothaermel, 2013). While a majority of conventional startup firms attracts a large amount of funding from internal sources, loans, and equity funding companies like VCs, high-tech startups seem to be the most unfortunate ones in these regards. Firstly, the amount of funding required for a high-tech venture is oftentimes too much to make use of the three Fs (Founders, Family, and Friends). Secondly, VCs are more likely to reject technology based startups than conventional ones due to the alleged risk associated with investments in new technologies CITATION Kak03 \l 2057 (Kakati, 2003).II-III. Opportunities in CrowdfundingThe majority of research suggests crowdfunding to be a positive (and natural) development which was brought about by the capabilities of the internet (Goli?, 2013; Baldwin, Hienerth, & von Hippel, 2006; Di Pietro). One of crowdfunding’s biggest strengths seems to be that it can bring creators and consumers directly together. Crowdfunding seemingly decreases the importance of physical proximity between an entrepreneur and an investor (Agrawal, Catalini, & Goldfarb, 2011). This increases the number of possible investors for new ventures from a few firms to potentially every individual with access to the internet CITATION Val13 \l 2057 (Valanciene & Jegeleviciute, 2013).The rapid growth of crowdfunding as a source of investment for funders and a means of gaining investment for entrepreneurs has often been highlighted in news, but so far little regards to it was given in research. One reason for this may be the unorthodox way in which investors chose their investment (Agrawal, Catalini, & Goldfarb, 2013). What sets crowdfunding apart from other means of funding is largely the interaction between the entrepreneur and the funders which often constitutes in a community-like feeling CITATION Bel141 \l 2057 (Belleflamme, Lambert, & Schwienbacher, 2014).The fact that crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter can create these communities has largely been attributed to a process called virtualisation. It describes the shift of processes which rely on human interaction into a virtual space CITATION Ove10 \l 2057 (Overby, Slaughter, & Konsynski, 2010). Many ideas failed to ever be turned into finished products as they did not have the necessary market and exposure to bring the prodcut to a market. The introduction of crowdfunding platforms however made it possible for entrepreneurs to find people willing to back their idea regardless of geographical location. The virtualisation of content is especially strong for non-tangible products like indie games, which were a declining industry until crowdfunding revitalised the industry CITATION Wil13 \l 2057 (Wiltz, 2013).Further, Zvilichovsky, Inbar and Barzilay conclude that another reason for the success of crowdfunding is the ability of “playing both sides” CITATION Zvi14 \l 2057 (Zvilichovsky, Inbar, & Barzilay, 2014). The ability of any individual to not only fund other projects but also launch their own, gives rise to a very large potential number of entrepreneurs. The researchers compare the use of crowdfunding platforms to that of video platform YouTube, private holiday rental service Airbnb or second hand online-shop eBay. This can be seen as a mutually beneficial course of action both for the entrepreneur and the crowdfunder alike. Specifically, six benefits which are unique to entrepreneurs who use crowdfunding to attract funds can be outlined. These are namely: (1) profile creation, (2) proven market, (3) audience building, (4) audience engagement, (5) audience feedback, and (6) international support CITATION Nor12 \l 2057 (Nordicity, 2012). These points highlight how intertwined crowdfunding is with social media. For funders, the benefits are similar, as they are able to engage with the entrepreneur before the production of the product is finalized. At the same time early backers of products often have the opportunity to make use of an “early-bird” feature. The “early-bird” is a term often used on crowdfunding site Kickstarter by entrepreneurs to encourage people to back a product early on into the crowdfunding campaign. For a donation of a certain amount, the backer will receive the finished product once production begins. The donation is generally lower than the retail price of the finished good CITATION Sto13 \l 2057 (Stonemaier Games, 2013). As the scope of this paper will be the rewards-based crowdfunding platform Kickstarter, I will not go into further detail about the possible motivations of entrepreneurs and funders for other forms of crowdfunding.Another, often neglected argument for the success of platforms like Kickstarter can be seen in the “wisdom of crowds”. First analysed by Galton in 1907 after being astonished that a group of individuals estimated the weight of an ox by averaging their predictions, the “wisdom of crowds” predicts that crowds are often more able to predict something than an individual alone CITATION Gal07 \l 2057 (Galton, 1907). His concept was later seen in practice in the stock market and quiz shows and proved to be very robust CITATION Sur05 \l 2057 (Surowiecki, 2005).As of 2011, 452 crowdfunding platforms existed with which raised a cumulative US$ 1.5 billion. By 2012, the worldwide funding of crowdfunding platforms near doubled to $2.7 billion, and by 2015, an estimated US$ 34.4 billion will be collected through crowdfunding (Statista, 2015; Massolution, 2015).right142Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1 - Past and Future Growth of Crowdfunding in U.S. Dollars00Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1 - Past and Future Growth of Crowdfunding in U.S. Dollars*ProjectionII-IV. Scepticism of Crowdfunding for EntrepreneursWhile Giudici et al. (2012) have expressed that the crowdfunding business is an interesting one for entrepreneurs they, however, are sceptical of its potential in replacing traditional investment like venture capital (VC). The authors reason that VCs actively try to profit from their investments by lending their own expertese to the entrepreneur. Typically, VCs are specialised in the financing of early business ventures, which bears high risks, but also potentially high returns CITATION Keu02 \l 2057 (Keuschnigg & Nielsen, 2002). By cooperating with banks or VCs, the entrepreneur is able to keep their invention a secret prior to selling. Furthermore, showing off the product on a crowdfunding platform creates the possibility for potential competitiors to imitate the product even prior to market release. Also, the entrepreneur himself may have the best intentions in mind, but may lack the know-how of either his venture or of setting-up and running a business, which may ultimately cause the failure of his project CITATION Val13 \l 2057 (Valanciene & Jegeleviciute, 2013).Funders of projects on the other hand are usually individuals who offer small amounts investments for the promise of a future product. These individuals also tend to be laymen in the field of investing and do not have the experience, expertise and resources a bank or VC has in assessing the risks associated with a new project (Agrawal, Catalini, & Goldfarb, 2013). This means that crowdfunders have little to no possibility of weighing the risks they expose themselves to by pledging money for a project. Lastly, Wells sees the most severe problem of crowdfunding in the uncertainty associated with intellectual property CITATION Wel13 \l 2057 (Wells, 2013). By disclosing an innovation on a platform like Kickstarter, an entrepreneur may receive a one year period in which they must file a patent, otherwise it cannot be filed anymore. A further problem pointed out by Wells is that of suggestions by funders of projects, who often times receive no compensation at all should they propose ideas towards the product towards an entrepreneur.However, his analysis disregards of the core idea of the crowdsourcing movement, in that it should be open-source CITATION Bel141 \l 2057 (Belleflamme, Lambert, & Schwienbacher, 2014).Nevertheless, as the research in entrepreneurial crowdfunding has just started to emerge, little empirical research has sofar been conducted to analyse these claims. Burtch et al. (2011) have successfully established a link between crowdfunding projects and their market exposure. Kappel has analysed the possibilities crowdfunding gives to mostly unknown bands CITATION Kap09 \l 2057 (Kappel, 2009). Finally, Mollick outlined three key areas in which researchers should improve our understanding of entrepreneurial crowdfunding CITATION Mol14 \l 2057 (Mollick, 2014). This research will touch one of them, namely an empirical analysis of whether crowdfunding for entrepreneurial ventures works. Chapter IV. HypothesesRiedl highlights the importance of crowdfunding for technological innovation as a means of finding investors for small-scale technology projects which are often neglected by VCs and angel investors due to their size CITATION Rie13 \l 1033 (Riedl, 2013). Its strengths compared to traditional financing are those of gaining attention from consumers before a product is even created. On the other hand, funders of projects have the ability to invest in projects which they find interesting without the risk of losing large amounts of money. In other words, by being part of a large crowd of investors, an individual funder makes small contributions in order for a high-tech project to come to existence.The literature analysis already sought to establish potential differences between high- and non-high-tech entrepreneurs. The scope of the current literature on crowdfunding deals with two main topics, the financial risk of crowdfunding compared to conventional investment strategies, and the success of entrepreneurship through crowdfunding. In order to test for these claims, hypotheses need to be established. Firstly, high-tech ventures generally seemed to have more difficulties in receiving funding for their venture due to the risks associated with their project CITATION Kak03 \l 2057 (Kakati, 2003), as well as their requirements for larger investment than conventional non-high-tech ventures CITATION Keu02 \l 2057 (Keuschnigg & Nielsen, 2002). Nevertheless, as the attention hypothesis suggests, the increased exposure of projects due to the implementation of the internet can increase funding for high-tech ventures through crowdfunding CITATION Cum08 \l 2057 (Cumming & Dai, 2008). Current research seems to suggest that crowdfunding may be able to establish itself as an alternative to traditional means of finance due to its unconventional and low-risk structure (Agrawal, Catalini, & Goldfarb, 2013). In order to test whether this statements hold, two hypotheses will be established:H1A: Crowdfunded high-tech ventures gain more pledges than non-high-tech venturesH1B: The average pledge per backer is higher for high-tech ventures than non-high-tech venturesThe success to the so far short tale of crowdfunding is currently one of the most debated and researched topics within the category of entrepreneurial crowdfunding. Scholars have brought forth several reasons for the success of crowdfunding for high-tech ventures, like the “wisdom of the crowd” CITATION Hem \l 2057 (Hemer, 2011), virtualisation CITATION Ove10 \l 2057 (Overby, Slaughter, & Konsynski, 2010), the ability of individuals to “play both sides” CITATION Zvi14 \l 2057 (Zvilichovsky, Inbar, & Barzilay, 2014), and its ability to create communities CITATION Bel141 \l 2057 (Belleflamme, Lambert, & Schwienbacher, 2014). Furthermore, the problems associated with high-tech entrepreneurial funding and conventional debt and equity investments were highlighted by numerous researchers (Fraser, 2009; Mitra, 2012; Harrison, 2013). Due to larger rejection and discouragement rates of entrepreneurs in combination with a fast growth of crowdfunding, more high-tech ventures are likely to be drawn towards the possibility of seeking investment on these new platforms CITATION Mas15 \l 2057 (Massolution, 2015). The constraints of VCs and banks to finance these often times risky ventures, like the Pebble mentioned earlier, could imply that crowdfunding may establish itself as a serious investment possibility for these firms CITATION Bur11 \l 2057 (Burtch, Ghose, & Wattal, 2011). The problem with financing high-tech ventures often seems to be the inability to objectively asses the venture due to a lack of available information about consumers’ perceptions of these goods. If the consumer is the investor at the same time though, this problem may be abolished. Therefore a second hypothesis needs to be established:H2: The success rate of high-tech crowdfunding campaigns is greater than that of non-high-tech campaignsHypotheses 1A and 1B are aimed towards the assumption that high-tech ventures are generally in need for higher amounts of investments, and that those who do invest will also invest more into the entrepreneur’s idea. As discussed previously, high-tech startups tend to require higher amounts of funding and are less likely to draw these amounts from FFF. The second hypothesis gives insight into the wisdom of the crowd and the possibility of a correlation between the growth of crowdfunding and successful finance-intensive high-tech industries. The hypothesis is based on the notion that crowdfunding in itself allows for larger amounts of interaction between consumers and producers, in combination with the findings of Kakati that high-tech entrepreneurs are more reliant on consumer inputs.Chapter V. Data In this research the data regarding RB crowdfunding will be obtained through Kickstarter which compels every project on the platform until 31/12/2014 (Kickstarter, 2014). The projects within the dataset are grouped into the fifteen categories which Kickstarter provides, namely: Art, Comics, Craft, Dance, Design, Fashion, Film, Food & Drink, Games, Journalism, Music, Photography, Publishing, Technology, and Theatre.Data of interest for this research regard the state of projects defined as “successful”, “failed”, “cancelled”, and “suspended”, the duration of the campaigns, the goal and amount of money pledged towards campaigns in US$. As the sample size of individual countries would prove to be too small to draw reliable conclusions, this research will focus on the United States (from now on U.S.) and the European Union (from now on EU) as the biggest contributors of crowdfunding platforms to date. Additionally, these two geographic locations are some of the most developed areas in the world thus making it more likely for people to found and fund high-tech ventures from these areas. Overall, the dataset used for this analysis included 56,650 unique projects which received US$ 1,259,612,238 in funds. V-I. Variables of InterestSuccess: The variable success is a binary variable consisting of two states, success (1) and failure (0) where failure is considered everything that was not successful (failed, cancelled, and suspended). A successful campaign is one which achieved its funding target by the end of the campaign. This variable gives explanations about the average success rate of a project.Backers Count: This variable shows the average amount of funders a project of a certain category receives by the end of the campaign.Pledge per backer: This variable of interest regards the funders of projects. Specifically it describes the average amount of pledges received by a single backer for a given project.USD Pledged: This variable shows the amount of funds a project managed to attract in U.S. dollars by the end of the campaign.Project Goal USD: This defines the target funding of a project in U.S. dollars. Kickstarter uses an “all-or-nothing” crowdfunding approach, which means that only projects which received at least their goal will receive their funds and count as “success”.Duration: Duration defines the duration of the project. As entrepreneurs on Kickstarter are able to choose duration between 1 and 60 days for their campaign, the duration of a project may give indications about success rates. The duration of a project is represented as a UNIX time stamp converted into days.Funding Level: This variable shows the average amount of funding received by a project. A value above 1.0 implies that the funding goal is achieved.Chapter VI. MethodologyOf the 56,650 crowdfunded projects, those which did not originate from the EU or U.S. were omitted, which lowered the sample size down to 52,019. This step was taken as no other country was able to generate a large enough sample size. While the countries within the EU are no uniform group in itself, the political and economic similarities of the EU states provides reason for using it as a uniform group. In a second step, extreme outliers were eliminated. Afterwards, every “live” project was excluded from the dataset as well bringing the sample size down to 44,237 (Table 3). The examination of hypotheses will take place in a comparison of statistically relevant variables explained earlier. Initially the projects will be grouped into the fifteen aforementioned categories which are analysed separately in terms of the descriptive statistics. A first comparison of the descriptive statistics will take place. The implications of this will be used for further analysis of the research. After, a comparison between the category Technology and a group of the remaining fourteen categories will be conducted, similar to the initial comparison between the initial categories in order to find out high-tech crowdfunding campaigns are substantially different from other crowdfunding categories.The first hypothesis will specifically focus on the amount of pledges a project receives, the amount of backers an average project has, and the amount of pledges per backer for a projects. The initial inter-category comparison will shed some light on the differences between high-tech and non-high-tech ventures, while also making it possible to draw some distinctions among the different categories.In order to draw final conclusions regarding the first hypothesis, the second analysis will be of vital importance. Through the comparison of Technology with the remaining categories grouped together, it will be possible to show differences between the funding and the amount of backers of these campaigns.In order to test for the second hypothesis, I will make use of the tables of descriptive statistics again. The important variable for the analysis of this hypothesis is the success rate of the projects within their categories. Again the variable will be compared first in the inter-category analysis and afterwards in the comparison between Technology and the grouped category.Chapter VII. ResultsInitially a table regarding descriptive statistics for the fifteen categories of Kickstarter projects was created based on the dataset containing the 44,237 projects was created (Table 1). The table represents the aforementioned variables such as the mean and median goal and pledge of each category, the category’s success rates, average percentage of funding, duration, amount of backers and the average pledge per backer. Data of this table are used as a basis for the further analysis of the hypotheses. A comparison of the relevant statistics shows that in relation to most other categories, Technology asks for larger amounts of pledges and also receives more funding. The category also experiences a larger number of backers which on average finance projects which larger amounts than other categories. The comparison between Technology and the grouped categories shows a more precise view of the differences (Table 2). Specifically, Technology (Tier 3) is being compared to the remaining fourteen categories on one side, and the entirety of Kickstarter projects on the other. Whereas the average non-technology project asks for US$ 14,413 (Mean Goal), the average Technology project asks for US$ 32,316. A similar relative difference can be seen for the median goal. However, the median goal for the respective categories is lower than the mean goal, suggesting that a small amount of projects asks for very large sums of money. The actual average pledges suggest an even larger discrepancy than those for goals. While the average Technology project receives US$ 78,628 (Mean Pledge) in funding, the average non-technology project receives US$ 18,262. This suggests that the average Technology project asks for more than twice the amount of funding as a non-technology project does, while receiving almost four times the amount of funding. The differences established on goals and pledges were visualised in Figure 2. Technology appears to be distinct from any other category. The average amount of funding a Technology project receives is 399% of its goal, compared to 172% of a non-technology project, which can be seen in Figure 5.right52601Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2 - Mean and Median Goal and Pledges of Kickstarter Projects00Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2 - Mean and Median Goal and Pledges of Kickstarter Projects\sright2132965Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3 - Average amount of Backers of Kickstarter ProjectsFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3 - Average amount of Backers of Kickstarter ProjectsIn terms of the amount of backers and the average amount of pledges supplied per backer, Technology receives 661 and US$150 respectively, compared to 188 and US$ 68 for non-technology projects. Again, the average backer of a Technology project funds more than twice the amount of money as a non-technology backer. These projects also receive funding from almost four times the amount of people. Figure 3 shows the average amount of backers for respective crowdfunding projects on Kickstarter, and Figure 4 gives the average amounts pledged per project.right0Figure 4 - Average Pledge in US$ per Backer$ 1600$ 140d$ 120d$ 100$ 80d$ 60d$ 40d$ 20d$ 00Figure 4 - Average Pledge in US$ per Backer$ 1600$ 140d$ 120d$ 100$ 80d$ 60d$ 40d$ 20d$ 0Lastly, the success rates of projects were analysed. Larson and Pearson (2012) examined the characteristics of high-tech startups and concluded that their success often depends on geographical reasons. However, Zvilichovsky et al. (2014) suggested that crowdfunding could lead to successful opportunities of being an investor and entrepreneur at the same time. The success rates of Technology based startups were therefore compared to those of the non-technology ones and the full model as before. The findings of this study show that the discrepancies between success rates of different Kickstarter projects are relatively large. The lowest success rate can be found in Crafts and Journalism with about 25% success and 3100 and 1800 projects respectively. The highest success rate is Theatre with 95% and over 3700 projects. Overall though, the success rate of the average crowdfunding project on the platform 69%. The second table comparing Technology with non-technology projects shows a success rate of 88% for Technology projects compared to 69% for non-technology projects. Figure 5 shows this in combination with the average funding compared to the goal. This further supports the notion that Technology related projects are distinct from non-technology related ones. 0339725Figure 5 - Success rate and average funding/goal of Kickstarter projects00Figure 5 - Success rate and average funding/goal of Kickstarter projectsChapter VIII. Discussion of findingsThe goal of this research paper was to obtain information regarding the implications which crowdfunding may have on of high-tech entrepreneurship. For this, data regarding crowdfunding in the European Union and United States of America was obtained through the crowdfunding website Kickstarter. In order to achieve this, the following research question was established and analysed:“Is crowdfunding a potential financing choice of new entrepreneurial high-tech ventures in the European Union and the United States of America?”To find an answer to this question, two hypotheses were established, each aiming to give insights into crowdfunding and its relationship with high-tech entrepreneurship. Chapter I provided an introduction into the topic and tried to establish the scientific and societal need for research in this field. Through an extensive literature review in Chapter II regarding the opportunities researchers see in crowdfunding, while also acknowledging the scepticism this relatively recent internet phenomenon experienced, further insights were given into crowdfunding, entrepreneurship and high-tech entrepreneurship. The literature marked the basis for the research to be conducted in this paper. It is important to note that due to the relative recency of crowdfunding, not much scientific literature has so far been conducted regarding crowdfunding, and an even lesser amount has researched entrepreneurship with regards to crowdfunding. While research in the field of entrepreneurship has continuously grown and gotten more extensive, a clear definition of the term is yet to be agreed upon. Chapter III provided a more in-depth explanation of crowdfunding, entrepreneurship and how these two disciplines are interrelated. The chapter was used to establish a social relevance for this research.Chapter IV introduced the hypotheses which were used in order to aid in answering the research question. The hypotheses tried to examine the relationship between high-tech entrepreneurs on crowdfunding websites and non-high tech entrepreneurs in terms of the amount of financing and the potential of success on crowdfunding websites. The data and methodology used for this research were introduced in Chapters V and VI. VIII.I – Discussion of hypothesesLastly, chapter VII explained the results of this research based on the collected data from crowdfunding website Kickstarter. In the following, I will analyse and asnwer the hypotheses brought forth in the beginning of this paper based on my results:H1A: Crowdfunded high-tech ventures gain more pledges than non-high-tech venturesThe comparison of descriptive statistics showed that crowdfunding campaigns in the Technology category receive an average of nearly four times the funding that non-technology based projects receive. Furthermore, the total number of funders (backers) for these campaigns was also nearly four times higher than for non-technology projects. As Kakati (2003) already suggested, high-tech startups require larger amounts of funds compared to conventional startups. This leads to the conclusion that hypothesis 1A can be accepted: High-tech crowdfunding projects receive higher pledges than low- or medium-tech pledges. H1B: The average pledge per backer is higher for high-tech ventures than non-high-tech venturesAs Relander (2015), Agrawal et al. (2013), Overby et al, (2010) and others suggested, funders for high-tech ventures seem to be more investment oriented than those for conventional crowdfunding. In order to test for this, hypothesis 1B was created to aim at the individual funder of high-tech ventures, rather than the project. The statistics showed that the average pledge by an individual for a Technology project was more than twice as large (US$ 150) as those for the remaining categories (US$ 68). Therefore, hypothesis 1B can also be accepted: The average pledge per backer is higher for high-tech ventures than for non-high-tech ventures.H2: The success rate of high-tech crowdfunding campaigns is greater than that of non-high-tech campaignsThe second hypothesis regards the success of high-tech campaigns. Its justification stems from the findings of Brock and Evans (1989) who concluded that high-tech startups are becoming more successful due to a larger-scale implementation of technology in people’s lifes. Further, the attention hypothesis suggests that success of high-tech startups can be caused through the increased attention these projects receive through the internet CITATION Cum08 \l 2057 (Cumming & Dai, 2008). Conventional investors are generally more sceptical of the risk that high-tech ventures have due to the fact that their products often touch on unknown soil. However, crowdfunding uses risk-spreading due to a large amount of small-scale investors for products CITATION Mit12 \l 2057 (Mitra, 2012). Two variables, namely the success rate and the average amount pledged compared to the goal set by the entreprenur were of importance. Technology ventures received an average of 399% funding compared to 174% for non-high tech ventures. This finding is further in line with the wisdom of the crowd effect brought forth by Hemer (2011). The success rate of Technology projects was also higher than that of non-technology ones (88% to 69%). This leads to the conclusion that the second hypothesis can also be accepted: the success rate for Technology campaigns is higher than that of non-technology ones. Tables 1 and 2 in the appendix summarise the findings of this research and include additional data regarding the individual categories.The hypotheses were used in order to gain more insight into the research regarding high-tech entrepreneurs in crowdfunding. In combination with the literature review which provided insights by other researchers, it can therefore be concluded that crowdfunding is a potential financing choice for new entrepreneurial high-tech ventures in the European Union and the United States of America. Technology based entrepreneurial ventures are highly successful and are able to attract large amounts of funding, compared to other crowdfunding ventures.Chapter IX. Interpretation & ConclusionIn order to aid future researchers in creating more and better information regarding the relationship between entrepreneurship and crowdfunding, the shortcomings of this research have to be discussed, and ideas for future research will be pitched.IX-I. Implications of this researchThis research should be used as a guidline for entrepreneurs, crowdfunding platforms and policy makers alike. Firstly, entrepreneurs should use the results this research paper has provided in order to understand how to improve their own crowdfunding projects. While focusing to high-tech entrepreneurship in crowdfungind, technology-based- and non-technology-based entrepreneurs can learn from the results as . Dedication and quality seem to be the key drivers in for successful campaigns.As previous research already suggests, high-tech entrepreneurs can achieve success through consumer feedback. The openness of crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and the ability to interact with consumers gives reason to believe that the these platforms can be an ideal place for high-tech ventures to draw capital. While conventinal sources of funding can possibly add expertese and know-how to a new venture which crowdfunding platforms lack, the user-base of these platforms add insights which a conventional financing company cannot mimic. Crowdfunding platforms and policy makers should continue to pay close attention to the behaviour of entrepreneurs and the growth of the platforms. Currently the European Union and the United States of America are paving the way for a stronger involvement in crowdfunding, which is a good first step. Nevertheless, their efforst must not come short if the crowdfunding movement continues to grow as it did in recent years. The operators of platforms need to continue to remain attentative to projects in order to not let crowdfunders become the target of fraud. IX-II. Limitations & Future ResearchAvailability of dataWhile Kickstarter is the currently largest platform regarding reward-based crowdfunding, there are many others like it. However, oftentimes data regarding projects as was used in this analysis are not publicly available. Additionally, the datasets may not align with one another making a combined dataset of crowdfunding projects across platforms difficult to build and use.Scale of researchThis research paper analysed the potential relationship between crowdfunding and high-tech entrepreneurship based on data from April 2009 until May 2015. This timeframe proved to be too short to produce a more detailed time-series analysis. Especially the lack of data for the first two years for the European Union proved to be a limiting factor in the analysis.Scope of researchFirstly, due to a limited amount of data regarding other geographic regions, this research based its analysis on data regarding the EU and U.S. only. While other geographical locations seem promising as well, they were omitted from this research due to the lack of a large enough sample size.Secondly, this research tried to establish a relationship between crowdfunding and high-tech entrepreneurship based on rewards-based crowdfunding platform Kickstarter. Nevertheless, other systems, most notably equity-based platforms exist as well and are gaining momentum due to increased attention of policy makers. A successful campaign does not mean a successful product. As other researchers have pointed out, a successful Kickstarter campaign may not bring about a successful finished product. Often times, products which are highly over-funded create unrealistic expectations for backers and an increased amount of pressure for the entrepreneur, which may lead to a delayed product CITATION Mol14 \l 2057 (Mollick, 2014).Many reasons exist for why research in the relationship between crowdfunding and entreprneurship should be continued and broadened.First, crowdfunding is a very young phenomenon. In just over 6 years, crowdfunding platforms have established themselves all over the world. Due to its fast growth, the research of crowdfunding with regards to other economic disciplines like entrepreneurship is still in its infancy. If the growth of crowdfunding doesn’t come to a quick halt, it needs to be established as a serious new form of financial investments. So far this has not been the case. Second, future researchers should try to create a unified database of crowdfunding ventures in order to increase the scale and scope of their research. With passing time, the implication of more advanced research methods should also be considered. Due to a lack of data at this point in time, this however is not possible. Third, technology based startups are gaining a lot of momentum, due to the much increased availability of technologies in recent years. Future research should pay extra careful attention to the future development of this trend. Consumers seem to be very interested in these products, which was shown by the high success rates of high-tech campaigns compared to others, and the amount of funding these products received. Lastly, researchers should pay attention to the consequences of crowdfunding, and what happens after a successful or failed campaign. Successful campaigns do not automatically mean that the product will be a successful one, nor that it will even make it to the market. Unsuccessful campaigns on the other hand may undergo the opposite development and find another source of funding which allows the entrepreneurs to continue their venture after all. Crowdfunding represents an interesting and exciting new approach in investing for businesses, especially in the technology sector. Its potential is vast as entrepreneurs rely on crowdfunders, who are also their target group for their products. Crowdfunding’s fast growth should be understood as a potentially disruptive new trend of investments involving consumers rather than professional investors. The evidence provided by this research shows that crowdfunding has the potential to become an established force rather than a short-lived phenomenon.Chapter X. Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2011). The Geography of Crowdfunding. Toronto: National bureau of economic research.Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2013). Some Simple Economics of Crowdfunding. Toronto: National Bureau of Economic Research.Alexa. (2015, June 17). Competitive Intelligence. Retrieved from Alexa: , R. (2007, April). Collaborative Consumption. Leisure Report, pp. 16-17.. (2015, June 10). Google Finance. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from Google: , A., & Gambardella, A. (2010). Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 775-803.Baecker, P., Collins, L., & Bryan, Z. (2014). Understanding Alternative Finance. Cambridge: Nesta.Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. (2006). How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Research Philosophy, 1291-1313.Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 585-609.Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving. Convergence: International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 75-90.Brock, W. A., & Evans, D. S. (1989). Small business economics. Small Business Economics, 7-20.Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2011). An Empirical Examination of the Antecendents and the Consequences of Contribution Patterns in Crowd-Funded Markets. Information Systems Research, 499-519.Chen, H., Miao, J., & Wang, N. (2010). Entrepreneurial Finance and Nondiversifiable Risk. The Review of Financial Studies, 4348-4388.Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 229-236.Colombo, M. G., Kuukkonen, T., Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Venture capital and high-tech start-ups. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 261-266.Conti, A., Thursby, M., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2013). Show me the right stuff: Signals for high-tech startups. JOurnal of Economics & Management Strategy, 341-364.Cosh, A., Cumming, D., & Hughes, A. (2009). Outside Entrepreneurial Learning. The Economic Journal, 1494-1533.Cumming, D., & Dai, N. (2008). Limited Attention: Fund Size and Valuation. Athens: European Finance Association.Cunningham, J. B., & Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 45-61.Dan's Tools. (2015, June 18). Epoch Unix time Stamp Converter. Retrieved from Dan's Tools: , D. J. (2004). Entrepreneurial finance: an overview of the issues and evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 301-326.Di Pietro, F. (n.d.). Are crowdfunders active investos? The role of crowdfunders activism in shaping new ventures performance.. (2015, June 14). Indie. Retrieved from Dictionary: . (2015, June 10). Google Finance. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from Google: Commission. (2015, June 14). Banking and Finance. Retrieved from European Commission: , S. (2009, February 12). Uk Survey of SME Finances, 2008 - Panel Study. Retrieved from Economic and Social Research Council: , D. M., & Nutting, M. R. (2015, May 31). A Brief History of Crowdfunding. Retrieved from Freedman Chicago: , F. (1907). The Wisdom of Crowds. Nature, 450-451.GEM Consortium. (2015, May 25). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor - Adult Population Survey Measures, 2015. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Consortium: , G., Nava, R., Lamastra, C. R., & Veecondo, C. (2012, October 5). Crowdfunding: The New Frontier for Financing Entrepreneurship? Retrieved June 10, 2015, from Social Science Research Network: ?, Z. (2013). Advantages of Crowdfunding as an alternative source of financing of small and medium-sized enterprises. Proceedings of the Faculty of Economics in East Sarajevo, 39-48.Google. (2015, June 15). About Trends Graphs. Retrieved from Google: . (2015, June 15). Trends. Retrieved from Google : , J., Sj?klint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, xxx-xxx.Harrison, R. (2013). Crowdfunding and the revitalisation of the early stage risk capital market: catalyst or chimera? Venture Capital, 283-287.Hemer, J. (2011). A snapshot on crowdfunding. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems.Hemmil?, A. (2012, November 26). Legal Challenges Related To Crowdfunding: Volume 2. Retrieved from ArcticStartup: , C. (2014, October 26). The ugly afterlife of crowdfunding projects that never ship and never end. Retrieved June 11, 2015, from Arstechnica: , M. (2003). Success criteria in high-tech new ventures. Technovation, 447-457.Kappel, T. (2009). Ex Ante Crowdfunding and Recording Industry: A Model for the U.S. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 374-386.Kerr, W. R., Lerner, J., & Schoar, A. (2014). The Consequences of Entrepreneurial Finance: Evidence from Angel Investors. The Review of Financial Studies, 20-55.Kerr, W., & Nanda, R. (2009, November). Papers. Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research: , C., & Nielsen, S. B. (2002). Tax policy, venture capital, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Economics, 175-203.Kickstarter. (2014, December 31). Retrieved May 21, 2015, from Kickstarter: . (2015). 2014: By the Numbers. Retrieved from Kickstarter: . (2015, June 14). Creator Questions. Retrieved from Kickstarter: . (2015, June 14). Most Funded. Retrieved from Kickstarter: , F., Vo?, G. G., & Rieder, K. (2008). Un(der)paid Innovators: The Commercial Uzilization of Consumer Work through Crowdsourcing. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 5-26.Klein, S., & O'Keefe, R. M. (1999). The Impact of the Web on Auctions: Some Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7-20.Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (2000). Assessing the Contribution of Venture Capital to Innovation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 674-692.Lall, S. (2003). Technology and Industrial Development in an Era of Globalization. In H.-J. Chang, Rethinking Development Economics (pp. 278-298). London: Anthem Press.Larson, G. S., & Pearson, A. R. (2012). Placing Identity: PLace as a Discursive Resource for Occupational Identity Work Among High-Tech Entrepreneurs. Management Communication Quarterly, 241-266.Lee, S.-H., & DeWester, D. P. (2008). Web 2.0 and opportunities for small businesses. Service Business, 335-345.Manchanda, K., & Muralidharan, P. (2014). Crowdfunding: A new paradigm in start-up financing. Global Conference on Business & Finance Proceedings, 369-374.Massolution. (2015, March 9). News Room. Retrieved from Marked Wired: , H., & Westhead, P. (2005). Virtual Teams and the Rise of e-Entrepreneurship in Europe. International Small Business Journal, 279-302.Milian, M. (2012, April 17). Rejeced By VCs, Pebble Raises $3.8M on Kickstarter. Retrieved from Bloomberg: , D. (2012). The Role of Crowdfunding in Entrepreneurial Finance. Delhi Business Review, 67-72.Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 1-16.Nordicity. (2012). Crowdfunding in a Canadian Context. Toronto: Canadian Media Fund.Overby, E., Slaughter, S. A., & Konsynski, B. (2010). Research Commentary-The Design, Use, and Consequences of Virtual Processes. Information Systems Research, 700-710.Relander, B. (2015). Crowdfunding Is Changing Financing for Tech Startups. Retrieved from Investopedia: , J. (2013). Crowdfunding Technology Innovation. Social Computing, 100-103.RSI. (2015, May 29). The Strech Goals. Retrieved from Robertsspaceindustries: , J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Schwienbacher, A., & Larralde, B. (2012). Crowdfunding of Small Entrepreneurial Ventures. In D. Cumming, Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance (pp. 369-391). New York: Oxford University Press.Securities and Exchange Commission. (2012, April 5). Jumpstart Our Business Startup (JOBS) Act. Retrieved June 11, 2015, from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: . (2015, June 14). Development in worldwide crowdfunding funding volume from 2009 to 2012 (in U.S. dollars). Retrieved from Statista: Games. (2013, October 6). Kickstarter Lesson #62: Early Bird Pledge Levels. Retrieved from StonemaierGames: , D. J., & Greene, F. J. (2010). Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Sullivan, M. (2006, August). Crowdfunding. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from : , J. (2005). THe Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor.Taylor, K. (2013, August 6). 6 Top Crowdfunding Websites: Which One Is Right For Your Project? Retrieved from Forbes: World Bank. (2013). Crowdfunding's Potential for the Developing World. Washington: THe World Bank.The World Bank. (2015, June 11). New businesses registered (number). Retrieved June 11, 2015, from The World Bank: , T. T., & Bruno, A. V. (1984). A Model of Venture Capitalist Investment Activity. Management Science, 1051-1066.US Census Bureau. (2012). Economic Census. Washington: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from US Census Bureau.Valanciene, L., & Jegeleviciute, S. (2013). Valuation of Crowdfunding: Benefits and Drawbacks. Economics and Managment, 39-48.Wade, S. (2014, June 12). Behind the rise of entrepreneurship. Retrieved from Fortune: , N. (2013). The Risks of Crowdfunding. 26-29: Risk management.Wiltz, V. S. (2013). Will the JOBS Act Jump-Start the Video Game Industry? Crowdfunding Start-Up Capital. Dallas: Thompson & Knight LLP.Winton, A., & Yerramilli, V. (2008). Entrepreneurial finance: Banks versus venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 51-78.Zvilichovsky, D., Inbar, Y., & Barzilay, O. (2014). Playing both sides of the market: success and reciprocity on crowdfunding platforms. Tel Aviv: Recanati Business School, Tel Aviv University.Chapter XI. Appendixcenter3455282TypeObservationsMean GoalMedian GoalMean PledgeMedian PledgeSuccess RateFunding LevelAverage Duration (days)Average amount of Backers Average Pledge in US$/BackerArt3084$ 5,561.79 $ 2,800.00 $ 8,103.50 $ 3,536.00 0.8518331.37106.87 $ 75.81 Dance2319$ 7,556.43 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,515.20 $ 2,110.45 0.678433.38 45.23 $ 70.23 Fashion3215$ 10,526.94 $ 5,000.00 $ 13,867.88 $ 3,571.00 0.7416132.05169.97 $ 87.76 Food/Drinks3100$ 11,827.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 16,459.64 $ 9,324.56 0.8316531.93177.17 $ 100.72 Theatre3726$ 5,228.20 $ 2,812.50 $ 5,954.20 $ 3,113.50 0.951231.96 73.25 $ 76.55 Crafts3120$ 11,865.05 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,483.38 $ 105.00 0.257931.33 25.90 $ 34.54 Comics3572$ 7,823.89 $ 3,600.00 $ 8,167.65 $ 2,652.00 0.6915335.39181.55 $ 45.96 Design2955$ 15,464.55 $ 8,000.00 $ 59,752.00 $ 15,023.49 0.8337533.35623.75 $ 103.31 Film2666$ 23,560.26 $ 10,000.00 $ 31,226.96 $ 11,616.62 0.7113146.27391.40 $ 94.69 Games3061$ 23,293.05 $ 7,500.00 $ 75,939.81 $ 16,252.00 0.8451831.90327.00 $ 44.54 Journalism1807$ 55,246.25 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,868.98 $ 108.00 0.253834.89 44.82 $ 25.00 Music2800$ 9,087.52 $ 5,066.64 $ 12,861.86 $ 6,699.63 0.7417433.92198.26 $ 72.07 Photography3213$ 7,873.60 $ 3,500.00 $ 4,583.05 $ 1,201.79 0.538334.25 59.37 $ 60.94 Publishing2976$ 6,878.23 $ 4,000.00 $ 10,877.57 $ 5,212.05 0.8117532.61202.35 $ 65.20 Technology2623$ 32,315.76 $ 11,750.00 $ 78,628.10 $ 17,531.00 0.8839934.04660.79 $ 150.16 Full44237$ 14,134.14 $ 5,000.00 $ 22,043.78 $ 4,395.00 0.7019133.07277.80 $ 75.99 00TypeObservationsMean GoalMedian GoalMean PledgeMedian PledgeSuccess RateFunding LevelAverage Duration (days)Average amount of Backers Average Pledge in US$/BackerArt3084$ 5,561.79 $ 2,800.00 $ 8,103.50 $ 3,536.00 0.8518331.37106.87 $ 75.81 Dance2319$ 7,556.43 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,515.20 $ 2,110.45 0.678433.38 45.23 $ 70.23 Fashion3215$ 10,526.94 $ 5,000.00 $ 13,867.88 $ 3,571.00 0.7416132.05169.97 $ 87.76 Food/Drinks3100$ 11,827.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 16,459.64 $ 9,324.56 0.8316531.93177.17 $ 100.72 Theatre3726$ 5,228.20 $ 2,812.50 $ 5,954.20 $ 3,113.50 0.951231.96 73.25 $ 76.55 Crafts3120$ 11,865.05 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,483.38 $ 105.00 0.257931.33 25.90 $ 34.54 Comics3572$ 7,823.89 $ 3,600.00 $ 8,167.65 $ 2,652.00 0.6915335.39181.55 $ 45.96 Design2955$ 15,464.55 $ 8,000.00 $ 59,752.00 $ 15,023.49 0.8337533.35623.75 $ 103.31 Film2666$ 23,560.26 $ 10,000.00 $ 31,226.96 $ 11,616.62 0.7113146.27391.40 $ 94.69 Games3061$ 23,293.05 $ 7,500.00 $ 75,939.81 $ 16,252.00 0.8451831.90327.00 $ 44.54 Journalism1807$ 55,246.25 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,868.98 $ 108.00 0.253834.89 44.82 $ 25.00 Music2800$ 9,087.52 $ 5,066.64 $ 12,861.86 $ 6,699.63 0.7417433.92198.26 $ 72.07 Photography3213$ 7,873.60 $ 3,500.00 $ 4,583.05 $ 1,201.79 0.538334.25 59.37 $ 60.94 Publishing2976$ 6,878.23 $ 4,000.00 $ 10,877.57 $ 5,212.05 0.8117532.61202.35 $ 65.20 Technology2623$ 32,315.76 $ 11,750.00 $ 78,628.10 $ 17,531.00 0.8839934.04660.79 $ 150.16 Full44237$ 14,134.14 $ 5,000.00 $ 22,043.78 $ 4,395.00 0.7019133.07277.80 $ 75.99 -10328273751701Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics of Categories00Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics of Categoriescenter3557474Tech LevelObservationsMean GoalMedian GoalMean PledgeMedian PledgeSuccess RateFunding LevelAverage Duration (days)Average Backer inAverage Pledge in US$/BackerTier 118564 $ 8,760.90 $ 3,852.08 $ 8,230.63 $ 3,626.75 0.7213232.01100 $ 74.27 Tier 223050 $ 18,653.42 $ 5,833.33 $ 25,784.74 $ 7,332.23 0.6820635.33254 $ 63.96 Tier 32623 $ 32,315.76 $ 11,750.00 $ 78,628.10 $ 17,531.00 0.8839934.05661 $ 150.16 Tier 1+241614$ 14,413.77 $ 4,984.22 $ 18,261.55 $ 5,744.17 0.6917433.90188$ 68.38 Full44237 $ 14,134.14 $ 5,000.00 $ 22,043.78 $ 8,465.43 0.7019133.07278 $ 75.99 00Tech LevelObservationsMean GoalMedian GoalMean PledgeMedian PledgeSuccess RateFunding LevelAverage Duration (days)Average Backer inAverage Pledge in US$/BackerTier 118564 $ 8,760.90 $ 3,852.08 $ 8,230.63 $ 3,626.75 0.7213232.01100 $ 74.27 Tier 223050 $ 18,653.42 $ 5,833.33 $ 25,784.74 $ 7,332.23 0.6820635.33254 $ 63.96 Tier 32623 $ 32,315.76 $ 11,750.00 $ 78,628.10 $ 17,531.00 0.8839934.05661 $ 150.16 Tier 1+241614$ 14,413.77 $ 4,984.22 $ 18,261.55 $ 5,744.17 0.6917433.90188$ 68.38 Full44237 $ 14,134.14 $ 5,000.00 $ 22,043.78 $ 8,465.43 0.7019133.07278 $ 75.99 3708403411855Table 2 - Descriptive Statistics by category00Table 2 - Descriptive Statistics by categoryTable 3 - Projects by year for European Union and UniteObservationsEUUSYearFullSuccessfulFailedFullSuccessfulFailed1330237195422392811195516083473128110184468380766142642234178446636120851142941201870075681132622571690567129131013927747*697490207359024581132Total45303485104539707324117296*Year 7 represents 2015. The final data entry represents May 30. Due to a large amount of projects still being active and the year only 1/6 over, the decrease in absolute numbers of crowdfunding projects does not actually indicate a decrease in crowdfund ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download