1
Madelynn Martiniere
EMAC 4372
Kim Knight
December 12, 2011
Viral Crowdsourcing: The Power of Kickstarter
In April 2009, Yancey Strickler and Perry Chen founded crowdfunding platform Kickstarter in order to support creative projects for artists. Over the years, Kickstarter has grown to be a viral sensation for project sin a multitude of endeavors, including film and music to technology and food. The premise has remained simple, projects are still hand-selected by the team and the process is an online all-or-nothing threshold pledge system. Though the company takes 5% of the funds raised, and Amazon takes an additional 3-5%, Kickstarter claims no ownership over the projects successfully funded. 2 years and over 20,000 projects later, Kickstarter has collected over $40 million.[1]
While the numbers are certainly striking, the site has been heralded as one of the most disruptive and innovative online platforms created for the creative community. It has become more than a technological advancement but a socio-cultural movement.[2]It has changed the way we perceive creation and the manufacturing process on a global level.
Kickstarter came at a perfect time of economic upheaval, particularly for the young, creative, digital natives. Those who initially pickup up on Kickstarter did so out of a sense of necessity and survival, reaching out to the community out of a sense of desperation. Around the same time, Jeff Howe defined crowdsourcing as the “act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call”. While crowdsourcing as a fundamental idea grew in practice for quite some time, Kickstarter represented the first time it had been applied to an economic model, and the repercussions were exponential. Howe admits in his book that even he vastly underestimated the speed in which crowdsourcing began to effect the economy and society as a whole.[3]It is gathering groups of people in an almost unprecedented way to achieve goals and find solutions to societal problems. It has made a place for itself in the online marketplace as neither an investment nor a charity, but rather something more similar to micropatronage.[4]
Besides creating a revolutionary economic model to rally creatives hurt by difficult economic times, Kickstarter drastically changed consumer behavior from being hyper-individualistic to collaborative. Botsman and Rodgers in What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption hypothesize that online networks are bringing people together in a way reminiscent of a pre-technological where people were quick to rally with neighbors and those in close distance to one another.[5] It has shifted the perception of a self-serving individual to a “we society” that brings to mind the old rule of thumb that there is indeed power in numbers.
These numbers have created what Howe considers a perfect meritocracy, blind to race, gender, age, or professional qualification. [6] People in numbers are contributing to crowdsourced projects for as little or as much money as they can provide, tirelessly spreading the message to their online and offline social networks with little financial reward incentive. According to Kickstarter’s research of their projects in 2010, while $100 rewards are the highest grossing level representing 16.36% of collected pledge dollars, the $25 level represents 18.41% of all rewards chosen, making it the most popular tier while only representing 8.14% of aggregate dollars pledged.[7]
The blindness to differentiations by social norms has created in essence the perfect community model of individuals deeply committed to their causes. Rather than a financial reward, individuals band together on Kickstarter projects for an online sense of credibility, brought on by shared responsibility and hypothetical ownership. Clay Shirky in Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations reveals that this collaborative effort typecasts the individual into the group identity.[8] The individuals volunteer their time for a type of online credibility, what Howe calls a “reputation economy” where individuals strive for acknowledgement from their creative community, whether it be other designers, scientists, film-makers, or more.[9]
Kickstarter has positioned themselves in a prime location as a curator of information, rather than a gatekeeper. They have made it easier for groups to self-assemble and contribute without requiring any sort of formal management. They have become the ambassador for creatives globally.[10] In the terminology laid out by Chris Brogen and Julien Smith in Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust, Kickstarter as a company has become a “trust agent” by humanizing the economics model for creatives and provide a setting for closer connections and relationships with the creation and manufacturing process.[11]
The Kickstarter model uses key traits of the crowd and collaborative consumption, both similar ideas from James Surowieki with hints of Botsman and Rodgers: diversity, independence, decentralization, and aggregation.[12]
Despite being a centralized group, the individual must have a certain amount of private interpretation based on their specific knowledge. This keeps some sense of independence within the fold, allowing for a sense of control and comfort of the user. The individual chooses which projects to fund, and which not, and because of that control they are unlikely to openly and distastefully compete with one another.
There is a required appearance of decentralization by requiring the projects to fit in very specific guidelines and be categorized in a very narrow manner (i.e, you are only allowed 3 tags per project and you can only pick one category). On the opposite, aggregation allows users to further band together to not only back specific projects, but also often specific types of projects, as collected under the restrictive categories and tags.
Using these tactics, Kickstarter projects, despite different concepts and execution follow similar guidelines as both set up by the company and as created as the standard by the community. Kickstarter campaigns can be placed in four different categories in terms of their level of success: 1) successful campaigns that surpass their intended funding goal; 2) successful campaigns that reach their goal; 3) unsuccessful campaigns that almost reach their goal; or 4) unsuccessful campaigns that are complete failures. The third category, unsuccessful campaigns that almost reach their funding goal are most prominent, with successful campaigns that simply reach their goal are actually quite rare. Most of the successful projects will greatly exceed their funding goal. Out of the successful and almost successful campaigns, there are two reward models that seem most prevalent: the altruism model and the pre-order model. Both have what Eric Raymond deems a “plausible promise”, the rewards hang in the balance of seemingly reasonable for the time and budget of the project creator while still being attractive to the backers. The pre-order model is oftentimes the more successful as it provides a tangible reward to the user, however small. It is because of this model that film projects have a tendency to do incredibly well on Kickstarter and other crowdfunding platforms, as people are paying to be one of the first to have a hard copy of the film when it is completed. Other tangible rewards often include t-shirts, posters, stickers, and buttons.
The altruism model is less successful in general, but when it proves satisfactory can have amazingly exponential results. Nonprofits and museums have profited on this model, by providing no more than recognition of the users that made the project possible. These campaigns require a massive amount of effort on the part of the creator to continually engage the backers, as well as having to socially verify that they truly have no way to provide tangible rewards.
The sweet spot between altruistic and pre-order rewards are those that are the highest grossing for a project, but often the most difficult to sell. These include phone calls or dinner with casts and crew, phone calls with founders, or incentives of providing time and experience. It is not unusual to see people purchase those rewards late in projects, after they have a strong belief that it will succeed. These are incredibly common with films, though the aspect of skill/experience share is becoming more prevalent as the user base is becoming oversaturated with generic t-shirts and posters.
Both traditional models of successful Kickstarter campaigns rely on keen and transparent storytelling on the part of the creator. The amateur nature of the content creation is valuable to creating a social validation system; the more personal and heartfelt the plea; the more likely the users are to trust the project. The aspects of successful storytelling through Kickstarter rely on the five of the main tenants of trust agents by Brogan and Smith: standing out, belonging, leverage, networking, and strength in numbers.[13]
In an ever-expanding sea of mimicry in projects, the individual has to have a product or idea that is unusual and refreshing in a way that draws both more seasoned users and those who are just being introduced. However, key factors generally have to stay the same for the success of the campaign, most importantly the structure of the content. Kickstarter advices a video that includes a personal testimony from the creator(s) regarding the history of the project, how much funding they need, and what the funds will be used for. The video has to be long enough to get the full message across while still being short enough to get viewers to want to donate almost immediately. The more time passes after they watch the video the initial time, the less likely they will be to donate. This is also the opportunity to leverage the creator’s experience to instill credibility. The ideas presented in the video are suggested to be mirrored in the project information section, and both the information and the reward tiers must be completely apparent to the viewer, as any confusion or discrepancy can be enough to discourage an impulse donation, which accounts for most of a project’s initial funding. The digital natives that inhabit the sphere of Kickstarter are accustomed to a level of complete transparency that cannot be ignored in the quest to create the perfect Kickstarter project.[14]
Kickstarter has created a viral structure within itself that prorogates its socio-economic message far past the scope of the platform. However, it is becoming increasingly imperative in the quest to differentiate one Kickstarter campaign from another to gain as much of an online following as quickly as possible.
Kickstarter has made it exceedingly easy to market a campaign using existing social media tools and platforms. Below any project video is a Facebook Like button that automatically posts an embedded video on the viewer’s Wall. The sleek, Vimeo-like player also embeds anytime one shares the link to the project itself. There also is a Twitter and now a Google Plus icon to ease in sharing.
The most successful campaigns bring in the majority of their funding at the beginning and end of their campaigns. This varies on a multitude of factors, the most important being the duration set for the project. The creator can choose anywhere between 30 and 90 days, though the longer duration projects doesn’t necessarily create a better chance of success. The Kickstarter website itself suggests the 30 day duration as it represents an air of optimism and confidence, though it requires a significant amount of engagement and recruiting of backers, particularly with the lull towards the late middle of the time span.
An Example 40-Day Campaign from Kickstarter
After 2 years, despite the launch of major competitors like Indie Go-Go, Kickstarter’s almost cult-like following remains strong. Kickstarter became a viral phenomenon within itself by capitalizing on a distinct need and vulnerability of the creative digital natives struggling with the hard-hit economic times. A steady stream of positive media influence has encouraged it’s role as a trust agent of the web, even as larger corporation attempt to use the platform more to vet their products and decide which are more likely to succeed after production. Though their model has changed slightly and their numbers both internally and externally have continued to expand, Kickstarter continues to keep the hands-on approach of judging every project that is submitted.
Though there is very little negative buzz currently regarding Kickstarter, it is questionable how much longer their bubble can continue to expand without significant changes to their process, just as any of other successful online marketplaces have been forced to. Their community has become so tightly knit that the diversity of the projects is lacking tremendously. Furthermore, when the initial thought leaders that drew attention to projects they backed are now creating campaigns of their own, suddenly the amateur is at a disadvantage, and the conformity of the group mentality is compromised. For Kickstarter to remain a heavy competitor as crowdsourcing and crowdfunding are becoming more commonplace, they will need to do significant modifications to their system to differentiate projects from one another, and those marketing the campaigns will have to constantly become more creative to attract the requisite amount of attraction to raise the numbers they seek.
My initial thoughts regarding the statistics on Kickstarter expected to be released in April of this upcoming year will show that though there are exponentially more projects, there will also be a much higher percentage that are not funded in full. If they continue to ignore the signs to adapt they will fall victim to not only the wisdom of the crowd, but also their potential wrath.
Works Cited
Botsman, Rachel; Rogers, Roo. What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. Harper Collins: 2010.
Brogan, Chris & Smith, Julien. Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust.Wiley Press: 2010.
Howe, Jeff. Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business. Crown Business: 2008.
Malik, Om. “Why Kickstarter Works” Gigaom. May 25, 2011.
Schonfeld, Eric. “Kickstarter, Two Years and 20,000 Projects Later: $53 Million Pledged, $40 Million Collected” Techcrunch April 28, 2011.
Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin Group: 2009.
Surowieki, James. The Wisdom of the Crowds. Random House: 2005.
[1] Eric Schonfeld, “Kickstarter, Two Years and 20,000 Projects Later: $53 Million Pledged, $40 Million Collected” Techcrunch April 28, 2011.
[2] Om Malik, “Why Kickstarter Works”, Gigaom. May 25, 2011.
[3] Jeff Howe. Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business.Crown Business: 2008, 109.
[4] Jenna Wortham “A Few Dollars at a Time, Patrons Support Artists on the Web” New York Times. August 24, 2009.
[5] Botsman, Rachel; Rogers, Roo. What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. Harper Collins: 2010. Page 59.
[6] Howe 213.
[7] Kickstarter Website
[8]Clay Shirky Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations(Penguin Group: 2009) 51.
[9] Howe, 68.
[10] Shirky, 21.
[11] Brogan, Chris; Smith, Julien. Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust. Wiley Press: 2010. Page 20.
[12] James Surowieki, The Wisdom of the Crowds (Random House: 2005) 10.
[13] Brogan & Smith 16.
[14] Brogan & Smith 9.