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 sociocultural movement.2 It has changed the way we perceive creation and the
manufacturing process on a global level.
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.
1
2
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
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.
3
3
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
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
5
4
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 selfassemble 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
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.
8
5
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
12
James Surowieki, The Wisdom of the Crowds (Random House: 2005) 10.
6
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
7
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 tshirts 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
13
Brogan & Smith 16.
8
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 socioeconomic 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, Vimeo14
Brogan & Smith 9.
9
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
10
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
11
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.