Model boundary diagram
| Model component | Theoretical foundation | Literature description |
|---|---|---|
| 1. The founder's direct network | Mollick (2014) | It is the group of family, friends and colleagues. It is the backbone of the campaign in the early stage (Mollick, 2014). This variable is crucial to bring the campaign to a wider audience on the web |
| 2. The founder's social network | Koch and Siering (2015) | It is the amount of the social network (e.g. LinkedIn and Facebook) contacts of the founders (i.e. the number of contacts) |
| 3. Founder's experience in CF campaign | Jinwook and Lee (2015), Koch and Siering (2015) | Previous experience of founders in crowdfunding projects, both as a funder and founder is positively related to CF project's success |
| 4. Founder's reputation and trustworthiness | Belleflamme et al. (2015), Koch and Siering (2015), Mollick (2014), Mollick and Robb (2016) | Personal and professional reputation of founders are positively related to project's success; thus if it rises then project's success rises |
| 5. Third-party endorsement | Massa Saluzzo and Alegre (2021) | Third-party endorsement about founders, in crowdfunding platforms, is linked to project's success. If endorsement rises (in quantity and quality) then project's success rises |
| 6. Founder's history | Koch and Siering (2015), Zvilichovsky et al. (2015) | Previously backed and/or created other (successful) projects on the platform (funding reciprocity) |
| 7. Funder's preparation and experience | Jinwook and Lee (2015) | As funder's preparation rises, the success of CF campaign rises. This is a mix of, basically, knowledge and previous experience in crowdfunding attitude |
| 8. Effort and specialized knowledge required to users | Koch and Siering (2015), Rossi and Vismara (2018) | The level of effort and/or the specific knowledge required to the users (backers and founders) to operate or just navigate the crowdfunding platform |
| 9. Metadata quality | Shneor and Vik (2020) | Quality-designed metadata reduces users' effort and increases matching ratios between funders and fundraisers. These enhance the experience of using the platform, i.e. users' engagement |
| 10. Quality of graphics, styles and the web page | Beier and Wagner (2016) | Graphics, styles and web pages' structure design influence the experience and the engagement of users, thus influencing the quality of platform design |
| 11. Duration of the campaign | Beier and Wagner (2016) | Duration balance of the campaign (Koch and Siering, 2015) is the maximum duration of the open call, over which the project expires |
| 12. Revenue share of the crowdfunding platform | Aitamurto (2015), Muzellec et al. (2015) | It is “the price” applied by the crowdfunding platform provider, thus for the intermediation services. It has the form of a share on the capital raised by the crowdfunding campaigns (if successful) |
| 13. Quality project communication (i.e. information, contents and use of media) | Koch and Siering (2015), Xiao et al. (2014) Mitra and Gilbert (2014) Etter et al. (2014) | Quality of project communication is a key cause of campaign's success; it is made up of
|
| 14. Orientation of the project toward common goods and interests | Hörisch (2015), Hörisch and Tenner, 2020; von Selasinsky and Lutz, 2021) | The higher orientation of the project (i.e. the impact) on saving and preserving common goods and interests (e.g. environmental, social, etc.) the higher is the success ratio of the project |
| 15. Funds other than Funders' | Mollick and Robb (2016) | The presence of additional capitals, other than funders', increases the project's success |
| 16. Idea originality and creativity | Burtch et al. (2011), Shneor and Vik (2020) | Originality and creativity of the project idea is searched by non-professional investors (i.e. people) who are looking for a return and for an engagement, a form of participation to a campaign |
| 17. Coherence of the crowdfunding model | Bretschneider et al. (2014) | The model of crowdfunding (donation, reward, lending, equity and ll-or-nothing vs. keep-it-all) applied to the crowdfunding campaign influences the quality of the project, perceived by the audience of a campaign |
| 18. Congruity of the target | Mollick (2014), Yang et al. (2015) | Targeting the campaign over the target perceived as “congruous” by the audience causes the fall of trust and confidence to the success of the campaign |
| 19. Quality and frequency of project updates | Lee et al. (2016) | Quality and frequency of project updates are crucial to capture funders during the open campaign timeframe |
| 20. Supportiveness of the comments posted by backers | Shneor and Vik (2020), Yang et al. (2015) | The supportiveness of the comments posted on the project page by those who backed the campaign, influences the level of audience and orients the decisions of investing (or not) in the given project |
| 21. Value of return to the funder | Belleflamme et al. (2015) | The value the funder recognizes to the returns (financial or not). This return depends on the crowdfunding model chosen by the founders, (the type of return) and by the amount of reward/return. The rise of return is linked to the rise of project's success |
| 22. Platform popularity | Branzov and Maneva (2014), Jinwook and Lee (2015) | Platform popularity is the level of acknowledgment of a crowdfunding platform, in the crowdfunding environment (potential crowdfunders) |
| 23. Social media fake manipulation | Shneor and Vik (2020) | Manipulation of fake comments with social media reduces audience of the platform and in turn of the campaign |
| 24. The financial gap | Wonglimpiyarat (2018) | The lower the gap of the extant capital raised against the target, the lower the risk of failure. As much as the gap falls, the funding (both in pledges and in speed) rises |
| 25. Confidence or trust | Kang et al. (2016) | It is the trust, reputation and confidence, a certain platform has gained in the crowdfunding environment. This influences the choice of the project to fund. Trust can be cognitive and affective (Kang et al., 2016) |
| 26. Specialization and quality of platform service provider | Rossi and Vismara (2018) | The specialization and the quality of service offered to users by platforms' companies are causes of engagement and reuse of the platform |
| Model component | Theoretical foundation | Literature description |
|---|---|---|
| 1. The founder's direct network | It is the group of family, friends and colleagues. It is the backbone of the campaign in the early stage ( | |
| 2. The founder's social network | It is the amount of the social network (e.g. LinkedIn and Facebook) contacts of the founders (i.e. the number of contacts) | |
| 3. Founder's experience in CF campaign | Previous experience of founders in crowdfunding projects, both as a funder and founder is positively related to CF project's success | |
| 4. Founder's reputation and trustworthiness | Personal and professional reputation of founders are positively related to project's success; thus if it rises then project's success rises | |
| 5. Third-party endorsement | Third-party endorsement about founders, in crowdfunding platforms, is linked to project's success. If endorsement rises (in quantity and quality) then project's success rises | |
| 6. Founder's history | Previously backed and/or created other (successful) projects on the platform (funding reciprocity) | |
| 7. Funder's preparation and experience | As funder's preparation rises, the success of CF campaign rises. This is a mix of, basically, knowledge and previous experience in crowdfunding attitude | |
| 8. Effort and specialized knowledge required to users | The level of effort and/or the specific knowledge required to the users (backers and founders) to operate or just navigate the crowdfunding platform | |
| 9. Metadata quality | Quality-designed metadata reduces users' effort and increases matching ratios between funders and fundraisers. These enhance the experience of using the platform, i.e. users' engagement | |
| 10. Quality of graphics, styles and the web page | Graphics, styles and web pages' structure design influence the experience and the engagement of users, thus influencing the quality of platform design | |
| 11. Duration of the campaign | Duration balance of the campaign ( | |
| 12. Revenue share of the crowdfunding platform | It is “the price” applied by the crowdfunding platform provider, thus for the intermediation services. It has the form of a share on the capital raised by the crowdfunding campaigns (if successful) | |
| 13. Quality project communication (i.e. information, contents and use of media) | Quality of project communication is a key cause of campaign's success; it is made up of quality of descriptions, ( depth of description ( language used ( Characteristics specified ( effective use and combination of media ( | |
| 14. Orientation of the project toward common goods and interests | The higher orientation of the project (i.e. the impact) on saving and preserving common goods and interests (e.g. environmental, social, etc.) the higher is the success ratio of the project | |
| 15. Funds other than Funders' | The presence of additional capitals, other than funders', increases the project's success | |
| 16. Idea originality and creativity | Originality and creativity of the project idea is searched by non-professional investors (i.e. people) who are looking for a return and for an engagement, a form of participation to a campaign | |
| 17. Coherence of the crowdfunding model | The model of crowdfunding (donation, reward, lending, equity and ll-or-nothing vs. keep-it-all) applied to the crowdfunding campaign influences the quality of the project, perceived by the audience of a campaign | |
| 18. Congruity of the target | Targeting the campaign over the target perceived as “congruous” by the audience causes the fall of trust and confidence to the success of the campaign | |
| 19. Quality and frequency of project updates | Quality and frequency of project updates are crucial to capture funders during the open campaign timeframe | |
| 20. Supportiveness of the comments posted by backers | The supportiveness of the comments posted on the project page by those who backed the campaign, influences the level of audience and orients the decisions of investing (or not) in the given project | |
| 21. Value of return to the funder | The value the funder recognizes to the returns (financial or not). This return depends on the crowdfunding model chosen by the founders, (the type of return) and by the amount of reward/return. The rise of return is linked to the rise of project's success | |
| 22. Platform popularity | Platform popularity is the level of acknowledgment of a crowdfunding platform, in the crowdfunding environment (potential crowdfunders) | |
| 23. Social media fake manipulation | Manipulation of fake comments with social media reduces audience of the platform and in turn of the campaign | |
| 24. The financial gap | The lower the gap of the extant capital raised against the target, the lower the risk of failure. As much as the gap falls, the funding (both in pledges and in speed) rises | |
| 25. Confidence or trust | It is the trust, reputation and confidence, a certain platform has gained in the crowdfunding environment. This influences the choice of the project to fund. Trust can be cognitive and affective ( | |
| 26. Specialization and quality of platform service provider | The specialization and the quality of service offered to users by platforms' companies are causes of engagement and reuse of the platform |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.