IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v46y2017i4p784-798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness and the consequences for innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Stanko, Michael A.
  • Henard, David H.

Abstract

Crowdfunding is now a commonly used tool for innovating entrepreneurs, yet many unresolved questions surrounding crowdfunding’s effect on innovation remain. Often, crowdfunding backers play an active role in the innovation conversation. Thus, crowdfunding can be viewed as one form of open search (actively seeking out ideas from outsiders). Beyond open search, backers also generate word of mouth awareness for the crowdfunded product. Crowdfunding backers can be thought of as the earliest possible adopters, who may be even more valuable than traditional early adopting consumers. In this study, data pertaining to crowdfunded products from the Kickstarter platform is coupled with survey data from the respective innovating entrepreneurs to better understand the effects of elements of crowdfunding on the subsequent market success of the crowdfunded product as well as the innovation focus of the crowdfunding organization. Results indicate that the amount of funding raised during a crowdfunding campaign does not significantly impact the later market performance of the crowdfunded product, while the number of backers attracted to the campaign does. Open search depth (drawing intensely from external sources) enhances product market performance, while open search breadth (drawing from many external sources) induces a radical innovation focus. Interestingly, adverse effects from over-relying on external knowledge sources are not observed. The small size of the crowdfunding organizations in this study is seen as a boundary condition to previous findings of inverse U-shaped performance effects. Finally, the portion of product development complete when crowdfunding impacts the entrepreneurs’ subsequent focus on radical innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanko, Michael A. & Henard, David H., 2017. "Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness and the consequences for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 784-798.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:4:p:784-798
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317300379
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    2. Lee, Sungjoo & Park, Gwangman & Yoon, Byungun & Park, Jinwoo, 2010. "Open innovation in SMEs--An intermediated network model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 290-300, March.
    3. Hienerth, Christoph & von Hippel, Eric & Berg Jensen, Morten, 2014. "User community vs. producer innovation development efficiency: A first empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 190-201.
    4. Lee, Neil & Sameen, Hiba & Cowling, Marc, 2015. "Access to finance for innovative SMEs since the financial crisis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 370-380.
    5. Paul Belleflamme & Thomas Lambert & Armin Schwienbacher, 2013. "Individual crowdfunding practices," Venture Capital, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 313-333, October.
    6. Shaker A. Zahra & Igor Filatotchev, 2004. "Governance of the Entrepreneurial Threshold Firm: A Knowledge‐based Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(5), pages 885-897, July.
    7. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    8. Kristine de Valck & Roberts V. Kozinets & Andrea C. Wojnicki & Sarah J.S. Wilner, 2010. "Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities," Post-Print hal-00458424, HAL.
    9. Nadine Scholz, 2015. "The Relevance of Crowdfunding," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-658-09837-7, December.
    10. Mollick, Ethan, 2014. "The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16.
    11. Armstrong, J. Scott & Overton, Terry S., 1977. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," MPRA Paper 81694, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    13. Magdalena Cholakova & Bart Clarysse, 2015. "Does the Possibility to Make Equity Investments in Crowdfunding Projects Crowd Out Reward–Based Investments?," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(1), pages 145-172, January.
    14. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, March.
    15. Ajay Agrawal & Christian Catalini & Avi Goldfarb, 2014. "Some Simple Economics of Crowdfunding," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-97.
    16. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    17. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    18. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    19. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    20. Nonaka, Ikujiro & Toyama, Ryoko & Nagata, Akiya, 2000. "A Firm as a Knowledge-Creating Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, March.
    21. Gary L. Lilien & Pamela D. Morrison & Kathleen Searls & Mary Sonnack & Eric von Hippel, 2002. "Performance Assessment of the Lead User Idea-Generation Process for New Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1042-1059, August.
    22. Goran Calic & Elaine Mosakowski, 2016. "Kicking Off Social Entrepreneurship: How A Sustainability Orientation Influences Crowdfunding Success," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 738-767, July.
    23. Love, James H. & Roper, Stephen & Bryson, John R., 2011. "Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1438-1452.
    24. Xu, Bo & Zheng, Haichao & Xu, Yun & Wang, Tao, 2016. "Configurational paths to sponsor satisfaction in crowdfunding," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 915-927.
    25. Lindič, Jaka & Bavdaž, Mojca & Kovačič, Helena, 2012. "Higher growth through the Blue Ocean Strategy: Implications for economic policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 928-938.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    2. Fabrice Hervé & Armin Schwienbacher, 2018. "Crowdfunding And Innovation," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5), pages 1514-1530, December.
    3. Thomas Clauss & Thomas Niemand & Sascha Kraus & Patrick Schnetzer & Alexander Brem, 2019. "Increasing Crowdfunding Success Through Social Media: The Importance Of Reach And Utilisation In Reward-Based Crowdfunding," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(03), pages 1-30, May.
    4. Chan, Ho Fai & Moy, Naomi & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2021. "The effects of money saliency and sustainability orientation on reward based crowdfunding success," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 443-455.
    5. Tanja Jovanović, 2019. "Crowdfunding: What Do We Know So Far?," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 1-25, February.
    6. Michael Marcin Kunz & Ulrich Bretschneider & Max Erler & Jan Marco Leimeister, 2017. "An empirical investigation of signaling in reward-based crowdfunding," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 425-461, September.
    7. Bagheri, Afsaneh & Chitsazan, Hasti & Ebrahimi, Ashkan, 2019. "Crowdfunding motivations: A focus on donors' perspectives," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 218-232.
    8. Anglin, Aaron H. & Short, Jeremy C. & Drover, Will & Stevenson, Regan M. & McKenny, Aaron F. & Allison, Thomas H., 2018. "The power of positivity? The influence of positive psychological capital language on crowdfunding performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 470-492.
    9. Stephen Roper & Helen Xia, 2014. "Unpacking open innovation: Absorptive capacity, exploratory and exploitative openness and the growth of entrepreneurial biopharmaceutical firms," Research Papers 0019, Enterprise Research Centre.
    10. Tuo Gladys & Yi Feng & Sarpong Solomon & Wang Wenxin, 2020. "The Second Round Resource Acquisition of Entrepreneurial Crowdfunded Ventures: The Relevance of Campaign and Project Implementation Performance Outcomes," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, July.
    11. Russo, Angeloantonio & Vurro, Clodia & Nag, Rajiv, 2019. "To have or to be? The interplay between knowledge structure and market identity in knowledge-based alliance formation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 571-583.
    12. Allison, Thomas H. & Davis, Blakley C. & Webb, Justin W. & Short, Jeremy C., 2017. "Persuasion in crowdfunding: An elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 707-725.
    13. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    14. Anna S. Cui & Fang Wu, 2016. "Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 516-538, July.
    15. Friedemann Polzin & Helen Toxopeus & Erik Stam, 2018. "The wisdom of the crowd in funding: information heterogeneity and social networks of crowdfunders," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 251-273, February.
    16. Chien-Chi Chu & Ya-Fang Cheng & Fu-Sheng Tsai & Sang-Bing Tsai & Kun-Hwa Lu, 2019. "Open Innovation in Crowdfunding Context: Diversity, Knowledge, and Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, January.
    17. Kukurba Maria & Waszkiewicz Aneta, 2018. "Crowdfunding as a Form of Funding for Businesses in the Culturally-Changing Global Economy: A Literature Review," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 99-137, June.
    18. Scheaf, David J. & Davis, Blakley C. & Webb, Justin W. & Coombs, Joseph E. & Borns, Jared & Holloway, Garrett, 2018. "Signals' flexibility and interaction with visual cues: Insights from crowdfunding," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 720-741.
    19. Alsagr, Naif & Cumming, Douglas J. & Davis, Justin G. & Sewaid, Ahmed, 2023. "Geopolitical risk and crowdfunding performance," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    20. Robertson, Jeandri & Caruana, Albert & Ferreira, Caitlin, 2023. "Innovation performance: The effect of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities in cross-country innovation ecosystems," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:4:p:784-798. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.