Skip to main content

Investment decisions and pricing strategies of crowdfunding players: In a two-sided crowdfunding market

Abstract

A crowdfunding platform is a typical two-sided market, as it acts as an intermediary that matches supply and demand sides of the platform, i.e., fundraisers and investors. Making the right pricing decision relies on a good understanding of dynamic behaviors of market players, which has not been fully understood in the research literature. This research studies investment decisions of crowdfunding investors and pricing choices of crowdfunding fundraisers, in both symmetric and asymmetric crowdfunding markets. For the symmetric crowdfunding market, a Hotelling model is used to analyze investors’ investment strategies and the minimum investment amount of financiers’ pricing strategies. For the asymmetric crowdfunding market, a Stackelberg model is used to analyze the decision-making behavior of the dominant and nondominant players competing for the same subset of potential investors on the platform. This research contributes to the existing research literature by considering, for the first time, the two unique variables, funding progress and the lucky draw probability of crowdfunding products, as well as their interaction. Our research finding suggests that investors should invest in crowdfunding products with relatively high minimum investment, even if it may lead to the failure of a crowdfunding project. Another interesting finding is that for crowdfunding fundraisers, asymmetric markets can be more profitable than symmetric markets. Our research results may contribute to crowdfunding product pricing theory and can be applied to real-world crowdfunding campaigns.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

References

  1. 1.

    Belleflamme, P., Omrani, N., & Peitz, M. (2015). The economics of crowdfunding platforms. Information Economics and Policy, 33, 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Rong, Y., Huang, W.W., Lai, X., Jiang, C.C., Peng, Y. & Liu, L. (2018). Proposing a New Research Framework For Loan Allocation Strategies in P2P Lending. In Proceedings of The 18th International Conference on Electronic Business. ICEB, Guilin, CHN, December 2–6.

  3. 3.

    Lacan, C., & Desmet, P. (2017). Does the crowdfunding platform matter? Risks of negative attitudes in two-sided markets. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(6), 472–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2016). Financing by and for the Masses: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Crowdfunding. California Management Review, 58(2):5–19.

  5. 5.

    Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2010). An empirical analysis of crowdfunding. Social Science Research Network, 1578175(1), 23.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Viotto da Cruz, J. (2015). Competition and regulation of crowdfunding platforms: A two-sided market approach. Communications & Strategies, 99, 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Tomczak, A., & Brem, A. (2013). A conceptualized investment model of crowdfunding. Venture Capital, 15(4), 335–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Mollick, E. R. (2013). Swept away by the crowd? Crowdfunding, venture capital, and the selection of entrepreneurs. Venture Capital, and the Selection of Entrepreneurs (March 25, 2013).

  9. 9.

    Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2013). Individual crowdfunding practices. Venture Capital, 15(4), 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Yeh, T. L., Chen, T. Y., & Lee, C. C. (2019). Investigating the funding success factors affecting reward-based crowdfunding projects. Innovation, 21(3), 466–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Chen, M., Liu, Z., Ma, C., & Gong, X. (2019). A distinctive early bird price in reward-based crowdfunding. Electronic Commerce Research, 1–24.

  13. 13.

    Luo, M., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., & Li, X. (2017, July). Pricing Strategy Study on Product Crowdfunding. In International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management (pp. 814–824). Springer, Cham.

  14. 14.

    Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Schwienbacher, A., & Larralde, B. (2010). Crowdfunding of small entrepreneurial ventures. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Dingman, S. (2013). Canadian’s smartwatch startup matches record $15-million in VC funding. The Globe and Mail, 16(5), 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ferrary, M., & Granovetter, M. (2009). The role of venture capital firms in Silicon Valley’s complex innovation network. Economy and society, 38(2), 326–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Cumming, D. J., Leboeuf, G., & Schwienbacher, A. (2020). Crowdfunding models: Keep-it-all vs all-or-nothing. Financial Management, 49(2), 331–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Zhou, S., Ma, T., & Liu, Z. (2021). Crowdfunding as a screener for collective investment. Electronic Commerce Research, 21(1), 195–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Du, S., Peng, J., Nie, T., & Yu, Y. (2020). Pricing strategies and mechanism choice in reward-based crowdfunding. European Journal of Operational Research, 284(3), 951–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Guo, X., Bi, G., & Lv, J. (2021). Crowdfunding mechanism comparison if there are altruistic donors. European Journal of Operational Research, 291(3), 1198–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Chan, C. R., Parhankangas, A., Sahaym, A., & Oo, P. (2020). Bellwether and the herd? Unpacking the u-shaped relationship between prior funding and subsequent contributions in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(2), 105934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Zhao, Q., Chen, C. D., Wang, J. L., & Chen, P. C. (2017). Determinants of backers’ funding intention in crowdfunding: Social exchange theory and regulatory focus. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 370–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kunz, M. M., Englisch, O., Beck, J., & Bretschneider, U. (2016). Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn–success factors in reward-based crowdfunding. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI), Ilmenau, 2016: 467–478.

  25. 25.

    Hu, M., Li, X., & Shi, M. (2015). Product and pricing decisions in crowdfunding. Marketing Science, 34(3), 331–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Evans, D. S. (2003). The antitrust economics of multi-sided platform markets. Yale Journal on Regulation, 20(2), 325.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 92.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Erjiang, E., Yu, M., & Peng, G. (2021). Intermediation in reward-based crowdfunding: a cash deposit mechanism to reduce moral hazard. Electronic Commerce Research, 1–22.

  30. 30.

    Zheng, H., Qi, Z., Luo, X., Li, L., & Xu, B. (2018). The value of backers’ word-of-mouth in crowdfunding projects filtering: an empirical investigation. Electronic Commerce Research, 1–26.

  31. 31.

    Li, Y., & Zuo, W. (2016). The crowdfunding project results prediction model. Statistics and Decision, 2, 86–89.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ahlers, G. K., Cumming, D., Günther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 39(4), 955–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Crowd-funding: Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of Service Management, 22(4), 443–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Frydrych, D., Bock, A. J., Kinder, T., & Koeck, B. (2014). Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding. Venture Capital, 16(3), 247–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Sherali, H. D. (1984). A multiple leader Stackelberg model and analysis. Operations Research, 32(2), 390–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Parker, S. C. (2014). Crowdfunding, cascades and informed investors. Economics Letters, 125(3), 432–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Zhao, J., Li, Y., Ding, Y., & Liu, C. (2019). The value of leading customers in a crowdfunding-based marketing pattern. PloS one, 14(4), e0215323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Xu, L., Wu, Q., Du, P., Qiao, X., Tsai, S. B., & Li, D. (2018). Financing target and resale pricing in reward-based crowdfunding. Sustainability, 10(4), 1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chen, Y., Zhang, W., Yan, X., & Jin, J. (2020). The life-cycle influence mechanism of the determinants of financing performance: An empirical study of a Chinese crowdfunding platform. Review of Managerial Science, 14(1), 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Chellappa, R. K., & Mehra, A. (2018). Cost drivers of versioning: Pricing and product line strategies for information goods. Management Science, 64(5), 2164–2180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2004). Defining two-sided markets. mimeo, IDEI, Toulouse, France, January.

  43. 43.

    Kaiser, U., & Wright, J. (2006). Price structure in two-sided markets: Evidence from the magazine industry. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2015). Multi-sided platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 43, 162–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Leboeuf, G., & Schwienbacher, A. (2018). Crowdfunding as a new financing tool. In The economics of crowdfunding (pp. 11–28). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

  46. 46.

    Bouncken, R. B., Komorek, M., & Kraus, S. (2015). Crowdfunding: The current state of research. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 14(3), 407–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Damiano, E., & Hao, L. (2008). Competing matchmaking. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(4), 789–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Hagiu, A. (2009). Two-sided platforms: Product variety and pricing structures. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(4), 1011–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Chakraborty, S., & Swinney, R. (2021). Signaling to the crowd: Private quality information and rewards-based crowdfunding. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 23(1), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Harter, J. F. (1997). Hotelling’s competition with demand location uncertainty. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15(3), 327–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Bender, M., Gal-Or, E., & Geylani, T. (2019). Crowdfunding as a vehicle for raising capital and for price discrimination. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 46, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Balvers, R., & Szerb, L. (1996). Location in the Hotelling duopoly model with demand uncertainty. European Economic Review, 40(7), 1453–1461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Tremblay, C. H., & Tremblay, V. J. (2011). The Cournot-Bertrand model and the degree of product differentiation. Economics Letters, 111(3), 233–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in Competition. The Economic Journal, 39(153), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Chaudhuri, A., Datta, P. P., Fernandes, K. J., & Xiong, Y. (2021). Optimal pricing strategies for manufacturing-as-a service platforms to ensure business sustainability. International Journal of Production Economics, 234, 108065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Li, H., & Cao, E. (2021). Competitive crowdfunding under asymmetric quality information. Annals of Operations Research, 1–32.

Download references

Funding

The first author would like to acknowledge the partial grants support to the research (71731009, 72061127002, 2018WZDXM020); The third co-author would like to acknowledge the partial grants support to the research (71732006,91546119), as well as the support from Shenzhen Key Research Base in Arts & Social Sciences (Intelligent Management & Innovation Research Center--IMIRC, SusTech, Shenzhen); The fourth co-author would like to acknowledge the partial grants support to the research (71722014,17BGL032), as well as the support from the National Laboratory of Mechanical Manufacture System, XJTU. 

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Huang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, X., Lu, H., Huang, W. et al. Investment decisions and pricing strategies of crowdfunding players: In a two-sided crowdfunding market. Electron Commer Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09510-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Crowdfunding
  • Two-sided market
  • Investment decision
  • Pricing choice
  • Hotelling model
  • Stackelberg model