Journal of Business Economics

, Volume 88, Issue 9, pp 1133–1162 | Cite as

Who benefits from the wisdom of the crowd in crowdfunding? Assessing the benefits of user-generated and mass personal electronic word of mouth in computer-mediated financing

  • Jermain Kaminski
  • Christian Hopp
  • Christian Lukas
Original Paper


In this work, we explore the link between electronic word of mouth in the form of user-generated content (online forum interactions on Kickstarter) and through mass personal communication (sharing information through Facebook) on the performance of crowdfunding campaigns. Our formal theoretical model implies that the efficiency of electronic word of mouth is determined by the quality of the underlying crowdfunding campaign. Using a sample of 572 project observations, we test our theoretical predictions in cross-sectional logistic regression and ancillary Granger analyses. Our results highlight the interactive contingency of social media engagement and the success of the crowdfunding campaign. While a higher quality campaign is benefitting from user generated electronic word of mouth (online comments), the returns are diminishing. For mass personal electronic word of mouth (Facebook shares), we even find a reverse causal effect. Social media activity follows a successful campaign, but does not affect the success probability of the campaign. Crowdfunding campaigns need to approach their social media activities with a certain note of sensitivity to achieve the objective of successfully reaching their campaign goal.


Crowdfunding Social capital Entrepreneurial finance Electronic word of mouth 

JEL Classification

C31 C32 D91 G29 H31 L26 



The authors would like to thank the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research for supporting the project within the framework of the exploratory project "InnoFinance" (project number 01IO1702)


  1. Agrawal A, Catalini C, Goldfarb A (2015) Crowdfunding: geography, social networks, and the timing of investment decisions. J EconManag Strategy 24(2):253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1969) Fitting autoregressive models for prediction. Ann Inst Stat Math 21(1):243–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison TH, Davis BC, Short JC, Webb JW (2015) Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrep Theory Pract 39(1):53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Althoff T, Leskovec J (2015) Donor retention in online crowdfunding communities: a case study of donorschoose. org. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web, pp 34–44. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  5. Arthurs JD, Busenitz LW, Hoskisson RE, Johnson RA (2009) Signaling and initial public offerings: the use and impact of the lockup period. J Bus Ventur 24(4):360–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergh DD, Connelly BL, Ketchen DJ, Shannon LM (2014) Signalling theory and equilibrium in strategic management research: an assessment and a research agenda. J Manag Stud 51(8):1334–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Certo ST (2003) Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: signaling with board structures. Acad Manag Rev 28(3):432–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Certo ST, Covin JG, Daily CM, Dalton DR (2001) Wealth and the effects of founder management among IPO-stage new ventures. Strateg Manag J 22(6–7):641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chowdhury A, Mavrotas G (2006) FDI and growth: what causes what? World Econ 29(1):9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colombo MG, Franzoni C, Rossi-Lamastra C (2015) Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrep Theory Pract 39(1):75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connelly BL, Certo ST, Ireland RD, Reutzel CR (2011) Signaling theory: a review and assessment. J Manag 37(1):39–67Google Scholar
  12. Courtney C, Dutta S, Li Y (2017) Resolving information asymmetry: signaling, endorsement, and crowdfunding success. Entrep Theory Pract 41(2):265–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cumming DJ., Hornuf L, Karami M, Schweizer D (2016) Disentangling crowdfunding from fraudfunding. Available on SSRN Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  14. Das TK, Teng BS (2001) Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: an integrated framework. Org Studies 22(2):251–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidsson P, Honig B (2003) The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. J Bus Ventur 18(3):301–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74(366a):427–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1981) Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica 49(4):1057–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dolado JJ, Lütkepohl H (1996) Making Wald tests work for cointegrated VAR systems. Econ Rev 15(4):369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewens M, Rhodes-Kropf M (2015) Is a VC partnership greater than the sum of its partners? J Finance 70(3):1081–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fairlie RW, Robb A (2007) Families, human capital, and small business: evidence from the characteristics of business owners survey. ILR Rev 60(2):225–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer E, Reuber AR (2011) Social interaction via new social media:(How) can interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behavior? J Bus Ventur 26(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer E, Reuber AR (2014) Online entrepreneurial communication: mitigating uncertainty and increasing differentiation via Twitter. J Bus Ventur 29(4):565–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franke N, Von Hippel E, Schreier M (2006) Finding commercially attractive user innovations: a test of lead-user theory. J Prod Innov Manag 23(4):301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gable SL, Reis HT (2010) Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in an interpersonal context. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 42:195–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gangi F, Daniele LM (2017) Remarkable funders: how early-late backers and mentors affect reward-based crowdfunding campaigns. Int Bus Res 10(11):58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giles DE (1997) Causality between the measured and underground economies in New Zealand. Appl Econ Lett 4(1):63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Granger CW (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37(3):424–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenberg J, Mollick E (2016) Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Adm Sci Q 62(2):341–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hamilton JD (1994) Time series analysis, vol 2. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoetker G (2007) The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: critical issues. Strateg Manag J 28(4):331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hussain S, Guangju W, Jafar RMS, Ilyas Z, Mustafa G, Jianzhou Y (2018) Consumers’ online information adoption behavior: motives and antecedents of electronic word of mouth communications. Comp Hum Behav 80:22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Im S, Workman JP Jr (2004) Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. J Mark 68(2):114–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Janney JJ, Folta TB (2003) Signaling through private equity placements and its impact on the valuation of biotechnology firms. J Bus Ventur 18(3):361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johansen S (1988) Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dyn Control 12(2):231–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johansen S, Juselius K (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 52(2):169–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kerr WR, Lerner J, Schoar A (2011) The consequences of entrepreneurial finance: evidence from angel financings. Rev Financ Studies 27(1):20–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuppuswamy V, Bayus BL (2017) Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project matter? J Bus Ventur 32(1):72–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kurozumi E, Yamamoto T (2000) Modified lag augmented vector autoregressions. Econ Rev 19(2):207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kwiatkowski D, Phillips PC, Schmidt P, Shin Y (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: how sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? J Econ 54(1):159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee J, Lio YL (1999) A note on Bayesian estimation and prediction for the beta-binomial model. J Stat Comput Simul 63(1):73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ljung GM, Box GE (1978) On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika 65(2):297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lukas C (2007) Managerial expertise, learning potential, and dynamic incentives: get more for less? Manag Decis Econ 28(3):195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacKinnon JG (1991) Critical Values for Cointegration Tests. In: Engle RF, Granger CW (eds) Long-Run Economic Relationships: Readings in Cointegration. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Massy W, Montgomery D, Morrison D (1970) Stochastic models of buying behavior. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Mavrotas G, Kelly R (2001) Old wine in new bottles: testing causality between savings and growth. Manch Sch 69(s1):97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitra T, Gilbert E (2014) The language that gets people to give: Phrases that predict success on kickstarter. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work and social computing, pp 49–61, ACMGoogle Scholar
  47. Mollick ER (2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study. J Bus Ventur 29(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mollick ER, Kuppuswamy V (2014) After the campaign: Outcomes of crowdfunding. Available on SSRN Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  49. Mollick ER, Nanda R (2015) Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Manag Sci 62(6):1533–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Sullivan PB, Carr CT (2017) Masspersonal communication: a model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media & Society, pp. 1–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Osterwald-Lenum M (1992) A note with quantiles of the asymptotic distribution of the maximum likelihood cointegration rank test statistics. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 54(3):461–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pearson ES (1925) Bayes’ theorem examined in the light of experimental sampling. Biometrika 17(3/4):388–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Phillips PC, Perron P (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75(2):335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pierce JR, Aguinis H (2013) The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. J Manag 39(2):313–338Google Scholar
  55. Plummer LA, Allison TH, Connelly BL (2016) Better together? Signaling interactions in new venture pursuit of initial external capital. Acad Manag J 59(5):1585–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2000) Co-opting customer competence. Harv Bus Rev 78(1):79–90Google Scholar
  57. Rains SA, Keating DM (2011) The social dimension of blogging about health: health blogging, social support, and well-being. Commun Monogr 78(4):511–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rozzell B, Piercy CW, Carr CT, King S, Lane BL, Tornes M, Johnson AJ, Wright KB (2014) Notification pending: online social support from close and nonclose relational ties via Facebook. Comput Hum Behav 38:272–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwert GW (1989) Tests for unit roots: a Monte Carlo investigation. J Bus Econ Stat 20(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Semrau T, Werner A (2012) The two sides of the story: network Investments and new venture creation. J Small Bus Manag 50(1):159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shukur G, Mantalos P (2000) A simple investigation of the Granger-causality test in integrated-cointegrated VAR systems. J Appl Stat 27(8):1021–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sims CA (1972) Money, income, and causality. Am Econ Rev 62(4):540–552Google Scholar
  63. Skellam JG (1948) A probability distribution derived from the binomial distribution by regarding the probability of success as variable between the sets of trials. J R Stat Soc Ser B 10(2):257–261Google Scholar
  64. Spence M (1973) Job market signaling. Q J Econ 87(3):355–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stam W, Arzlanian S, Elfring T (2014) Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: a meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. J Bus Ventur 29(1):152–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stock RM, Oliveira P, Hippel E (2015) Impacts of hedonic and utilitarian user motives on the innovativeness of user-developed solutions. J Prod Innov Manag 32(3):389–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Toda HY, Yamamoto T (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. J Econ 66(1):225–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vissa B, Chacar AS (2009) Leveraging ties: the contingent value of entrepreneurial teams’ external advice networks on Indian software venture performance. Strateg Manag J 30(11):1179–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Voss KE, Spangenberg ER, Grohmann B (2003) Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. J Mark Res 40(3):310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Walther JB, Boyd S (2002) Attraction to computer-mediated social support. Commun Technol Soc, Audience Adoption and Uses, p 153188Google Scholar
  71. Watson J (2007) Modeling the relationship between networking and firm performance. J Bus Ventur 22(6):852–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zapata HO, Rambaldi AN (1997) Monte Carlo evidence on cointegration and causation. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 59(2):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zell AL, Moeller L (2018) Are you happy for m e… on Facebook? The potential importance of “likes” and comments. Comput Hum Behav 78:26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jermain Kaminski
    • 1
  • Christian Hopp
    • 1
  • Christian Lukas
    • 2
  1. 1.RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Friedrich Schiller University of JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations