close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

cisti.2017.7975859

код для вставкиСкачать
Determinants of the crowdfunding campaign success
in the Areas of Music and Sports
Graça Trindade
Tiago Miguel Teixeira Campos Silva
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisboa, Portugal
Maria da Conceição Santos
Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL), Lisboa, Portugal
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisboa, Portugal
Av. das Forças Armadas, Lisboa
Av. das Forças Armadas, Lisboa
1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal
1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal
graca.trindade@iscte.pt
tiagomtcs@gmail.com and maria.santos@iscte.pt
Abstract —This study aims to contribute to a better understanding
about the specificities of different crowdfunding areas in
attracting the supporters’ attention. Using data from the largest
Portuguese platform, PPL, the study compares the determinants
of success of the crowdfunding campaigns in two different areas:
Music and Sports. The conceptual model is based on a multiple
regression specified in a multiplicative way, which is estimated
under the assumption that the project is financed. The results show
that the success determinants are different according to the
crowdfunding area. In the area of Music, the key factors that
contribute positively to the success of financing a project are the
number of views per project and the level of requested amount per
project. In the area of Sports, the factors that explain the success
are the number of images per project, the runtime project and being
connected online by Facebook and the factors that explain its
failure are the time period to launch a project: failure occurs more
often
for
projects
launched
by
March/April
or
September/October. These results show the importance of
specifying properly the management of a campaign and the
network management by crowdfunding area and should give rise
to new studies for different industries and in different geographic
contexts.
technology that made it easier to reach a large number of people
[3]. Web 2.0 is based on the principle that collective actions by
online consumer communities can contribute to new forms of
business organization in which consumer leisure activities can
result in productive work being tapped as a free resource for
businesses. The development of Web 2.0 is therefore identified
as a prerequisite for the evolution of crowdsourcing and
crowdfunding, as its structure has easily reached consumer
networks. The term crowdfunding only emerged in 2006 and
gained more prominence in 2012 with the law that regulates
crowdfunding to encourage financing of small US companies,
the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startup) in the USA. It
was initially developed in the arts industry, specifically in
music, films and games, and was controlled by a single
Platform, Sellaband, founded in 2006.
Keywords - crowdfunding, PPL platform, entrepreneurs,
supporters, gap between requested amount and raised amount.
Kickstarter became a reference for crowdfunding and is
considered the dominant platform with the largest impact in this
market [3]. In Portugal, there are already about half a dozen
platforms, where PPL is the largest one, having raised about 1.3
million Euros by the end of 2015 [4]. The first platforms
emerged in 2011 and not all disclose data on amounts raised,
number of campaigns supported (successful or unsuccessful) or
number of investors/supporters.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The crowdfunding term derives from the crowdsourcing
concept since it is allowed to use collective knowledge of a
group of people through a network of contacts to solve a
specific problem. Building upon increasing internet access,
crowdfunding became a rising alternative financing model to
the current financial system, at least for small projects,
triggering the attention of academic researchers [1]. For small
projects, it is very hard to get bank loans or equity investors,
such as venture capitalists and business angels. Thus, the
entrepreneurs are more likely to get funds from a large crowd
of individuals through the use of a platform [2].
Crowdfunding provides access to the financing of a new
product or idea, to hold an event or to record a music album, but
also allows to get feedback on that idea or product. From the
marketing point of view, validating the idea of the entrepreneur
or testing the impact of the idea or product on the market are
extra benefits to the use of this type of financing methodology
[5]. Even in campaigns that fail to achieve their funding goal,
the entrepreneurs obtain important feedback on the reasons why
their products did not have an impact on the public or even
figure out how they can improve the services or products
presented. According to Massolution Crowdfunding Industry
2015 Report, globally, crowdfunding platforms raised $34.4
billion, up 18.2 billion dollars from 2014.
The use of crowdfunding platforms, which act as
intermediaries between entrepreneurs and investors, increases
the potential of obtaining both financing and awareness of the
projects. These platforms provide assistance to the launch of a
campaign and to the collection of funds, usually in exchange for
a commission.
The use of this tool is in fact very simple, but, that does not
guarantee the success in the pledge to obtain financing. In
Portugal, this type of financing is still expanding. There has
been an increase in the number of people and organizations
using crowdfunding platforms, but Portugal is still one of the
least developed countries in Europe. The Portuguese platform
PPL obtained a success percentage of 45% of all launched
It stands out that it was the use of social networks and
projects [4]. Crowdfunding can also be a financing alternative
for startups, micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized
enterprises (PMEs).
The economic impact of this method of financing in
Portugal has been acknowledged, and is regulated since August
24th, when Law No. 102/2015 was published in order to rule the
practice of Portuguese platforms. This defines the duties of the
platforms and what they are not allowed to do as well as
establishing some limits on investment. Like other forms of
funding, crowdfunding is based on the principle of trust and can
be seen as funding that occurs in the initial state of a project [6].
The main objective of this study is to understand the factors
that better explain the success of a campaign and, thus, to
contribute to the deepening of the factors that influence the
success of a campaign. It is organized into four chapters besides
the introduction: literature review, methodology, data analysis
and conclusions.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Nowadays, companies have ceased to create value
unilaterally as consumers became less passive. The consumer
evolved to become a prosumer as first defined by Alvin Toffler
in 1980 [7]. The prosumer is actively involved in the design,
production, communication and distribution of products and
services. With the new technologies that have spurred forms of
collective collaboration such as Wikipedia or "open source",
consumers have been recognized as creative and productive
forces. Fundraising is not new, especially with a social,
solidarity or arts-related nature. But with the use of the internet,
there are many possibilities that have made crowdfunding more
meaningful and effective. Therefore, the spread of internet
access and social networking platforms were essential to the
increase of the crowdfunding phenomenon where entrepreneurs
(the founders) and investors (the funders) can be more
effectively combined, especially by the low costs of online
research [8].
A. Funders or Investors reward models
Crowdfunding innovates by exploring the potential of social
networks and other Web 2.0 functionalities to mobilize a large
number of users around a community in a small period of time.
One of the crucial aspects of crowdfunding is the issue of
compensation, recognition or reward from investors, which can
range from getting access to the product with low costs and
before it is sold, to the simple recognition for having helped [9]
[10]. Based on the various types of returns that are offered to
investors, there are different crowdfunding business models [9]:
.
Donation which is tangentially associated with social
causes and nonprofit projects (investors assume the role of
philanthropists and expect no return on their investment);
.
Reward allows investors to receive a non-financial benefit
in return for their investment [11] and to consider these funders
as early customers giving them access to products in exchange
for a lower price or other benefit [6];
.
Loan allows the investor to provide financing, where the
reward is the interest plus repayment of capital, that may take
place, at the end of the loan period [9];
.
Equity Crowdfunding provides equity investment by
investors in exchange for company stock, profit sharing or
voting rights [9].
Consumers are increasingly creative agents who participate
in creating value for a company by contrast with mere
consumers or users of the value created by companies. On the
other hand, companies turn to the crowd mainly for reasons of
cost reduction [3]. The third key player in crowdfunding is the
platform, which acts as intermediary between entrepreneurs and
the funders. While some platforms only provide a physical
website, where a crowdfunding campaigns can be exposed,
some manage the transaction and others offer also advice and
other services helping to a higher level of success [8].
B. Crowdfunding from the founders point of view
One of the first definitions of crowdfunding from those who
seek investment (the entrepreneurs), emphasize the idea that
crowdfunding is a valuable alternative source of funding that is
processed through the internet with the objective of obtaining
financial resources to support a specific purpose initiative.
Thus, building a supportive community is a critical ingredient
for crowdfunding to be more profitable than traditional methods
[10].
While in traditional financing, the entrepreneurs recognize
an opportunity and persuade a limited group of potential
investors, in crowdfunding, the public represents a large
dimension. Through crowdfunding, a larger and heterogeneous
number of people has to be persuaded and recognize the
opportunity that the entrepreneur presents [12].
C. Crowdfunding from the funders point of view
One of the first definitions of crowdfunding from those that
can be viewed as financers was proposed in an article published
in the New York Times, announcing a new business model in
which consumers has a new role, the role of investors. One
could read that "The consumers invest a small amount,
sometimes as small as $1 - in a product - often an album of a
new musician, clothing, or jewelry from an aspiring designer"
[13]. Others emphasize the efforts of individuals or teams
(cultural, social, either no-profit and for-profit) to finance their
projects, attracting small contributions from a large number of
individuals, using the internet, without the financial
intermediaries [8]. And, others define crowdfunding as the
process that allows the acquisition of a certain monetary amount
of various individuals through an online platform [3]. These
definitions are not contradictory, as they convey the same
concept.
D. The management of the network and the campaign
Previous research emphasizes two keys success factors for
the projects to be financed: the network management and the
campaign management [14]. Applying their research to the film
producers’ crowdfunding, Hobs et al. [14] highlighted the
importance of the management of both the network and the
campaign, rather than merely the size of the network or the
quality of the project, which were the findings of previous
studies, such as [6].
III. METHODOLOGY
Crowdfunding seems to be an easy and less demanding way
of funding for new projects, but there are many factors to
consider for the campaign to reach its funding goal. It is not
irrelevant to note that about 65% of campaigns in Kickstarter
and 55% of campaigns in the Portuguese platform PPL do not
reach their proposed objectives, although it is still far from the
performance of other markets. What did not go well? Was the
promotion of the project poorly developed? Target
misidentified? Or simply the result of a bad idea? This work
intends to find about the do's and don'ts of a campaign in the
specific area of arts and sports.
A. Hypotheses
While the amount of money per supporter is expected to be
positively correlated with the success of a certain project, the
duration of the project is expected to be negatively related to
the success of a campaign [10]. Thus, the first two hypotheses
of this research are
The search for success of a project justifies the abovementioned hypotheses.
B. Modelling crowdfunding
The quantitative independent variables include the number
of images per project ( ), the number of days that the project
is online ( ), the number of views per project ( ), the number
of comments per project ( ), the number of funders per project
( ), and the raised amount per funder ( ). The independent
variables that are qualitative are treated as dummies. One
dummy variable is the level of requested amount 1
and
the reference level is < 3000
. Other set of dummies are
the
bimonthly
periods
to
start
a
project
(
( )/
(
) ), where the period January/February is
the reference one. Finally, the use of the network Facebook
( ) is another dummy where no is the reference category.
The model is specified as follows [15]:
=
H1: The number of days the project was online (the runtime
period) negatively explains its success.
p
0
H2: The amount raised per funder explains positively the
success of a project.
The greater the communication about the project, the better
the chances of obtaining the necessary funding [6]. A good
communication among supporters through a social network
facility and a good explanation about the project, either
descriptively or video graphically, is positively related to its
success [10]. Thus, being connected to the social network
Facebook, the number of images per project as a proxy of good
explanation of the project, the number of views, and the number
of comments as proxies of good communication of the project
help to get the necessary funding. At last, the number of funders
per project also explains the success of a project.
H3: The Facebook connection increases the success of a
project.
Considering the importance of having a large network [14],
it is expected that:
H9: High levels of requested amount negatively explain the
success of a project (the higher the value requested, the lower
the success).
6
/
≥3000
4
4/
4
4/
4,
12
5,
/
5
5
/
5
5
/
8
1,
7
11
2
2
2,
.
(1)
9
13
6,
Because a multiplicative form of the model is used the
quantitative variables were ln-transformed by taking the natural
logarithm of the original variables. The specification of the
theoretical model for the financed projects is
=
0
+
12
H8: The bimonthly period to launch a project at the
platform influences its success.
3
/
1
is the difference between the raised amount and the
where
requested amount in euros of the financed project i; and, is
the random variable that counts for the influence of omitted
variables in the model.
H5: The number of views explains positively the success of
a project.
It is also expected that to launch a project in certain time
period can contribute for its success. Thus,
/
3
10
3,
4
H7: The number of funders per project explains the success
of a project.
3
3
6
H4: The number of images per project explains the success
of a project.
H6: The number of comments explains the success of a
campaign.
1
8
1
1
4/
+
+
1,
5, +
,
≥3000,
5
9
13
5
+
2
2
/ ,
+
3
3
+ 6 6 / , + 7
+
2,
3, + 11
10
+
6,
/,
/ ,
4,
+
+
+.
(2)
IV. DATA ANALYSIS
The data were gathered from the PPL Crowdfunding
Portugal, the platform with the most notoriety in the national
market from August 15, 2011 to March 29, 2016. Some data
characteristics can be seen in Table I.
The majority of the projects in both areas were financed
(57.9% for the area of Music and 81% for the area of Sports);
the preferred months to launch a project that was financed in the
area of Music are February and December (14 and 18,
respectively) and in the area of Sports are July and August (6 on
both months); the majority of the financed projects (63.6%) in
the area of Music requested an amount smaller than 3000 euros
in the area of Music and the opposite is registered in the area of
Sports where the dominant financed projects (78.6%) required
an amount equal to or larger than 3000 euros.
TABLE I.
SOME DATA CHARACTERISTICS CONCERNING THE
CROWDFUNDING AREA OF MUSIC
Financed project?
Financed
projects:month to
start the project?
Level of requested
amount in euros
No
Yes
Total
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Sepetember
October
November
December
< 3000 €
≥ 3000 €
Area of Music
n
%
72
42.1
99
57.9
171
100.0
4
4.0
14
14.1
9
9.1
9
9.1
11
11.1
4
4.0
4
4.0
6
6.1
4
4.0
8
8.1
8
8.1
18
18.2
63
63.6
36
36.4
Area of Sports
n
%
8
19.0
34
81.0
42
100.0
5
14.7%
1
2.9%
3
8.8%
5
14.7%
4
11.8%
1
2.9%
6
17.6%
6
17.6%
2
5.9%
1
2.9%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
9
21.4
33
78.6
estimations in both crowdfunding areas once they are
significantly correlated with other independent variables
(Tables II and III). Therefore, hypotheses six and seven are not
going to be studied.
A. Validation of the hypothesesof the linear regression
model
Before estimating both models, the hypotheses of the
regression models should be validated:
.
Normality of the random error - Table IV shows the
validation of this hypothesis once the value of the p-value in
both models for each area is greater than the level of
significance.
TABLE IV.
Pearson’s coefficientsa
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
(n=98)
(n=99)
(n=47)
(n=98)
(n=98)
1
98
0.082
98
-0.239**
98
-0.097
46
-0.052
98
0.028
98
0.082
98
1
99
0.081
99
0.168
47
-0.038
99
0.140
99
-0.239**
98
0.081
99
1
99
0.431***
47
0.542***
99
-0.218**
99
-0.097
46
0.168
47
0.431***
47
1
47
0.069
47
-0.055
47
-0.052
98
-0.038
99
0.542***
99
0.069
47
1
99
-0.410***
99
0.028
98
0.140
99
-0.218**
99
-0.055
47
-0.410***
99
1
99
a. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; ***. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
TABLE III.
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
p-value
0.200*
Statistic
0.965
df
32
p-value
0.373
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction; df stands for degrees of freedom;
*.-
This is a lower bound of the true significance.
.
Variance of the random error is constant - it is validated
in both areas once Figures 1 and 2 show that the dot circles are
randomly distributed around a line parallel to XX’ with a slope
equal to zero.
Dependent variable: ln Gap
ESTIMATED CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES , IN THE AREA OF SPORTS
Regression Standardized Predicted Value
Figure 1. Homogeneity of the residuals in the Music area.
Pearson’s coefficientsa
( )
df
92
(n=98)
(n=98)
(n=99)
(n=47)
(n=98)
(n=98)
1
34
0.081
34
0.413*
34
0.321
16
0.070
34
0.030
34
0.081
44
1
34
0.006
34
-0.173
16
0.263
34
-0.076
34
0.413 *
34
0.006
34
1
34
0.439
16
0.558**
34
-0.485**
34
0.321
16
-0.173
16
0.439
16
1
16
0.441
16
-0.371
16
0.070
34
0.263
34
0.558**
34
0.441
16
1
34
-0.663**
34
.030
34
0.076
34
-0.485**
34
-0.371
16
-0.663**
34
1
34
Dependent variable: ln Gap
Regression Standardized Residual
( )
(n=98)
Area of Sports
Shapiro-Wilk test
Regression Standardized Residual
ESTIMATED CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES, IN THE AREA OF MUSIC
Area of Music
Kolmogorov-Smirnov a test
Statistic
0.075
The data were treated in order to avoid influent outliers
through the analysis of the residuals.
TABLE II.
THE NORMALITY HYPOTHESIS OF THE STANDARD RESIDUALS
a. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; ***. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
The variables
(number of comments per project) and
(number of funders per project) are eliminated from the
Regression Standardized Predicted Value
Figure 2. Homogeneity of the residuals in the Sports area.
.
Random errors are not correlated – if the value of the
Durbin-Watson (DW) statistic is close to two, the rule of thumb
tell us that the model does not suffer from the autocorrelation
problem, which is the case in both models as Table V shows.
Thus, the hypothesis that the error terms are not correlated is
not rejected.
. Independence of the independent variables – if the values
of the coefficient Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) are less than
5 , the model does not suffer from multicollinearity problem
[16], as it is shown in Table V.
B. Models’ estimations
Table V also allows us to say that the quality of the
adjustment in the Music area is lower than it is in the Sports
area
= 0,141;
= 0,330 . Just 14.1% or 33% of
the variations on the dependent variable are explained in both
areas by the estimated models, after correcting the
determination coefficient from the number of independent
variables specified in the model.
TABLE V.
Areas
Music
Relevant
Independent
variables
Level of requested
Amount per funder
≥ 3000 euros
ln N Views
Facebook
ln N Images
Sports
ln Runtime of the
project
2
4
a.
**
/
/
MODELS’ ESTIMATIONS
Estimations a
Estimated
coefficients
VIF
DW
-0.709**
(0.016)
1.145 0.141 2.042
0.457 **
(0.032)
1.356*
(0.071)
0.722
**
(0.063)
2.063 ***
(0.003)
−1.162
**
(0.053)
−2.082 **
(0.069)
1.074
1.0324
1.074
0.330 2.036
1.041
1.101
- Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; ***. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level);
b. values between parentheses are the p-values; Dependent variable: ln Gap;.
In the Music area, projects with requested amounts ≥ 3000
euros are more prone to failure; that is, for a unit increase in
requested amount equal to or greater than 3000 euros, it is
expected that the dependent variable decreases in 70%, if the
effects of the other independent variables are hold constant.
However, holding the effects of other independent variables
constant, the number of views per project has a positive impact
on the success of the project because; that is, when the number
of views per project varies 1%, the estimated effect on the
dependent variable increases 45.7%, which reveals an inelastic
relationship.
In the area of Sports, the variables runtime of the project in
terms of days that a project is at the platform, the number of
images per project and to be connected by Facebook explain
positively the success of a project in this area; by contrast, the
periods March/April and September/October to launch a project
online explains the failure of a project in this area.
Thus, hypotheses five and nine are validated for the area of
Music. In the area of Sports, hypothesis one is partially
validated as a positive relationship was not expected and the
hypotheses three, four and eight are validated (Table VI).
TABLE VI.
SUMMARY OF THE VALIDATION OF THE HYPOTHESES
H1: Number of days the project was
online (the runtime period) negatively
explains its success.
H2: Raised amount per funders
explains positively the success of a
project.
H3: Facebook connection increases the
success of a project.
H4: Number of images per project
explains the success of a project.
H5: Number of views explains
positively the success of a project.
H8: The bimonthly period to launch a
project at the platform influences its
success.
H9: High levels of requested amount
per funder lower the success of a
project.
Area of Music
Area of Sports
Not validated
Partially
validated
Not validated
Not validated
Not validated
Validated
Not validated
Validated
Validated
Not validated
Not validated
Validated
Validated
Not validated
V. CONCLUSIONS
Crowdfunding brought a new dimension to the financing of
entrepreneurship, offering those who want to develop a new
project, a methodology based on digital tools. In addition to
funding, crowdfunding brings other benefits to entrepreneurs,
such as testing the product on the market, getting feedback and
improving communication.
Whether for cultural or other reasons, such as different
market needs or different perceptions of crowdfunding,
different markets may react differently.
The specification model used in this study is credible as it
identifies determinant factors to explain success or failures of a
project in different crowdfunding areas such as Music and
Sports. Therefore, attention should be paid to the number of
views left on the project’s page which is associated to the
number of potential funders as well as to the number of
comments that potential funders can make on the project’s page
because they induce positive impacts on the project’s success.
Therefore, the entrepreneurs should describe their projects
properly, using images, to be seen as credible projects in terms
of providing navigation link(s) to be used by the potential
funders. Also, an option should be provided to share the web
address of the project via e-mail or social network sites such as
Twitter, Facebook, or/and LinkedIn in order to extend the
contact list of the founder(s). From these channels, the potential
number of funders can increase and so can the number of views.
But, in order to get the funders’ attention and donation, the
requested amount of a project per funder should not be high,
knowing that projects with small amounts of requested amounts
can deliver success to the projects in the area of Music. While
the runtime of a project can be extended in the area of Sports in
order to explain success, in the Music area this action is not
relevant.
In conclusion, there are specificities for different areas and,
because of that, each area should be treated separately.
However, this study faced some limitations concerning the lack
of information about the funders’ profile that could not be done.
Also, the presence of significant correlations between
independent variables led to the elimination of some potential
independent variables (number of comments and number of
funders per project) from the model’s estimations.
Some theoretical questions are raised and remain to be
answered in future studies, such as:
•
What is the market's adherence to the product concept?
•
Can a greater number of donors be associated with a
greater interest for the project?
•
Are links and references in the social media a
determinant to the crowdfunding campaign success?
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the support of PPL Platform for
the access to data used in this study and the BUSINESS
RESEARCH UNIT (BRU-IUL), LISBOA, PORTUGAL.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
Lukkarinen, A, Teich, J. E., Wallenius, H. and Wallenius, J, (2016).
"Success drivers of online equity crowdfunding campaigns". Decision
Support Systems 87, 26–38.
Gerber, E. M., Julie S. Hui, and Pei-Yi Kuo (2012). "Crowdfunding: Why
people are motivated to post and fund projects on crowdfunding
platforms". Northwestern University, Creative Action Lab, Sheridan
Drive, Evanston.
[3]
Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C. and Wilner, S. J. S. (2010).
"Network Narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online
communities". Journal of Marketing, 74, 71-89.
[4]
http://ppl.com.pt/en/infographic
[5] Brown, T., Boon, E., Pitt, L. (2016). Seeking funding in order to sell:
Crowdfunding as a marketing tool, Business Horizons.
[6] Mollick, E. (2013). "The dynamics of crowfunding: An exploratory
study". Journal of Business Venturing, vol(29), Issue 1, 1-16.
[7] Kotler, Philip. (1986). "The Prosumer Movement. A New Challenge for
Marketers". Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 510-513.
[8] Agrawal, A. K., Catalini, C., and Goldfarb, A. (2011). "The geography of
crowdfunding", (No. w16820). National Bureau of Economic Research.
[9] Hemer, J. (2011). "A snapshot on Crowdfunding". (No. R2/2011).
Working papers firms and region.
[10] Collins , L. and Pierrakis, Y.(2012). "The venTure Crowd: Crowdfunding
equiTY inveSTMent inTO buSineSS". Nesta.org.uk, 8-33.
[11] Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., Schwienbacher, A. (2013). "Crowdfunding
Tapping the right crowd". Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 5, 610-611.
[12] Lehner, O. (2013). "Crowdfunding Social Ventures: A Model and
Research Agenda". Venture Capital, 15(4), 289-311.
[13] 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.
[14] Hobs, J., Grigore, G. and Molesworth, M. (2016) "Success in the
management of crowdfunding projects in the creative industries, Internet
Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 146-166.
[15] Evers, M. (2012). Main drivers of crowdfunding success: a conceptual
framework and empirical analysis. Masters Thesis in Business
Administration. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.
Kutner, M., C. Nachsheim, & J. Neter, (2004). Applied Linear Statistical
Models. 4th. McGraw-Hill; Irwin.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
1
Размер файла
365 Кб
Теги
7975859, 2017, cistit
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа