1  

Entrepreneurial Online Marketing through Crowdfunding: The Role of

Invested Consumer Empowerment

Abstract: Crowdfunding, facilitated by online platforms, combines consumer empowerment, engagement and co-creation, which are theoretically rooted in experiential and relationship marketing. Social Media technologies enable the creation of trust-based communities where Invested Consumers leverage personal networks and social capital to maximise the viral spread of marketing messages. This in turn represents a source of competitive advantage for entrepreneurs as individual cultural producers, granting access to global markets that would have previously been outside their reach. By fostering engagement and co-creation through crowdfunding it emerges that entrepreneurs are able to seize a competitive advantage disproportional to their market share and financial resources.

INTRODUCTION

As the exchange paradigm which has dominated marketing science since the 1970s

has been gradually replaced by relational network theories (Achrol & Kotler, 2011),

we have seen a steady increase in consumer empowerment. The traditional exchange

dyad is no longer an appropriate framework within which to study the altruistic,

intrinsic motivations, which nowadays impel people to participate in communities and

build their identity around products, services and ideas. Consumption provides a

space in which a sense of self is constructed (Kozinets, 2002) and purchasing

decisions reflect individuals’ values and beliefs (Dickinson & Hollander, 1991) with

“an increasing body of consumers seeking to use their purchase or non-purchase in

the marketplace as a legitimate form of empowerment” (Shaw, Newholm, &

Dickinson, 2006;1052).

This notable trend towards consumer empowerment has been extensively observed

and documented, alongside the rise of the “prosumer” (Toffler, 1980) and the

enrichment of the purchasing experience as an emotional and social investment. This

is reflected in the Service-Dominant Logic (Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2007; Vargo

  2  

& Lusch, 2004) which sees consumers as co-creators of value and innovation (Schau,

Jr and Arnould, 2009) and the goal of business as mobilizing and enabling customers

to achieve this ( Norman and Ramírez, 1993). The concept of “Lead User” as a means

of reducing risks involved in new product development garnered much managerial

attention in the 1970s and 1980s (Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy, & Kates, 2007). However,

with the advent of the Internet allowing connections between consumers and

dissemination of their ideas and an overall cultural shift towards customization and

individualization (Peppers & Rogers, 1995) the “creative consumer phenomenon”

has been given much more attention in recent years.

This review of research literature will focus on the aforementioned evolution from the

perceived passivity of mass consumer markets which emerged in the 1960s towards

an increasingly global and segmented marketplace where customization, relationship

building within communities, and personal networks become vastly more significant

(Constantinides, 2006:411), culminating in online practices such as viral marketing

and word of mouth (WOM) which are significantly enabled and amplified by the

pervasiveness of social media. Marketing messages, it is important to note, are no

longer unidirectional (Kozinets, Valck, Wojnicki, & Wilner, 2010) as social media

“affords managers the opportunity to shift relationships with consumers from dialogue

to trialogue – in which consumers engage in meaningful relationships with one

another and with the firms” (C. E. Porter, Donthu, MacElroy, & Wydra, 2011:80).

The focus has therefore shifted towards building communities around brands rather

than determining success by the measurement of individual transactions.

  3  

Nowadays the consumer is not simply looking for information, but also creates

content: news, posts, images, videos, status changes, etc. This means that the user is

both a consumer and producer of the information and companies and brands in turn

are actively called upon to create different social communities and groups (Ilarionova,

2011:264). Engagement – which is characterised by a high-energy and positive state

of commitment - is a powerful currency in delivering effective online marketing

messages to audiences that are increasingly desensitized to traditional stimuli and

promotional brand cues. It refers to actions towards a firm that go beyond

transactions, and are motivated by both cognitive and emotional forces (C. E. Porter,

Donthu, MacElroy, & Wydra, 2011:83).

Such existential motivation for consumer involvement can be achieved in the creation

of experiential value through building and participating in communities of interest.

However, building this sense of value co-production and meaning in firm-sponsored

virtual communities remains a challenge. The importance of collaborating with

customers in the development of innovative products and services has been

recognised for many years (Greer & Lei, 2012) and firm-hosted online brand

communities have been considered as predictors of product success (Gruner,

Homburg, & Lukas, 2013) yet that relationship is a complex one, where the creativity

of that input and the level of satisfaction from consumers is dependent on psychic

benefits such as enjoyment, accomplishment, self-confidence and control (Bendapudi

& Leone, 2003).

The consumer experience is strictly personal and implies involvement at various

rational, emotional, sensorial, physical and spiritual levels (Pullman & Gross, 2004)

  4  

(Schembri, 2009). In this context, “the firm’s role is to deliver a value proposition

rather than to deliver value, which is co-created” (Lemke, Clark, & Wilson,

2010;846). Some studies, while focusing on crowdfunding as a fundraising tool, also

recognise its use for marketing purposes, creating interest in new projects in the early

stages of development and offering a potential set of resources that go beyond capital.

Mollick (2014;3), for example, notes that “The crowdfunding success of Ouya, a

videogame console, led other developers to write applications for it, helping build

competitive advantage even before the projects were released to the public”.

The emerging phenomenon of Crowdfunding is therefore uniquely placed within the

online marketing ecosystem to leverage this sense of heightened engagement through

co-creation. By instigating an enhanced sense of ownership and personal investment,

successful crowdfunding campaigns thrive in empowering the global brand

communities that emerge around projects. These engaged communities, whose reach

is enabled and amplified by viral marketing and social media, form the core of the

concept of crowdfunding as an online marketing tool, which is the focus of this

investigation.

Conceptual Framework

This study approaches the concept of crowdfunding from within the broader

framework of Online Marketing theory, with a specific focus on how customer

empowerment can determine the success of crowdfunding campaigns. It begins with

an exploration of how the mass-market targeting and perceived customer passivity

exemplified by the Functional School of thought (Barksdale & Darden, 1971) has

evolved towards dialogue-led approaches such as Lead User Theory (Von Hippel,

  5  

1986). This evolution has in turn culminated in an environment where the emphasis

lies in creating communities based on shared consumption experiences (Belleflamme

et al., 2010; Holbrook, 2000) and nurturing enduring long-term relationships (

Kozinets et al., 2010) with empowered consumers ( Payne et al., 2007) who are also

value co-creators (Muñiz Jr. & Schau, 2005; Norman & Ramírez, 1993).

Online marketing within the above parameters represents a broad framework where

emerging hybrid and dynamic phenomena such as crowdfunding are placed.

However, considering crowdfunding’s exponential growth in recent years, relatively

little research has been done on the subject, and no comprehensive studies explicitly

address it as a tool for marketing rather than merely fundraising. The present

investigation aims to address this gap in the current literature by examining which

factors contribute to the success of crowdfunding campaigns from an online

marketing perspective, and what dynamics are at play between supporters of such

campaign, the wider communities that form online around crowdfunding projects,

and, crucially, how the concept of customer empowerment has developed in this

environment.

The pervasiveness of the Internet and mobile has rendered those channels a standard

part of the marketing mix (McEleny, 2010), making the concept of ‘Online

Marketing’ almost redundant, since it is difficult to imagine a form of contemporary

marketing which does not incorporate online elements to some degree nowadays.

However, a significant gap in the scholarly literature has been identified in addressing

the specific ways that the emerging practice of crowdfunding utilises those channels

to engage and empower customers, thus maximising the impact of such marketing

  6  

strategies. Engaging ‘always connected’ customers online, via email and social

networks has become the norm rather than an exception in this environment, yet the

factors that influence such engagement, community building, and connectivity in

crowdfunding campaigns have so far not been extensively explored within Marketing

Studies.

(Djelassi & Decoopman, 2013), in their analysis of creative crowdsourcing in the

context of developing and supplying consumer goods, acknowledge crowdfunding as

an important emerging phenomenon where “the consumer becomes a real shareholder

and investor.” We have, accordingly, experienced a dramatic rise in crowdfunding as

an enabler of customer engagement and value co-creation, as a result of this new

marketing landscape dominated by empowered and dynamic customer communities.

The use of crowdfunding to market projects requires much higher levels of

commitment and personal investiture on the part of the consumer towards ideas and

brands, and is the next step in the aforementioned evolution from targeting towards

empowerment and co-authorship.

The success of this approach is evident in the propagation and exponential growth of

sites such as Kiva, Kickstarter, and Indiegogo, which in the past years have come to

create a market worth billions of dollars (Bradford, 2012). $2.7 billion was invested

globally in over a million crowdfunding campaigns in 2012, with this number

predicted to rise 89% to $5.1 billion in 2013 (“Industry Report | Massolution,”

accessed 04/02/2014) and Kickstarter recently surpassed $1B in pledges (“Kickstarter

passes $1B in pledges 5 years in - Tech City News,” n.d. accessed 07/03/2014).

  7  

The sheer economic importance of crowdfunding as a fundraising tool is undeniable,

and many studies have accordingly focused on that aspect of the practice

(Belleflamme et al., 2010) (Dew, Read, Sarasvathy, & Wiltbank, 2009) (Ordanini &

Maglio, 2009). Although the present research takes this aspect into account, however,

its main focus lies in the investigation of the underexplored marketing theoretical and

practical context, studying the ways in which non-financial benefits such as customer

engagement and community building through empowerment can be successfully

facilitated.

The following literature review therefore lays the foundation for this work by

outlining the ways in which crowdfunding enables and leverages customer

empowerment within an online marketing context. The key findings from the

literature form the basis of the pilot study which collected and analysed data from a

sample of crowdfunding campaign managers. An overview is provided of the

methodology employed in the research design, and a set of success factors is proposed

that emerge from the experience of campaign managers in the real-life context of

crowdfunding campaigns. The study concludes by outlining the limitations and

lessons learned from the pilot study, suggesting modifications to future research

design in order to address these and expand the scope of the initial study.

DEFINITIONS

Marketing

The concept of marketing itself is of course incredibly varied and wide-reaching; The

Chartered Institute of Marketing’s official definition, for example, tells us that

“Marketing is the management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and

  8  

satisfying customer requirements profitably.” The American Marketing Association,

on the other hand, broadens this to mean “the activity, set of institutions, and

processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have

value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.” It is important, therefore

to outline what the term is taken to mean in the context of this study and particularly

in relation to the concept of empowerment and the emerging phenomenon of

crowdfunding.

We therefore offer the following adapted definition of Marketing for the purpose of

the present study:

The activities and management processes responsible for creating engagement and a

sense of enhanced empowerment in individual consumers.

These empowered consumers are, in turn, more likely to create, join, and contribute to

communities of interest based around offerings, and to feel a greater sense of

ownership and willingness to engage in viral marketing activities around

crowdfunding projects.

Crowdfunding

In light of the previously outlined framework, it is felt that current definitions of

crowdfunding do not fully and adequately address the scope of this research, as they

tend to predominantly focus on the fundraising aspect of the practice.

  9  

Dew et al., for example, define crowdfunding as “using a web-based business

enterprise to seek and obtain incremental venture funds from the public” (2009:881)

while Ordanini & Maglio (2009) deem it as “a collective effort by people who

network and pool their money together, usually via the Internet, in order to invest in

and support efforts initiated by other people or organizations”.

Similarly, Belleflamme, Lambert, & Schwienbacher (2010:2) stipulate that the

purpose of crowdfunding is “to obtain funds from a large audience (the “crowd”),

where each individual will provide a very small amount. This can take the form of

equity purchase, loan, donation or pre-ordering of the product to be produced.”

Although the above definitions are accurate in describing crowdfunding as an enabler

for collating financial contributions from various people towards a project, they fail to

address the promotional and (viral) marketing value created by such campaigns

through empowered customer communities.

For the purposes of this study, a new definition of crowdfunding is therefore

proposed, shifting the focus away from this conceptualisation of the practice as a

straightforward pooling of financial resources. Instead, the suggested description

centres upon the promotional and marketing value associated with reaching and

engaging a broad global audience. In particular, it focuses on the value of having an

audience that is personally invested in a particular concept, product, or service and

feels a strong sense of empowerment, ownership and agency towards it. It therefore

follows that:

  10  

Crowdfunding is an online marketing practice - often enabled by social media and

other digital technologies - that facilitates the realisation of projects through the

creation of campaigns, attracting the support of an empowered community of

unrelated individuals hereby defined as ‘Invested Consumers’.

Invested Consumers

It is also important to define the concept of “consumer” within the specific context of

crowdfunding, as this is central to the idea of engagement underpinning much of the

present research.

Crowdfunding customers have been variously defined as ‘crowdfunders’ (Paul

Belleflamme, Lambert, & Schwienbacher, 2013) ‘supporters’ ” (Allison, Davis, Short,

& Webb, 2014) ‘investors’ (Djelassi & Decoopman, 2013), ‘funders’ (Gerber, Hui, &

Kuo, 2009) ‘participants’ (Patel, Clawson, Voida, & Lyons, 2009) and ‘sponsors’

(Zheng, Li, Wu, & Xu, 2014). These terms, however, fail to accurately capture the

essence of what that particular role entails in an online ‘reward-based’ crowdfunding

environment, and the type of relationships that consumers engage in with campaign

owners/managers and other members of the crowdfunding community.

In crowdfunding, consumers are also investors insofar as they directly contribute to

the financing of a project. This investment can involve the purchase of equity or stake

in a project, yet the benefits on offer vary greatly and are often intangible. Although

previous studies (Ordanini, Miceli, Pizzetti, & Zeithami, Valarie, A., Parasuraman,

A., Malhotra, 2011) (Armin Schwienbacher & Benjamin Larralde, 2010) (Agrawal,

Catalini, & Goldfarb, 2011) (Ward & Ramachandran, 2010) often refer to “investors”

  11  

for the reasons outlined above, we deem the role of crowdfunding supporters within a

marketing context to be an inherently hybrid one which is not adequately captured by

this definition.

Traditional marketing has categorised relationships based on rules of reward and

motivation; ‘exchange relationships’ as defined by Clark dependent on reciprocity and

self-interest, and are characterised by neither party wanting to contribute more than

the other. Communal relations, on the other hand, incorporate a degree of intimacy

and exhibit altruistic characteristics. Value in the latter case is not embedded in a

product at the moment of exchange, but obtained through use processes (Tynan,

McKechnie, & Chhuon, 2010). This concept of communal relations underpins the

emotional investment exhibited by crowdfunding consumers.

Following from this rationale, the term Invested Consumer is hereby proposed to

illustrate the key differentiating factor between consumers in a crowdfunding

marketing context and those engaging with firms in more traditional frameworks, both

online and offline. He/she is therefore defined as:

An individual who feels a sense of agency and ownership towards a crowdfunding

project, and identifies with the communities of interest that form around campaigns in

which they hold a stake - of variable monetary and reputational value - and for which

they can expect a “reward”, which can be tangible or intangible in nature.

An Invested Consumer is therefore one that is empowered to feel a sense of

ownership towards the crowdfunded project and has an emotional stake in its

  12  

outcome. It is also worth noting that the choice of ‘consumer’ over ‘customer’ is

deliberate as the former has connotations of on-going relationship and access to goods

and services which might well be intangible in nature, whereas the latter implies set

and finite transaction patterns.

Within the scope of this definition, the meaning of the term Invested could of course

be taken literally, since crowdfunding necessarily entails some form of financial

contribution. However, in the current investigation of crowdfunding as a marketing

tool driven by online community interaction, this investment is better measured in

terms of social capital than monetary value. This study will therefore look at how

social capital is leveraged by invested consumers in order to support projects within

crowdfunding communities.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Targeting to Empowerment: Evolution of Consumer Studies

For decades, the “4Ps” have been regarded as something of a marketing ‘Rosetta

Stone’ (Lauterborn, 1990) in the sense that traditional marketing research and

practice tended to adopt various interpretations of the marketing mix model of

Product, Price, Place and Promotion ( Tariq & Wahid, 2011). “Personalisation,” for

example, is proposed as an element of such a revisited model by Flynn and Goldsmith

(1999).

Yet the core elements of this theory have suffered fundamental alterations brought on

by the Internet, which has given consumers much more control in accessing

information (Y. Lim, Yap, & Lau, 2011) and driven down the price of many products

  13  

and services toward zero (Pauwels & Weiss, 2008). Furthermore, marketplace trends

such as globalisation, magnified competition, increasingly demanding customers,

technological advances, and similarity of product and service offering brought on an

increased emphasis on relationship marketing (Myhal, Kang, & Murphy, 2008).

Within the context of established firms the emphasis has thus shifted towards building

effective relationships with customers (Daniel, Hugh, & Malcolm, 2002) and

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is leveraged as a key driver of value in

strategically creating and managing customer experiences (Shannahan, Shannahan, &

Alexandrov, 2010). This is not a new phenomenon, since scholars as early as 1994

were already asserting that “In services marketing and industrial marketing the

paradigm shift from marketing mix management to relationship marketing has already

taken place in large parts of the world” (Gronroos, 1994).

Relationship Marketing constitutes of a cross-functional process for achieving a on-

going dialogue with customers (Day & Bens, 2005) to continuously strengthen the

network for the mutual benefit of both parties, through interactive, individualized and

value-added contracts over a long period of time (Anbuoli & Raj, 2012). By

leveraging such personalised treatment, firms have learned that they can greatly

increase both customer retention and the effectiveness of marketing initiatives (Plaza,

2010). Modern marketing therefore requires a focus on innovation and the building of

brand relationships (Harris & Rae, 2010) with clear links between ethics, long-term

relationship building and performance (Amine, Chakor, & Alaoui, 2012).

  14  

The economically derived marketing logic which viewed firms and customers as

being inherently separate, and placed the customer in a passive role in relation to the

firm’s value-creation efforts (Deshpande, 1983) has therefore been replaced by

relationship-based and experience-based marketing offers. Consumers nowadays

create much of the meaning (Bernoff & Li, 2008) and power is transferred from

institutions to individuals and communities (Rose & Wood, 2005). This is a

“continually evolving process that requires a shift in attitude away from the traditional

business model of focusing internally” (Maleki & Anand, 2008:69). We have

consequently seen a greater level of consumer involvement and commitment in

brands, exemplified by phenomena such as Wikinomics (Tapscott, 2006) brand

communities (Fournier & Lee, 2009), and consumer tribes (Cova et al., 2007) with

increasing importance being placed on the role of consumer networks, groups, and

communities (Cova & Cova, 2002) (Novak & Hoffman, 1996).

This shift in mainstream marketing practices towards relationship and experiential

marketing has paved the way for more disruptive forms of consumer involvement, co-

production, and empowerment, leading to the current widespread growth of

crowdfunding. As outlined above, relationship marketing involves building a long-

term rapport with customers based on empowerment, trust, and value co-creation. In

the emerging framework of crowdfunding, these characteristics overlap with

experiential marketing features, where taking part in contemporary events and

projects, and sharing those experiences within a dedicated community based around

specific interests, constitute the main motivation for participation.

  15  

Sharing in particular is a key concept in the emerging crowdfunding framework;

Kickstarter itself stipulates on its website that in order to qualify for crowdfunding,

"Projects must create something to share with others." Customers may experience

delight when participating in such brand communities, because participation leads to a

greater sense of control over the service process and the final outcome (Schneider &

Bowen, 1995). Leveraging this empowerment, on both an individual and collective

level, is a powerful mechanism through which crowdfunding increases consumers’

emotional stake in a project, allowing for the emergence of the ‘Invested Consumer’

as previously outlined.

“Once upon a time the primary agents of socialization were institutions like the

family, school, church, etc. but now consumption is a prime socialization agent

whereby people are taught how and learn to be consumers” (Shankar, Cherrier, &

Canniford, 2006;1017). The role of power in creating social practices and discourses

in modern society relies largely upon the transformative functions of technology, yet

while the Internet enables companies to build online communities that afford the

integration of consumers in the process of product development from an early stage

(Fuchs & Schreier, 2011), crowdfunding takes this empowerment further in allowing

consumer involvement from project inception. This ever-greater empowerment of the

consumer is enabled by the development and exponential growth of effective

crowdfunding platforms and tools, which provide online environments that effectively

connect Invested Consumers and allow them to leverage their influence more widely.

Crowdfunding Platforms as Enablers of Invested Communities

  16  

Platforms such as Indiegogo and Kickstarter intermediate the consumer empowerment

process by creating a two-sided market between entrepreneurs and potential

supporters, yet scholarly understanding of the role of such platforms is still limited

(Belleflamme et al., 2013). These Web 2.0 technologies, which allow users to

contribute content and connect with one another, act not only as integrators of third-

party social networks but also as independent communities (Zheng et al., 2014). As

such, they provide Invested Consumers with a heightened sense of agency and co-

ownership.

As early as 2012, we have seen individual projects raising over one million dollars

through platforms such as Kickstarter – ‘Elevation Dock”, an iPhone accessory, being

the first to break this threshold. However, entrepreneurs themselves assert that the

greatest advantage of these platforms does not lie in fundraising, but in providing

proof that a market for your product exists and in promoting your brand, company, or

idea. A dramatic illustration of this occurred recently, when Oculus - another

company formed through a Kickstarter campaign - was acquired by Facebook for

$2bn. Yancey Strickler, Kickstarter’s founder, asserts that the motivation to promote,

share and support ideas, enabling something that would otherwise be unlikely to

materialise, was the motivation that led him and his co-founders to build the platform;

"there are no ulterior motives other than genuinely sharing things we enjoy."

(“Kickstarter: the crowdfunder taking your cash to create something cool |

Technology | The Observer,” n.d.)

  17  

Within this framework, the Internet, and more specifically, crowdfunding platforms,

are defined as what Illich (1973) termed ‘convivial tools’. These tools give users the

greatest opportunity to enrich their environment (physical or virtual) with their own

vision and influence, maximising communications amongst members and making the

most of their energy, creativity and imagination. Consumers utilising these tools

therefore become producers and contributors, creating what Bennett, Segerberg &

Walker defined, in their study of crowd-enabled movements, as ‘dynamic integration’

(2014). They achieve this by producing, monitoring, curating, endorsing and

amplifying relevant, useful and desirable content in various networked curation

processes.

Crowd mobilization is characterised by ‘the logic of connective action’ in which

participants engage with issues largely on individual terms by finding common

ground in easy-to-personalize action frames that allow for diverse understandings of

common problems to be shared broadly through digital media networks (Bennett et

al., 2014). Within this context communication technologies and practices serve as

stitching mechanisms that connect different networks into coherent organization. This

can be seen in the mechanisms employed by the most popular crowdfunding

platforms, where full and seamless integration with various third-party social

networks such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others is enabled and heavily

encouraged.

Rapp et al. (2013) use the concept of contagion theory to illustrate how ideas spread

across social media channels, suggesting that individuals or firms engage in

behaviours because of their interactions with other individual or firms engaged in

  18  

similar behaviours. There is evidence that consumers approach technology as a social

actor (Ping Wang, 2007) so that effectively managing relationships and technology

simultaneously can significantly influence performance in an environment that is

“changing so dramatically that that traditional marketing methods are not enough.

Collaborative communication is critical (Rapp, Beitelspacher, Grewal, & Hughes,

2013;563)

Various claims exist of the Internet as a tool to empower consumers (Bush, 2004)

(Wind & Rangaswamy, 2001) (Rha & Widdows, 2002) and informants in a study by

Joy et al. (2009) expressed how the Internet instilled a sense of “empowerment due to

boundless knowledge” and being able to relate their lower-order needs of being

connected, informed and wealthy with higher-order goals of being in control, having

self-esteem, and attaining happiness. The consumerist model focuses on individual

choice and increasing control and a feeling of responsibility, taking greater ownership

of choices made (Mattila and Cranage, 2005). However, as outlined in the previous

section, empowerment holds varying meanings in a range of contexts underpinned by

differing assumptions and ideologies.

Empowerment is thus a particularly important concept in the context of crowdfunding

platforms and the way they enable community-building. Here we observe a shift in

dynamics where feelings of agency and ownership replace the traditional exchange

value, as consumers are more likely to view the success of the project as a direct

result of their participation. The emotional and psychological investment that

consumers experience towards crowdfunding projects could derive from the fact that

  19  

as ‘co-owners’ they experience a sense of ‘endowment’ (Shu & Peck, 2011). The

endowment effect stipulates that a consumers’ valuation of an object increases once

they have taken ownership of it (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1990) (Knetsch &

Sinden, 1984).

Even though the offering of extrinsic or material incentives often forms a part of

crowdfunding campaign strategy, the value of such ‘rewards’ tends to be tokenistic

rather than purely transactional. As such, the ‘reward-based’ crowdfunding model

which this study focuses upon is inherently different from the equity and microfinance

forms of crowdfunding, where campaign success is associated with a cut-throat

attitude of competitiveness and aggressiveness (Moss, Neubaum, & Meyskens, 2014).

Within the framework of the current research, the term ‘investment’ is taken to mean

an emotional and psychological stake consumers have in a crowdfunding project,

where the positive outcome of a campaign is perceived as a reward in and of itself,

due to the sense of empowerment and ownership that Invested Consumers feel in

participating. It is important to note, however, that it is possible for this emotional

investment and high community engagement to backfire, as Invested Consumers can

feel betrayed if they perceive decisions to be made which go against the ethos adopted

by the community.

When Oculus was sold to Facebook, for example, in spite of the company having

fulfilled its promises as far as providing the rewards (such as hardware prototypes) to

individual backers, there was strong reaction against it. Many community members

who had previously championed the product demanded their donations back and

  20  

vented their frustration against the company on social media. Austin Walker, a

researcher at the University of Western Ontario investigating ways in which

technology can be mishandled, explains that many campaigns “deploy the rhetoric of

an art project to ensure an emotional buy-in that will then lead to a financial buy-in.

And that emotional buy-in is part of the reason why people get upset." (“Kickstarter:

the crowdfunder taking your cash to create something cool | Technology | The

Observer,” n.d.)

In his analysis of the sharing economy as a new business paradigm, Belk advances the

concept of collaborative consumption as a key shift to the way consumers approach

ownership. The idea that “you are what you own” has been gradually replaced by

“you are what you have access to” or, alternatively, “you are what you share” (Belk,

2013). This proposition that in the “post ownership economy” the new,

technologically-mediated ways of accessing possessions without actual ownership

may influence consumers’ sense of self is extremely relevant to crowdfunding, as

Invested Consumers experience ownership in much the same non-exclusive,

collaborative way which leads to higher emotional involvement. The process of

“sharing in” (Ingold, 1985) is an inclusive act that makes the recipient part of a

“pseudo-family and our aggregate extended self”. Campbell (2004) chimes with this

view, suggesting that personal ontology relies on acts of consuming, and that we

discover ourselves through consumption.

Füller et al. argue that virtual co-creation such as that afforded by participation in

crowdfunding communities can be interpreted as an enabling activity that strenghtens

a person’s experience of self-determination and self-efficacy. “Active investment

  21  

provides crowdfunding sponsors with opportunities to not only invest money but also

constantly interact with entrepreneurs” (Zheng, Li, Wu, & Xu, 2014;489). The key for

campaign managers wanting to leverage this empowerment to attract Invested

Consumers is, therefore, to impart a sense that they are autonomously contributing to

a collaborative network, and that their input will be seriously considered.

“Consumers feel empowered when they are able to enjoy the consumption process”

(Wright, Newman, & Dennis, 2006;925). However, given the fact that most

successful projects will need to attract and involve a large number of Invested

Consumers, it may not be practical to afford all power to all consumers. Neither is this

strictly necessary, as “the experience of participation itself engenders a sense of self-

efficacy and enjoyment regardless of actual strength of influence on product policy.

Therefore, consumers’ perceived empowerment during co-creation may be considered

as symbolic and thought of as a ritualized and quasi-religious act” (Füller,

Mühlbacher, Matzler, & Jawecki, 2009;95).

The growth of crowdfunding platforms enable managers to market their products and

ideas within an “open source marketing” model, where control over the production

and distribution of content is to a large extent relinquished to communities of interest.

In this context, marketing is increasingly seen as an integral part of the entire

production lifecycle, and as a way of maintaining an active and multi-directional

conversation with stakeholders. In other words, every phase of a crowdfunding

project - from conception through to strategic planning, execution, promotion and

delivery - must be designed with the consumer/investor in mind and allow for

  22  

mechanisms that empower that consumer to generate value for the project, thus

creating a sense that the project is effectively “owned” by the community.

It is arguably more difficult for larger corporations to confidently achieve the levels of

personal interaction and responsiveness that such strategies demand, however, and

this is an area where small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have the opportunity to

seize considerable competitive advantage through leveraging crowdfunding.

Castronovo & Huang (2012) argue that such firms already possess an enhanced ability

to cultivate meaningful relationships with their customers and routinely leverage the

web’s ability to make product personalisation easier and more transparent to users

(Sheth & Sharma, 2005:619). “The Internet has been the great equaliser, giving SMEs

that couldn't hope to fund production of a 30- second spot, much less the airtime to

show it, the potential to gain both worldwide visibility and highly targeted hits”

(Bowman, 2008:46). Utilising crowdfunding technology to build closer relationships

with customers can, therefore, provide enterprises with a unique competitive

advantage (Carson et al., 1995; O’Dwyer, Gilmore, & Carson, 2009; Zontanos &

Anderson, 2004).

This necessarily requires empowerment through allowing the consumer a more active

role ( Schreier, Fuchs, & Dahl, 2012) and leveraging their loyalty and advocacy

through building and maintaining brand-community relationships (Algesheimer,

Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005; Fournier, 1998). As decision and transaction

customisation are associated with overall satisfaction (Thirumalai & Sinha, 2011), a

firm can thus gain a competitive advantage through empowerment which would not

have been achievable through traditional marketing activities such as advertising.

  23  

Crowdfunding would therefore appear to be an ideal platform for enabling small

enterprises and independent creative producers to reach global audiences and rally

them around their projects, products and services, without the need to draw upon pre-

existing resources.

Before social media channels enabled the global and pervasive reach of WOM

communications, independent producers and entrepreneurs - who now largely make

up the rich and diverse crowdfunding ecosystem - might have been marginalised from

the production and marketing process altogether. However, because of online WOM,

these entrepreneurs can now compete within the marketing landscape. Where

previously the costs of blanket reach advertising and the large budgets associated with

them would have excluded them completely, the emphasis on the viral spread of

marketing messages represents a powerful equalising force.

Social Capital, Co-production and Trust in the Crowdfunding Context

The theme that emerges so far is that the importance of peer effects, community and

trust cannot be underestimated when considering what factors might influence the

success of crowdfunding campaigns, as they are likely to have a direct impact on the

level of online viral marketing and WOM sharing that occurs around a given project.

Furthermore, empowerment of users in joint value creation (Voss, 2012), through

shared consumption experiences rather than exchange (Rovini & Gentile, 2007)

(Vargo & Lusch, 2004) is key due to crowdfunding’s strong emphasis on the social

meaning attached to consumption (Miller, Fabian, & Lin, 2009:305).

  24  

There are many types of online communities based around rating, experience-sharing,

and exchange of cultural goods (Curien & Moreau, 2005) yet their unifying feature is

that they instil a sense of belonging and mutuality in their participants (Bender, 1978).

Crowdfunding communities, however, tend to actively engage their members in co-

production activities, meaning that Invested Consumers actively take part in shaping

the direction and outcomes of the campaign and its resulting outputs. Consumer

motivation for engaging in co-production as a dynamic process reflect diverse values

(Etgar, 2007). They may decide to participate in order to satisfy their need for self

expression and uniqueness (Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001), fostering choices and a

sense of freedom and autonomy (Knee & Zuckerman, 1996) or exercising

capabilities, skills and fantasies which they are not able to use in their daily routines

(M. B. Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982).

Gerber, Hui & Kuo address the motivations that lead people to engage in

crowdfunding through computer mediated platforms such as Kickstarter, RocketHub

and Indiegogo. They find that in addition to anticipated extrinsic motivators such as

consuming products and experiences, “funders participate in crowdfunding to engage

in a community” (Gerber, Hui, & Kuo, 2009;6-7) and that people are motivated to

participate because of social interactions realized through crowdfunding platforms,

such as strengthening feelings of connectedness to a community with similar interests

and ideals.

“Project sponsors are motivated to support those individuals who have similar

interests and expertise and are like-minded. They are also motivated to become a

member of the crowdfunding community where they can learn and share their

  25  

knowledge” (Zheng, Li, Wu, & Xu, 2014;488). (Belleflamme et al., 2013) stress the

sense of ‘additional utility’ generated by community-based experiences and benefits

that crowdfunding consumers experience over ‘regular’ consumers. Additional

benefits are derived from the feeling of belonging to a community of ‘special’ or

‘privileged’ individuals and having contributed to the realisation of a project.

This relationship and cultivation of the crowdfunding community is long-term rather

than lasting only for the duration of the project itself. Eric Migicovsky, the manager

of a crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter to build a smart watch, asserts that the

support of the community is the reason behind the continued success of his venture.

"The overwhelming support we got from the community was incredible. We were

completely blown away and definitely wouldn't be here today without them." Austin

Walker, from the University of Western Ontario, points to the rewarding feeling that

supporters achieve by bringing things into the world that otherwise wouldn't exist;

"The consumption you do on Kickstarter is really great! It feels like supporting a local

business or band, and it's rewarding to give your money to something that feels like a

long shot.” (“Kickstarter: the crowdfunder taking your cash to create something cool |

Technology | The Observer,” n.d.)

This social capital, defined as the goodwill available to an individual from the

structure and content of their social relations (Adler & Kwon, 2002) is deemed crucial

to the success of crowdfunding campaigns. In fact, it is held by some that

“crowdfunding is the quantification of one’s social capital” (Hui, Greenberg, &

Gerber, 2014;72) and that “in a framework with information asymmetry individual

social capital (ISC) is positively and significantly correlated with the probability of

  26  

success of a crowdfunding project” (Guerini, Giudici, & Rossi-Lamastra, 2014;2).

“Projects generally succeed by small margins, or fail by large ones. Social capital and

preparedness are associated with an increased chance of project success” (Mollick,

2014;13).

Increasingly, consumers tend to largely rely on the advice of others when making

purchase decisions, especially when purchases are financially or psychologically risky

(Gershoff & Johar, 2006). It is often impossible to disentangle trust invested in

specific people from that placed in institutions (Knights, Noble, Vurdubakis, &

Willmott, 2001). When a product is complex and difficult to evaluate and when risk is

involved in the decision to buy it (as is often the case with crowdfunded products and

services) consumers often look to others for advice (Anbuoli & Raj, 2012).

(Mollick, 2014) provides a useful quantitative overview of over 48 thousand

crowdfunding projects published by Kickstarter, offering a description of the

underlying dynamics of success and failure among crowdfunded ventures. Their

results likewise suggest that personal networks are closely associated with the success

of crowdfunding efforts. The thriving communities that sustain, promote and co-

create crowdfunding projects would certainly not have been enabled without the

pervasive and widespread adoption of social media on a global scale. The success of

crowdfunding as an online marketing phenomenon is therefore closely interlinked

with the continued boom in the social media sphere. These channels have added new

dimensions that allow companies to engage with individuals while also making it

possible for consumers to interact with each other and create communities around

their products (Mangold & Faulds, 2009).

  27  

PILOT STUDY

The initial phase of this research involved conducting an exploratory pilot study that

would test the viability of this primary data collection endeavour. Quantitative

methodologies were considered, yet ruled out at this stage due to practical and logistic

factors, as the breadth and diversity of the crowdfunding ecosystem precludes the

gathering of a quantitative data sample large enough to be robustly generalizable

without the direct collaboration of crowdfunding platforms. This collaboration could

entail sharing of user contact details, which, as a rule is not possible due to privacy

and commercial considerations. It is important to note, however, that engagement

with platforms such as Indiegogo has provided an additional source of qualitative data

from their employees, which supplemented the interview data gathered from

crowdfunding campaigners.

Qualitative methodologies were therefore deemed best placed to provide initial insight

into the behaviours and mechanisms that influence the success or failure of a

crowdfunding campaign. The exploratory pilot study was designed under the premise

that by delving deeply into qualitative samples, it is possible to empirically support

hypotheses concerning the “why” and “how” of phenomena and decision-making

within crowdfunding communities.

  28  

Since the small size of the sample and the varied and complex nature of crowdfunding

ventures precludes generalisation, the study focuses on attaining informed

propositions regarding how campaign actions empower invested consumers, and how

these individuals and the communities which form around crowdfunding projects

influence the reach of marketing messaging, particularly through viral social media

channels. The goal of this initial exploratory study is ultimately to shed light into the

complex and emerging practices that emerge surrounding the use of crowdfunding as

a marketing tool, and to establish promising areas for development of additional

research that will further this understanding.

The prospective sample for this pilot study was drawn from a population of interest

consisting of cultural entrepreneurs who hosted campaigns on the crowdfunding

platform Indiegogo under the ‘Film’ category. Indiegogo is currently the largest

crowdfunding platform of its type on the Internet, and the category above showcased

a broad range of popular projects

A grounded theory approach was employed in conducting semi-structured interviews

utilising a matrix of questions with the aim of providing a flexible open structure to

gather reflexive experiences from campaign managers who had expressed an interest

in taking part in the research. Managers were asked to convey their customer

interaction strategies and experiences. In formulating interview questions the

following key factors and theoretical propositions which emerged from the literature

review were considered:

  29  

1. Crowdfunding as a marketing tool: Is crowdfunding perceived by campaign

managers as a useful online marketing tool rather than simply a means to

gather funds to finance their projects?

2. Crowdfunding as source of competitive advantage for SMEs: The

literature suggests that crowdfunding allows independent

producers/entrepreneurs and SMEs greater access to markets and communities

through social media and the viral spread of their campaign messages.

Managers in this pilot sample belong to this category, and therefore might

offer insight on whether this reflects their experience.

3. Customer Empowerment: Does granting customers greater power over the

outcome of crowdfunding campaigns lead to a heightened sense of project

ownership and increased volume of viral and WOM interactions?

4. Networks and Tie Strength: Castronovo & Huang (2012) suggest that tie

strength is one of the most important factors that influence the spread of word-

of-mouth communication, yet is this reflected in the experiential evidence of

campaign managers engaging with those networks?

5. Social Media leveraging: By asking participants about which platforms they

employed to engage users, and how their interactions differed across channels,

we hoped to gain insight into the types of engagement required to create

positive community dynamics around crowdfunding campaigns.

The research thus engaged with crowdfunding campaign managers in prompting them

to relate their experiences of instigating customer engagement and fostering

communities of interest based on their campaigns. The decision not to approach this

exploratory research from the point of view of customers themselves stems in part

  30  

from the complexity and scale that this would add to the research design and the

demand it would put on limited research resources, which would potentially

jeopardise its integrity and prevent its completion within the proposed timeframe.

Additionally, the considerable experience and insight offered by campaign managers,

when coupled with their privileged access to analytics social media data on customer

interactions, represents a fruitful and valid avenue for enquiry that provided useful

insight for the pilot study phase. However, the benefits of adding first-hand customer

perspectives to the research are acknowledged and will be incorporated in the design

for further research, which will involve the development of an in-depth case study, in

which customer experience will constitute an unit of analysis.

Key Findings

The pilot study has highlighted some preliminary key findings relating to the

identification of success factors in crowdfunding and the role of social media in the

effectiveness of such campaigns:

1. Gathering momentum in the early phase of a project emerges as an important

factor in creating “buzz” within crowdfunding communities and supporting

successful campaigns. This chimes with the findings on peer effects and the

social context of consumption and decision-making as outlined in the literature

review and is echoed by campaign managers and a social media manager

working at Indiegogo. The latter has in fact stated “The number one key to a

great campaign is raising the first 30% in the first few days so that the crowd

  31  

sees the early momentum and wants to join in what it perceives as a successful

initiative.”

2. Creating a sense of empowerment and experience-sharing amongst the

crowdfunding community can lead to increased community engagement. As

the literature review highlighted, customers are more likely to feel this if

offered an exclusive and unique experience, and a campaign manager recounts

how this was achieved by using limited edition donation tiers, “encouraging

fans to feel like they are getting something unique and that they have a hand in

building the video from the ground up”.

3. The type of network that crowdfunding investors/supporters belong to is just

as crucial to campaign success as their size. Howe (2006) alluded to this in

saying that the most efficient networks were those with the broadest range of

information, knowledge, and experience. Campaign managers also pointed to

the importance of engaging people who belong to different social network

spheres in order to maximise message spread.

4. Campaign managers recognise the usefulness of crowdfunding as a marketing

and promotional tool. This is reflected by the fact that even campaigns which

failed to reach their financial targets were deemed successful by other criteria:

“although we fell short of the final amount I have raised the profile of what

I’m attempting to do tenfold. I’ve also made connections with groups of

people that I never thought that I’d get to work with. Once the reward costs are

deducted (plus the Indiegogo shortfall fees) we’ll be left with about half the

film’s budget but I do feel that I’ve somehow elevated our company’s status

and potential”.

  32  

DISCUSSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH

As outlined above, the pilot study findings offer interesting insights into some key

success factors in managing crowdfunding campaigns and fostering customer

engagement through social media. However, the study does present limitations which

will be addressed in subsequent research.

One concern which emerges from this process is that some of the necessary fluidity of

the interview process (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) might perhaps be lost in the reflective

interview format adopted in the pilot study. An example of such a hybrid approach is

found in Elsbach (2009) which draws upon Kvale’s (1996) framework might yield

more insightful results. The pilot study engaged with participants mostly via email

and telephone, and it would be beneficial to engage in more in-depth interaction in

order to ascertain further nuances in experience which might not be immediately

apparent.

Secondly, as highlighted above, it was not possible to engage directly with

crowdfunding Invested Consumers in the course of the pilot study. It would be

beneficial in a future, more comprehensive case study, to offer a holistic view

comparing and contrasting the experiences of both managers and consumers.

Since the crowdfunding ecosystem is so broad and varied in the way it operates, the

types of initiatives it enables, and the communities that build up around it, it is

important to find a consistent unit of analysis around which we can develop a more

in-depth case study. However, it is also important to have an awareness of how social

  33  

and cultural characteristics might influence these processes and act as mediators in the

online crowdfunding communities which are the subject of this study. As these might

very well account for variations within samples, they should be taken into account

when gathering and analysing data and refining the research design.

It is proposed that this pilot study will subsequently inform the design of the expanded

research, which forms the second phase of the study. Through the insights provided,

possible improvements emerge into which questions are most relevant, what data

should be collected in order to maximise the effectiveness and impact of the

investigation, and what are the most efficient ways of approaching participants,

building a sample, and collecting/processing data.

A further planned modification to the research design has emerged from peer

feedback, which highlighted that the study would likely benefit from interviewing

crowdfunding customers directly. This will be addressed in the next steps of further

research design, where as a result of the trust relationship which has been developed

with one of the campaign managers interviewed, he has expressed a willingness to

participate in an in-depth case study which would follow the development of a second

crowdfunding campaign designed to raise funds for further development of the film

and to promote it to a wider community of interest. This approach presents several

potential advantages:

1. Privileged access to various metrics and analytics relating to consumer

engagement, across the crowdfunding platform itself as well as various social

media channels employed.

  34  

2. Directly relatable units of analysis will be made available, where it will be

possible to compare results between the two campaigns.

3. The ability to test the hypotheses outlined in the previous section as these

potential identified success factors are incorporated into the strategic planning

for the campaign.

4. Access to community members mediated by the campaign manager, who has

agreed to approach the community to gather willing participants who will be

interviewed in order to provide insights from a customer perspective for

triangulation with data from campaign manager and Indiegogo facilitators.

The aim of this exploratory study has been to take the first steps in providing fresh

theory that bridges from rich qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive research

(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). With “continuous interaction between the theoretical

issues being studied and the data being collected” (Yin, 2009:68). It is hoped that

fruitful avenues for developing those theories will continue to emerge as this process

evolves into the next phase of research.

CONCLUSION

We have approached the study of the crowdfunding phenomenon from the perspective

of Marketing Studies, as it was asserted that this emerging, hybrid, and inherently

online practice is uniquely placed within the online marketing ecosystem to offer

customers this enhanced sense of empowerment. By fostering engagement and co-

creation through crowdfunding it emerges that entrepreneurs are able to seize a

competitive advantage disproportional to their market share and financial resources.

  35  

This resulting vibrant and open ecosystem which allows small firms to reach wide

global audiences is experiencing exponential growth, and the communities that

support this growth thrive in a landscape increasingly mediated by social media. The

convergence of these factors has so far presented interesting research findings, which

provide fruitful avenues and possibilities for further investigation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achrol,  R.  S.,  &  Kotler,  P.  (2011).  Frontiers  of  the  marketing  paradigm  in  the  third  millennium.  Journal  of  the  Academy  of  Marketing  Science,  40(1),  35–52.  doi:10.1007/s11747-­‐011-­‐0255-­‐4  

Adler,  P.,  &  Kwon,  S.  (2002).  Social  capital:  Prospects  for  a  new  concept.  Academy  of  Management  Review,  27,  17–40.  Retrieved  from  http://amr.aom.org/content/27/1/17.short  

Agrawal,  A.,  Catalini,  C.,  &  Goldfarb,  A.  (2011).  The  geography  of  crowdfunding.  Retrieved  from  http://www.nber.org/papers/w16820  

Algesheimer,  R.,  Dholakia,  U.  M.,  &  Herrmann,  A.  (2005).  The  Social  Influence  of  Brand  Community:  Evidence  from  European  Car  Clubs.  Journal  of  Marketing,  69(3),  19–34.  doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.3.19.66363  

Allison,  T.  H.,  Davis,  B.  C.,  Short,  J.  C.,  &  Webb,  J.  W.  (2014).  Crowdfunding  in  a  Prosocial  Microlending  Environment:  Examining  the  Role  of  Intrinsic  Versus  Extrinsic  Cues.  Entrepreneurship  Theory  and  Practice,  (509),  n/a–n/a.  doi:10.1111/etap.12108  

Amine,  M.  E.  A.,  Chakor,  A.,  &  Alaoui,  A.  M.  (2012).  Ethics,  Relationship  Marketing  and  Corporate  Performance:  Theoretical  Analysis  through  the  Mediating  Variables.  International  Business  Research,  5(8),  68–85.  doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n8p68  

Anbuoli,  P.,  &  Raj,  T.  R.  T.  K.  A.  T.  (2012).  A  study  on  customer  relationship  management.  Golden  Research  Thoughts,  2(2005),  1–4.  

Armin  Schwienbacher  &  Benjamin  Larralde.  (2010).  CROWDFUNDING  OF  SMALL  ENTREPRENEURIAL  VENTURES.  In  Handbook  of  Entrepreneurial  Finance  (Vol.  2010,  p.  23).  Oxford  University  Press.  doi:10.2139/ssrn.1699183  

Barksdale,  H.  C.,  &  Darden,  B.  (1971).  Marketers’  Attitudes  toward  the  Marketing  Concept.  Journal  of  Marketing,  35(4),  29.  doi:10.2307/1250454  

  36  

Belk,  R.  (2013).  You  are  what  you  can  access:  Sharing  and  collaborative  consumption  online.  Journal  of  Business  Research,  1–6.  doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001  

Belleflamme,  P.,  Lambert,  T.,  &  Schwienbacher,  A.  (2010).  Crowdfunding:  tapping  the  right  crowd.  Retrieved  from  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1578175  

Belleflamme,  P.,  Lambert,  T.,  &  Schwienbacher,  A.  (2013).  Crowdfunding:  Tapping  the  right  crowd.  Journal  of  Business  Venturing,  1–25.  doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.07.003  

Bendapudi,  N.,  &  Leone,  R.  P.  (2003).  Psychological  Implications  of  Customer  Participation  in  Co-­‐Production.  Journal  of  Marketing.  doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.1.14.18592  

Bender,  B.  (1978).  Gatherer-­‐hunter  to  farmer:  A  social  perspective.  World  Archaeology.  doi:10.1080/00438243.1978.9979731  

Bennett,  W.  L.,  Segerberg,  A.,  &  Walker,  S.  (2014).  Organization  in  the  crowd:  peer  production  in  large-­‐scale  networked  protests.  Information,  Communication  &  Society,  17(2),  232–260.  doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.870379  

Bernoff,  J.,  &  Li,  C.  (2008).  Harnessing  the  Power  of  the  Oh-­‐So-­‐Social  Web  Harnessing  the  Power  of  the  Oh-­‐So-­‐Social  Web.  MIT  Sloan  Management  Review,  49,  36–42.  doi:10.1046/j.1365-­‐2109.2001.00598.x  

Berthon,  P.  R.,  Pitt,  L.  F.,  McCarthy,  I.,  &  Kates,  S.  M.  (2007).  When  customers  get  clever:  Managerial  approaches  to  dealing  with  creative  consumers.  Business  Horizons,  50(1),  39–47.  doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2006.05.005  

Bowman,  J.  (2008).  Digital  for  SMEs.  Media:  Asia’s  Media  &  Marketing  Newspaper,  April,  46–47.  

Bradford,  C.  (2012).  Crowdfunding  and  the  Federal  Securities  Laws.  Colum.  Bus.  L.  Rev.  Retrieved  from  http://works.bepress.com/context/steve_bradford/article/1000/type/native/viewcontent  

Brown,  S.,  Kozinets,  R.  V,  &  Sherry,  J.  F.  (2003).  Teaching  Old  Brands  New  Tricks:  Retro  Branding  and  the  Revival  of  Brand  Meaning.  Journal  of  Marketing,  67,  19–33.  doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.3.19.18657  

BUSH,  A.  J.,  MARTIN,  C.  A.,  &  BUSH,  V.  D.  (2004).  Sports  Celebrity  Influence  on  the  Behavioral  Intentions  of  Generation  Y.  Journal  of  Advertising  Research.  doi:10.1017/S0021849904040206  

  37  

Campbell,  C.  (2004).  I  shop  therefore  I  know  that  I  am:  the  metaphysical  basis  of  modern  consumerism.  Elusive  Consumption,  27–43.  Retrieved  from  papers://2911b5a8-­‐8ff0-­‐42ea-­‐8bc2-­‐2a09b4907db5/Paper/p8832  

Carson,  D.,  Cromie,  S.,  McGowan,  P.,  &  Hill,  J.  (1995).  Marketing  and  entrepreneurship  in  SMEs.  Journal  of  Knowledge  Management  Economics  and  Information  Technology  (Vol.  1).  

Castronovo,  C.,  &  Huang,  L.  (2012).  Social  Media  in  an  Alternative  Marketing  Communication  Model.  Journal  of  Marketing  Development  and  Competitiveness,  6(1),  117–131.  

Constantinides,  E.  (2006).  The  Marketing  Mix  Revisited :  Towards  the  21st  Century  Marketing.  Journal  of  Marketing  Management,  22,  407–438.  

Cova,  B.,  &  Cova,  V.  (2002).  Tribal  marketing:  The  tribalisation  of  society  and  its  impact  on  the  conduct  of  marketing.  European  Journal  of  Marketing,  36,  595–620.  doi:10.1108/03090560210423023  

Cova,  B.,  Kozinets,  R.  V,  &  Shankar,  A.  (2007).  Consumer  tribes.  Star  (p.  358).  

Curien,  N.,  &  Moreau,  F.  (2005).  The  Music  Industry  in  the  Digital  Era:  Towards  New  Business  Frontiers?  Document  de  Travail  CNAM,  22,  1–23.  doi:10.1080/08997760902900254  

Daniel,  E.,  Hugh,  W.,  &  Malcolm,  M.  (2002).  Factors  for  Success  in  Customer  Relationship  Management  (  CRM  )  Systems.  Journal  of  Marketing  Management,  18,  193–219.  

Day,  G.  S.,  &  Bens,  K.  J.  (2005).  Capitalizing  on  the  internet  opportunity.  Journal  of  Business  &  Industrial  Marketing,  20(4/5),  160–168.  doi:10.1108/08858620510603837  

De  Valck,  K.,  Langerak,  F.,  Verhoef,  P.  C.,  &  Verlegh,  P.  W.  J.  (2007).  Satisfaction  with  Virtual  Communities  of  Interest:  Effect  on  Members’  Visit  Frequency.  British  Journal  of  Management,  18(3),  241–256.  doi:10.1111/j.1467-­‐8551.2006.00499.x  

Deshpande,  R.  (1983).  “Paradigms  Lost”:  On  Theory  and  Method  in  Research  in  Marketing.  Journal  of  Marketing,  47,  101–110.  doi:10.2307/1251403  

Dew,  N.,  Read,  S.,  Sarasvathy,  S.  D.,  &  Wiltbank,  R.  (2009).  Effectual  versus  predictive  logics  in  entrepreneurial  decision-­‐making:  Differences  between  experts  and  novices.  Journal  of  Business  Venturing,  24(4),  287–309.  doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.02.002  

Dickinson,  R.,  &  Hollander,  S.  C.  (1991).  Consumer  votes.  Journal  of  Business  Research.  doi:10.1016/0148-­‐2963(91)90055-­‐3  

  38  

Djelassi,  S.,  &  Decoopman,  I.  (2013).  Customers’  participation  in  product  development  through  crowdsourcing:  Issues  and  implications.  Industrial  Marketing  Management,  42(5),  683–692.  doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.006  

Eisenhardt,  K.  M.,  &  Graebner,  M.  E.  (2007).  THEORY  BUILDING  FROM  CASES :  OPPORTUNITIES  AND  CHALLENGES.  Academy  of  Management  Journal,  50(1),  25–32.  doi:10.2307/20159839  

Elsbach,  K.  D.  (2009).  Identity  affirmation  through  `signature  style’:  A  study  of  toy  car  designers.  Human  Relations,  62(7),  1041–1072.  doi:10.1177/0018726709335538  

Etgar,  M.  (2007).  A  descriptive  model  of  the  consumer  co-­‐production  process.  Journal  of  the  Academy  of  Marketing  Science,  36(1),  97–108.  doi:10.1007/s11747-­‐007-­‐0061-­‐1  

Flynn,  L.  R.,  &  Goldsmith,  R.  E.  (1999).  A  Short,  Reliable  Measure  of  Subjective  Knowledge.  Journal  of  Business  Research,  46,  57–66.  

Fournier,  S.  (1998).  Consumers  and  Their  Brands:  Developing  Relationship  Theory  in  Consumer  Research.  Journal  of  Consumer  Research,  24,  343–373.  doi:10.1086/209515  

Fournier,  S.,  &  Lee,  L.  (2009).  Getting  Brand  Communities  Right.  Harvard  Business  Review,  87,  105–111.  

Fuchs,  C.,  &  Schreier,  M.  (2011).  Customer  Empowerment  in  New  Product  Development*.  Journal  of  Product  Innovation  Management,  28(1),  17–32.  doi:10.1111/j.1540-­‐5885.2010.00778.x  

Füller,  J.,  Mühlbacher,  H.,  Matzler,  K.,  &  Jawecki,  G.  (2009).  Consumer  Empowerment  Through  Internet-­‐Based  Co-­‐creation.  Journal  of  Management  Information  Systems,  26(3),  71–102.  doi:10.2753/MIS0742-­‐1222260303  

Garrido-­‐moreno,  A.,  Padilla-­‐meléndez,  A.,  &  Águila-­‐obra,  A.  R.  Del.  (2010).  Exploring  the  Importance  of  Knowledge  Management  for  CRM  Success.  World  Academy  of  Science,  Engineering  and  Technology,  66,  79–83.  

Gerber,  E.  M.,  Hui,  J.  S.,  &  Kuo,  P.  (2009).  Crowdfunding :  Why  People  Are  Motivated  to  Post  and  Fund  Projects  on  Crowdfunding  Platforms.  

Gershoff,  A.  D.,  &  Johar,  G.  V.  (2006).  Do  You  Know  Me?  Consumer  Calibration  of  Friends’  Knowledge.  Journal  of  Consumer  Research,  32,  496–503.  doi:10.1086/500479  

Greer,  C.  R.,  &  Lei,  D.  (2012).  Collaborative  Innovation  with  Customers:  A  Review  of  the  Literature  and  Suggestions  for  Future  Research*.  International  Journal  

  39  

of  Management  Reviews,  14(1),  63–84.  doi:10.1111/j.1468-­‐2370.2011.00310.x  

Gronroos,  C.  (1994).  From  Marketing  Mix  to  Relationship  Marketing:  Towards  a  Paradigm  Shift  in  Marketing.  Asia-­‐Australia  Marketing  Journal,  2(1),  9–29.  doi:10.1016/S1320-­‐1646(94)70275-­‐6  

Gruner,  R.  L.,  Homburg,  C.,  &  Lukas,  B.  a.  (2013).  Firm-­‐hosted  online  brand  communities  and  new  product  success.  Journal  of  the  Academy  of  Marketing  Science,  42(1),  29–48.  doi:10.1007/s11747-­‐013-­‐0334-­‐9  

Guerini,  M.,  Giudici,  G.,  &  Rossi-­‐Lamastra,  C.  (n.d.).  Why  Crowdfunding  Projects  can  Succeed :  The  Role  of  Proponents  ’  Individual  and  Territorial  Social  Capital  (pp.  1–20).  

Gustafsson,  A.,  Kristensson,  P.,  &  Witell,  L.  (2012).  Customer  co-­‐creation  in  service  innovation:  a  matter  of  communication?  Journal  of  Service  Management,  23(3),  311–327.  doi:10.1108/09564231211248426  

Harrigan,  P.,  Ramsey,  E.,  &  Ibbotson,  P.  (2011).  Critical  factors  underpinning  the  e-­‐CRM  activities  of  SMEs.  Journal  of  Marketing  Management,  27(5-­‐6),  503–529.  doi:10.1080/0267257X.2010.495284  

Harris,  L.,  &  Rae,  A.  (2010).  The  online  connection:  transforming  marketing  strategy  for  small  businesses.  Journal  of  Business  Strategy,  31(2),  4–12.  doi:10.1108/02756661011025017  

Holbrook,  A.  (2000).  Evaluation  of  research  sponsored  by  federal  granting  councils  in  Canada:  the  social  contract.  Research  Evaluation,  8,  47–56.  

Holbrook,  M.  B.,  &  Hirschman,  C.  (1982).  The  Experiential  Aspects  of  Fantasies  ,  Consumer  Consumption :  Fun  Feeling.  Journal  of  Consumer  Research,  9,  132–140.  

Howe,  J.  (2006).  The  rise  of  crowdsourcing.  Wired  Magazine.  Retrieved  from  http://sistemas-­‐humano-­‐computacionais.wikidot.com/local-­‐-­‐files/capitulo:redes-­‐sociais/Howe_The_Rise_of_Crowdsourcing.pdf  

Hui,  J.  S.,  Greenberg,  M.  D.,  &  Gerber,  E.  M.  (2014).  Understanding  the  role  of  community  in  crowdfunding  work.  Proceedings  of  the  17th  ACM  Conference  on  Computer  Supported  Cooperative  Work  &  Social  Computing  -­‐  CSCW  ’14,  62–74.  doi:10.1145/2531602.2531715  

Ilarionova,  N.  (2011).  INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGIES  IN  TRANSFORMATION  OF  MARKETING  ACTIVITY.  Scientific  Annals  of  the  Alexandru  Ioan  Cuza  University  of  Iasi,  259–267.  

Illich,  I.  (1973).  Tools  for  Conviviality.  American  Political  Science  Review,  69,  999.  doi:10.2307/1958421  

  40  

Industry  Report  |  Massolution.  (n.d.).  Retrieved  March  07,  2014,  from  http://research.crowdsourcing.org/2013cf-­‐crowdfunding-­‐industry-­‐report  

Ingold,  T.  (1985).  Who  Studies  Humanity ?  The  Scope  of  Anthropology.  Anthropology  Today,  1,  15–16.  doi:10.2307/3033249  

Jamehshooran,  B.  G.,  Ebrahim,  D.,  Mahammad,  E.  Te.,  &  Alireza,  H.  (2011).  The  past  ,  present  and  future  of  online  Marketing.  Interdisciplinary  Journal  of  Contemporary  Research  in  Business,  3(2),  585–607.  

Joy,  A.,  Sherry  Jr.,  J.,  Venkatesh,  A.,  &  Deschenes,  J.  (2009).  Perceiving  images  and  telling  tales:  A  visual  and  verbal  analysis  of  the  meaning  of  the  internet.  Journal  of  Consumer  Psychology,  19(3),  556–566.  doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.013  

Kahneman,  D.,  Knetsch,  J.  L.,  &  Thaler,  R.  H.  (1990).  Experimental  Tests  of  the  Endowment  Effect  and  the  Coase  Theorem.  Journal  of  Political  Economy.  doi:10.1086/261737  

Kickstarter  passes  $1B  in  pledges  5  years  in  -­‐  Tech  City  News.  (n.d.).  Retrieved  March  07,  2014,  from  http://techcitynews.com/2014/03/03/kickstarter-­‐passes-­‐1b-­‐in-­‐pledges-­‐5-­‐years-­‐in/?utm_source=Website+subscribers&utm_campaign=b859ce478e-­‐TWiT_FEB_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_23276d50d0-­‐b859ce478e-­‐63616029  

Kickstarter:  the  crowdfunder  taking  your  cash  to  create  something  cool  |  Technology  |  The  Observer.  (n.d.).  Retrieved  June  23,  2014,  from  http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/23/kickstarter-­‐crowdfunding-­‐start-­‐ups-­‐pebble  

Knee,  C.,  &  Zuckerman,  M.  (1996).  Causality  orientations  and  the  disappearance  of  the  self-­‐serving  bias.  Journal  of  Research  in  Personality,  30,  76–87.  doi:10.1006/jrpe.1996.0005  

Knetsch,  J.,  &  Sinden,  J.  (1984).  Willingness  to  pay  and  compensation  demanded:  Experimental  evidence  of  an  unexpected  disparity  in  measures  of  value.  The  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  507.  doi:10.2307/1885962  

Knights,  D.,  Noble,  F.,  Vurdubakis,  T.,  &  Willmott,  H.  (2001).  Chasing  Shadows :  Control  ,  Virtuality  and  the  Production  of  Trust.  Organization  Studies,  22(2),  311–336.  

Kozinets,  R.  V,  Valck,  K.  De,  Wojnicki,  A.  C.,  &  Wilner,  S.  J.  S.  (2010).  Networked  Narratives :  Understanding  Word-­‐of-­‐Mouth  Marketing  in  Online  Communities.  Journal  of  Marketing,  74(March),  71–89.  

  41  

Kozinets,  R.  V.  (2002).  The  Field  Behind  the  Screen:  Using  Netnography  for  Marketing  Research  in  Online  Communities.  Journal  of  Marketing  Research.  doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935  

Kvale,  S.  (1996).  Interviews:  An  Introduction  to  Qualitative  Research  Interviewing.  Quality  (p.  344).  

Lauterborn,  B.  (1990).  New  Marketing  Litany:  Four  Ps  Passé:  C-­‐Words  Take  Over.  Advertising  Age,  61(41).  doi:10.1080/07303084.1990.10604560  

Lemke,  F.,  Clark,  M.,  &  Wilson,  H.  (2010).  Customer  experience  quality:  an  exploration  in  business  and  consumer  contexts  using  repertory  grid  technique.  Journal  of  the  Academy  of  Marketing  Science,  39(6),  846–869.  doi:10.1007/s11747-­‐010-­‐0219-­‐0  

Lim,  Y.,  Yap,  C.,  &  Lau,  T.  (2011).  The  Effectiveness  of  Online  Advertising  in  Purchase  Decision :  Liking  ,  Recall  and  Click.  Australian  Journal  of  Basic  and  Applied  Sciences,  5(9),  1517–1524.  

Maleki,  M.,  &  Anand,  D.  (2008).  The  Critical  Success  Factors  in  Customer  Relationship  Management  (CRM)  (ERP)  Implementation.  Journal  of  Marketing  &  Communication,  4(2),  67–80.  

Mangold,  W.  G.,  &  Faulds,  D.  J.  (2009).  Social  media:  The  new  hybrid  element  of  the  promotion  mix.  Business  Horizons,  52(4),  357–365.  doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002  

McEleny,  C.  (2010).  Digital  Channels  Separated  Out  Less  as  Online  is  blended  into  the  Marketing  Mix.  New  Media  Age,  (August).  

Miller,  K.  D.,  Fabian,  F.,  &  Lin,  S.  (2009).  STRATEGIES  FOR  ONLINE  COMMUNITIES.  Strategic  Management  Journal,  30(November  2008),  305–322.  doi:10.1002/smj  

Mollick,  E.  (2014).  The  dynamics  of  crowdfunding:  An  exploratory  study.  Journal  of  Business  Venturing,  29(1),  1–16.  doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.06.005  

Moss,  T.  W.,  Neubaum,  D.  O.,  &  Meyskens,  M.  (2014).  The  Effect  of  Virtuous  and  Entrepreneurial  Orientations  on  Microfinance  Lending  and  Repayment:  A  Signaling  Theory  Perspective.  Entrepreneurship  Theory  and  Practice,  1–26.  doi:10.1111/etap.12110  

Muñiz  Jr.,  A.  M.,  &  Schau,  H.  J.  (2005).  Religiosity  in  the  Abandoned  Apple  Newton  Brand  Community.  Journal  of  Consumer  Research,  31,  737–747.  doi:10.1086/426607  

Myhal,  G.  C.,  Kang,  J.,  &  Murphy,  J.  a.  (2008).  Retaining  customers  through  relationship  quality:  a  services  business  marketing  case.  Journal  of  Services  Marketing,  22(6),  445–453.  doi:10.1108/08876040810901864  

  42  

Normann,  R.,  &  Ramírez,  R.  (1993).  From  Value  Chain  to  Value  Constellation.  Harvard  Business  Review  (Vol.  71,  pp.  65–77).  

Novak,  T.  P.,  &  Hoffman,  D.  L.  (1996).  Marketing  in  Hypermedia  Environmen  Foundations.  Journal  of  Marketing,  60,  50–68.  doi:10.2307/1251841  

O’Dwyer,  M.,  Gilmore,  A.,  &  Carson,  D.  (2009).  Innovative  marketing  in  SMEs.  European  Journal  of  Marketing,  43,  46–61.  doi:10.1108/03090560910923238  

Ordanini,  A.,  &  Maglio,  P.  P.  (2009).  Market  Orientation,  Internal  Process,  and  External  Network:  A  Qualitative  Comparative  Analysis  of  Key  Decisional  Alternatives  in  the  New  Service  Development.  Decision  Sciences,  40,  601–625.  doi:10.1111/j.1540-­‐5915.2009.00238.x  

Ordanini,  A.,  Miceli,  L.,  Pizzetti,  M.,  &  Zeithami,  Valarie,  A.,  Parasuraman,  A.,  Malhotra,  A.  (2011).  Crowd-­‐funding:  transforming  customers  into  investors  through  innovative  service  platforms.  Journal  of  Service  Management,  22(4),  443  –  470.  Retrieved  from  http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1944376&show=abstract  

Patel,  N.,  Clawson,  J.,  Voida,  A.,  &  Lyons,  K.  (2009).  Mobiphos:  A  study  of  user  engagement  with  a  mobile  collocated–synchronous  photo  sharing  application.  International  Journal  of  Human-­‐Computer  Studies,  67(12),  1048–1059.  doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.09.002  

Pauwels,  K.,  &  Weiss,  A.  (2008).  Moving  from  Free  to  Fee:  How  Online  Firms  Market  to  Change  Their  Business  Model  Successfully.  Journal  of  Marketing,  72(May),  14–31.  

Payne,  A.  F.,  Storbacka,  K.,  &  Frow,  P.  (2007).  Managing  the  co-­‐creation  of  value.  Journal  of  the  Academy  of  Marketing  Science,  36(1),  83–96.  doi:10.1007/s11747-­‐007-­‐0070-­‐0  

Peelen,  E.,  van  Montfort,  K.,  Beltman,  R.,  &  Klerkx,  A.  (2009).  An  empirical  study  into  the  foundations  of  CRM  success.  Journal  of  Strategic  Marketing,  17(6),  453–471.  doi:10.1080/09652540903371695  

Peppers,  D.,  &  Rogers,  M.  (1995).  A  new  marketing  paradigm:  Share  of  customer,  not  market  share.  Strategy  &  Leadership.  doi:10.1108/eb054500  

PING  WANG.  (2007).  CHASING  THE  HOTTEST  IT:  EFFECTS  OF  INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  FASHION  ON  ORGANIZATIONS.  Academy  of  Management  Annual  Meeting  Proceedings.  doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2007.26508193  

Plaza,  B.  (2010).  Google  analytics:  Intelligence  for  information  professionals.  Online  Wilton  Connecticut,  34,  33–37.  

  43  

Porter,  C.  E.,  Donthu,  N.,  MacElroy,  W.  H.,  &  Wydra,  D.  (2011).  How  to  Foster  and  Sustain  Engagement  in  Virtual  Communities.  California  Management  Review,  53(4),  80–110.  doi:10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.80  

Pullman,  M.  E.,  &  Gross,  M.  A.  (2004).  Ability  of  experience  design  elements  to  elicit  emotions  and  loyalty  behaviors.  Decision  Sciences,  35,  551–576.  doi:10.1111/j.0011-­‐7315.2004.02611.x  

Rapp,  A.,  Beitelspacher,  L.  S.,  Grewal,  D.,  &  Hughes,  D.  E.  (2013).  Understanding  social  media  effects  across  seller,  retailer,  and  consumer  interactions.  Journal  of  the  Academy  of  Marketing  Science,  41(5),  547–566.  doi:10.1007/s11747-­‐013-­‐0326-­‐9  

Rha,  J.-­‐Y.,  &  Widdows,  R.  (2002).  The  Internet  and  the  Consumer:  Countervailing  Power  Revisited.  Prometheus.  doi:10.1080/08109020210137493  

Roh,  T.,  Ahn,  C.,  &  Han,  I.  (2005).  The  priority  factor  model  for  customer  relationship  management  system  success.  Expert  Systems  with  Applications,  28(4),  641–654.  doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2004.12.021  

Rose,  R.  L.,  &  Wood,  S.  L.  (2005).  Paradox  and  the  Consumption  of  Authenticity  through  Reality  Television.  Journal  of  Consumer  Research,  32,  284–296.  doi:10.1086/432238  

Rovini,  M.,  &  Gentile…,  G.  (2007).  Multi-­‐size  circular  shifting  networks  for  decoders  of  structured  LDPC  codes.  Electronics  Letters  Electronics  Letters,  43,  938–940.  

Rubin,  H.  J.,  &  Rubin,  I.  (1995).  Qualitative  Interviewing:  The  Art  of  Hearing  Data.  The  Modern  Language  Journal  (Vol.  80,  p.  0).  doi:10.2307/329757  

Schau,  H.  J.,  Jr,  A.  M.  M.,  Arnould,  E.  J.,  &  Muñiz,  A.  M.  (2009).  How  Brand  Community  Practices  Create  Value.  Journal  of  Marketing,  73(September),  30–51.  doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30  

Schembri,  S.  (2009).  Reframing  brand  experience:  The  experiential  meaning  of  Harley-­‐Davidson.  Journal  of  Business  Research,  62,  1299–1310.  doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.11.004  

Schneider,  B.,  &  Bowen,  D.  E.  (1995).  Winning  the  Service  Game.  Handbook  of  Service  Science  (Vol.  36,  pp.  31–59).  doi:10.1007/978-­‐1-­‐4419-­‐1628-­‐0_4  

Schreier,  M.,  Fuchs,  C.,  &  Dahl,  D.  W.  (2012).  The  Innovation  Effect  of  User  Design :  Exploring  Consumers  ’  Innovation  Perceptions  of  Firms  Selling  Products  Designed  by  Users.  Journal  of  Marketing,  76(September),  18–32.  

Shankar,  A.,  Cherrier,  H.,  &  Canniford,  R.  (2006).  Consumer  empowerment:  a  Foucauldian  interpretation.  European  Journal  of  Marketing,  40(9/10),  1013–1030.  doi:10.1108/03090560610680989  

  44  

Shannahan,  K.  L.  J.,  Shannahan,  R.  J.,  &  Alexandrov,  A.  (2010).  Strategic  Orientation  and  Customer  Relationship  Management:  A  Contingency  Framework  of  CRM  Success.  Journal  of  Comparative  International  Management,  13(1),  1–13.  

Shaw,  D.,  Newholm,  T.,  &  Dickinson,  R.  (2006).  Consumption  as  voting:  an  exploration  of  consumer  empowerment.  European  Journal  of  Marketing,  40(9/10),  1049–1067.  doi:10.1108/03090560610681005  

Sheth,  J.  N.,  &  Sharma,  A.  (2005).  International  e-­‐marketing:  opportunities  and  issues.  International  Marketing  Review,  22(6),  611–622.  doi:10.1108/02651330510630249  

Shu,  S.  B.,  &  Peck,  J.  (2011).  Psychological  ownership  and  affective  reaction:  Emotional  attachment  process  variables  and  the  endowment  effect.  Journal  of  Consumer  Psychology,  21(4),  439–452.  doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.01.002  

Stokburger-­‐sauer,  N.  (2010).  Brand  Community :  Drivers  and  Outcomes.  Psychology  and  Marketing,  27(April  2010),  347–368.  doi:10.1002/mar  

Tapscott,  D.  (2006).  Winning  with  the  Enterprise  2.0.  Learning,  1–59.  

Tariq,  M.,  &  Wahid,  F.  (2011).  Assessing  effectiveness  of  Social  Media  and  Traditional  Marketing  Approaches  in  terms  of  cost  and  target  segment  coverage.  Interdisciplinary  Journal  of  Contemporary  Research  in  Business,  3(2006),  1050–1076.  

Thirumalai,  S.,  &  Sinha,  K.  K.  (2011).  Customization  of  the  online  purchase  process  in  electronic  retailing  and  customer  satisfaction:  An  online  field  study.  Journal  of  Operations  Management,  29(5),  477–487.  doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.009  

Thompson,  S.  A.,  &  Sinha,  R.  K.  (2008).  Brand  Communities  and  New  Product  Adoption:The  Influence  and  Limits  of  Oppositional  Loyalty.  Journal  of  Marketing,  72,  65–80.  doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.6.65  

Tian,  K.  T.,  Bearden,  W.  O.,  &  Hunter,  G.  L.  (2001).  Consumers’  Need  for  Uniqueness:  Scale  Development  and  Validation.  Journal  of  Consumer  Research.  doi:10.1086/321947  

Toffler,  A.  (1980).  The  Third  Wave.  Blueprint  (p.  544).  

Tynan,  C.,  McKechnie,  S.,  &  Chhuon,  C.  (2010).  Co-­‐creating  value  for  luxury  brands.  Journal  of  Business  Research,  63,  1156–1163.  doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.012  

Vargo,  S.  L.,  &  Lusch,  R.  F.  (2004).  Evolving  to  a  New  Dominant  Logic  for  Marketing.  Journal  of  Marketing,  68,  1–17.  doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036  

  45  

Von  Hippel,  E.  (1986).  Cooperation  Between  Rivals:  Informal  Know-­‐How  Trading.  Research  Policy,  16,  291–302.  

Voss,  M.  (2012).  Impact  of  customer  integration  on  project  portfolio  management  and  its  success—Developing  a  conceptual  framework.  International  Journal  of  Project  Management,  30(5),  567–581.  doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.017  

Ward,  C.,  &  Ramachandran,  V.  (2010).  Crowdfunding  the  next  hit:  Microfunding  online  experience  goods.  Podcast  Retrieved  from  Http://www.  Cs.  ….  Retrieved  from  http://www.cs.umass.edu/~wallach/workshops/nips2010css/papers/ward.pdf  

Wind,  J.,  &  Rangaswamy,  A.  (2001).  Customerization:  The  next  revolution  in  mass  customization.  Journal  of  Interactive  Marketing,  15,  13–32.  doi:10.1002/1520-­‐6653(200124)15:1<13::AID-­‐DIR1001>3.0.CO;2-­‐#  

Wright,  L.  T.,  Newman,  A.,  &  Dennis,  C.  (2006).  Enhancing  consumer  empowerment.  European  Journal  of  Marketing,  40(9/10),  925–935.  doi:10.1108/03090560610680934  

Yin,  R.  K.  (2009).  Case  Study  Research:  Design  and  Methods.  Essential  guide  to  qualitative  methods  in  organizational  research  (Vol.  5,  p.  219).  doi:10.1097/FCH.0b013e31822dda9e  

Zheng,  H.,  Li,  D.,  Wu,  J.,  &  Xu,  Y.  (2014).  The  role  of  multidimensional  social  capital  in  crowdfunding:  A  comparative  study  in  China  and  US.  Information  &  Management,  51(4),  488–496.  doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.03.003  

Zontanos,  G.,  &  Anderson,  A.  R.  (2004).  Relationships,  marketing  and  small  business:  an  exploration  of  links  in  theory  and  practice.  Qualitative  Market  Research  An  International  Journal,  7,  228–236.  doi:10.1108/13522750410540236