On Comparison of Crowdfunding Sites - Case Study Example

Case Study on Crowdfunding I chose Crowdfunding sites Kickstarter and Indiegogo. First, Kickstarter uses a descriptive language that attempts to enable visitors to understand the website’s true objective. The Crowdfunding website’s homepage greets visitors with a series of the latest developments, projects, features, or capabilities for both project creators and funders. A few navigation links, “Discover,” “Start,” and “Search Projects,” are at the top of the homepage, along with sign in and sign up options (Kickstarter Inc., 2015). Visitors cannot immediately click on or explore other options until scrolling to the bottom of the page. This is an especially crucial aspect of a Crowdfunding website considering most visitors look for features such as supported projects, the Crowdfunding program’s history, and operating model (Kickstarter Inc., 2015). However, considering contemporary websites place these links at the bottom of the homepage, it is understandable for Kickstarter to follow this trend. Indiegogo’s website took nearly half a minute to load, which is an indication of high traffic. The homepage has a layout nearly identical to that of Kickstarter in terms of the arrangement and the selection of links at the top, middle, and bottom of the page. Similar to Kickstarter, Indiegogo’s site has a few links at the top, which include a search bar, sign up and sign in options, “Explore,” and “How It Works” (Indiegogo Inc., 2015). The middle of the homepage also mimics a news section that displays the most recent developments for project starters and potential funders. However, unlike Kickstarter, Indiegogo’s site includes several additional sections dedicated to praising the site’s most successful project placers, funders, and the website itself. These sections are “Trending Now,” “Personal Fundraiser Spotlight,” and “why Indiegogo” (Indiegogo Inc., 2015). The bottom of the page has links for assisting users interested in starting their individual campaigns or knowing more about Indiegogo as a Crowdfunding platform. Kickstarter does not thoroughly describe a compelling need for the project to be funded. The homepage focuses on the best selections by the campaign staff, which includes the number of pledged, funded, and supporters available for given projects. In the page “Projects We Love archive,” Kickstarter merely lists the best projects in need of funding while using the project starters’ descriptions alone to persuade potential funders (Kickstarter Inc., 2015). On the other hand, Indiegogo categorizes projects that need funding while offering short but compelling descriptions of the projects’ potential and inspiration. Kickstarter does provide tangible statistics necessary for making the case for the need for funding. Kickstarter displays each project’s target amount, pledged amount in percentage form, location, and the time elapsed since being posted on the campaign site. This information allows potential funders to know the amount of money they can pledge, whether the project has reached its target, and the location of the project starter (Kickstarter Inc., 2015). Indiegogo offers statistics that is more helpful in terms of the time left before the project expires. The campaign offers the amount of money raised in terms of dollars, the percentage remaining to reach the target amount, the number of days left before the commencement or expiration of the project, location, the project’s purpose (Indiegogo Inc., 2015). Kickstarter presents a project with clear goals and objectives. Each project includes a section at the top left corner of the page with information about the target amount. This section is followed by a lengthy description, explanation, analysis, and outline of the projects goals and purposes (Kickstarter Inc., 2015). Similarly, Indiegogo dedicates a small section at the top left corner of the page to information pertaining to the project’s target amount. Afterwards, a lengthy section follows this summary, which narrates the project’s objectives and mission supported by intensive research results that explain the project’s goals. Kickstarter and Indiegogo campaigns are both very convincing that the project will have an impact. This conviction is most likely the campaigns’ most valuable and vibrant perk. Kickstarter and Indiegogo are equally descriptive of the project’s purpose and especially abilities to their potential users, especially when the project entails a product (Indiegogo Inc., 2015). This conviction makes both campaigns suitable for emerging entrepreneurs, inventors, or artists. Both campaigns give each project an individual page accompanied by descriptive videos created by the project starter. Moreover, both campaigns expect project starters to offer a “reward” to each funder when they reach their target goal (Kickstarter Inc., 2015). I would argue that Indiegogo is more successful than Kickstarter. Indiegogo works hand in hand with project starters to make sure website visitors and potential funders are aware of its potential. While Kickstarter also helps in describing the project’s objectives and potential impact, it relies too much on product feature and abilities (Kickstarter Inc., 2015). As a result, certain visitors may view nearly all designer or inventor products and services as materialistic or only profit seeking. A non-materialistic value for Kickstarter projects is absent as visitors largely get information about the project’s diverse uses. I would send a donation to the Indiegogo campaign because of their commitment to assisting project starters of all sorts. Indiegogo assumes an “anything-goes” strategy, with the exception of obscene or illegal projects. Indiegogo cofounder Slava Rubin once said the campaign is “any idea, anywhere in the world,” which the website evidently lives up to by supporting more than 88% of all pitched projects (Indiegogo Inc., 2015). On the contrary, Kickstarter only takes in 60% of all pitched projects, with a stricter acceptance model for business or profit-oriented projects (Kickstarter Inc., 2015). I would only send a donation to the Kickstarter campaign if they revise their project acceptance approach. Rejected projects could possibly have had an impact just as big as the accepted ones, which would have only been evident if they were accepted in the first place. Lastly, Indiegogo is a more compelling, credible, and successful campaign than Kickstarter. First, Indiegogo offers a lifespan for the project in terms of the number of days left before expiration or a deadline, thereby making a compelling case for potential funders and website visitors. Second, Indiegogo offers statistics that are more credible to visitors such as the time left before a project’s deadline (Indiegogo Inc., 2015). Kickstarter is not as credible as Indiegogo because of displaying less helpgul data such as the time elapsed since the placement of a project. Furthermore, Kickstarter is less successful than Indiegogo because of offering projects a crowd funding window of 60 days, which is half of what Indiegogo provides to its project starters (Kickstarter Inc., 2015). References Indiegogo Inc. (2015). Indiegogo homepage. Indiegogo, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.indiegogo.com/ Kickstarter Inc. (2015). Kickstarter homepage. Kickstarter Inc. Retrieved from https://www.kickstarter.com/ Read More