How the Linguistic Style of Crowdfunding Pitches Affects Backers’ Decisions: A Case Study of Kickstarter

1 
 
1. Crowdfunding 
Crowdfunding is an internet-based funding method that enables fundraisers to finance 
their creative ideas. Mostly used by startup companies or growing businesses, this 
emerging paradigm represents a valuable alternative to traditional venture capital 
investment, since it does not resort to financial intermediaries. On crowdfunding 
platforms, instead of approaching a small group of specialized investors, funds are 
raised directly from individuals: some entrepreneurs rely on the Internet to attract 
outside capital and draw on small monetary contributions from large audiences. As a 
result, those who have limited access to standard sources of financial banking, such as 
banks or venture capitalists, can launch their innovative products by appealing to the 
general public (the “crowd”) via online platforms. Balnaves (2012) argued that by using 
crowdfunding sites as intermediaries instead of banks, financing can be easier, faster 
and more efficient for people seeking small loans and investment opportunities. 
Therefore, since it changes traditional means of business transactions, crowdfunding is a 
major challenger to the power of traditional banking. 
What essentially distinguishes crowdfunding from ordinary charitable donations is 
that funders supporting creative and independent projects expect something in return for 
their pledge, such as future products, rewards or equity securities. However, apart from 
seeking a payoff from their monetary contributions, on crowdfunding campaigns 
backers have the opportunity to participate in a different kind of experience as opposed 
to merely buying a product or making a donation through traditional production 
channels.  
Crowdfunding platforms enable anyone with Internet access to create a profile and 
explain their monetary goals, the timeline for reaching them and the planned use of the 
funds. By using web technologies and online payment systems to facilitate transactions, 
a successful campaign would wind up at the end of this process with the necessary 
funds to implement the new idea and realize the creative project. It must also be 
acknowledged that, in the future, crowdfunding per se may have a remarkable impact on 
the economy, since it influences the type of ideas and ventures that are introduced and 
realized, allowing for smaller niche markets. 
Currently, there are about 2,000 crowdfunding websites worldwide, which are 
experiencing an exponential growth in popularity: “[t]he popularity of crowdfunding is 
growing immensely. During 2012–2025, global crowdfunding market generated over 
$34.4 billion and industry experts are expecting the number would reach around $300
2 
 
billion by 2025” (GlobeNewswire, 2022). For instance, on Kickstarter, which started in 
2009, as of October 2022 almost 7 billion US dollars have been pledged by over 21 
million backers to support more than 228,000 projects (Kickstarter, 2022). However, 
despite the extensive literature on social networks and online communities that has been 
widely explored over the past few years, scholarly research has scantly addressed the 
topic of crowdfunding. Moreover, the majority of crowdfunding research was conducted 
from an economic and managerial perspective, thus without focusing on the linguistic 
styles and communication strategies employed on crowdfunding platforms. 
 
1.1 Participating in a Crowdfunding Community 
Belleflamme, Lambert and Schwienbacher (2013: 7–8) state that “[t]he concept of 
crowdfunding comes from the broader concept of crowdsourcing, which involves using 
the ‘crowd’ to obtain ideas, feedback, and solutions to develop corporate activities”. 
The authors then proceed by describing crowdfunding as “an open call, essentially 
through the Internet, for the provision of financial resources either in form of donation 
or in exchange for the future product or some form of reward to support initiatives for 
specific purposes”. This new form of funding source can indeed take several forms. 
More specifically, crowdfunding can be classified into four main types: equity-, 
lending-, donation- and reward-based crowdfunding. In all four cases, the objective is to 
foster projects by drawing on small monetary contributions from a large number of 
individuals. This distinction stems merely from the different incentives or rewards 
promised to those who pledge to generate funding: equity crowdfunders provide 
funding in exchange for a stake in the company and a percentage of the profits; in 
lending-based platforms, funds are raised in return for interest payments; donation-
based crowdfunding is usually used by non-profit organizations to support charitable 
causes, which are financed purely in return for personal satisfaction in helping others; 
finally, in reward-based crowdfunding, pledges are made in exchange for rewards. 
For the scope of the present study, it was of interest to focus on the mechanisms that 
underpin reward-based crowdfunding, which has become one of the most prevalent 
fundraisings methods and comes in platforms such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. 
Together with donation-based practices, it differs from the other two forms because it 
does not include any type of monetary return. Nevertheless, as opposed to donation-
based crowdfunding, reward-based projects provide something in exchange for the
3 
 
pledged capital: they could offer a reward carrying some kind of emotional value (e.g., a 
special mention on the credits of a self-financed film), “[…] a copy of what is being 
produced (CD, DVD, book, etc.) or an experience unique to the project” (Kickstarter, 
2022). Backers are also given the opportunity to choose from a variety of unique 
rewards offered by the project creator. Indeed, what mainly distinguishes reward-based 
crowdfunding is that this type of financing source is characterized by a high 
involvement of backers, especially in the process of project development. One such 
example is that of reward-based campaigns launched by the music industry, where not 
only do investors support the project, but they also get involved in the album 
productions (Belleflamme et al., 2010). Moreover, when rewards consist of receiving 
the item that is being promoted, consumers who pledged (i.e., backers) will receive the 
product at a lower price than those who instead will buy the product once it reaches the 
market (i.e., regular consumers). For instance, Pebble Time’s project page – one of the 
most successful Kickstarter campaigns – reads: “Pledge US $179 or more: Your choice 
of one Pebble Time watch in any of the three colors. Regular retail price will be $199” 
(Kickstarter, 2022). In other words, “the same product is sold to different consumers at 
different prices” (Clerides, 2007: 402). Potential backers are thereby more willing to 
invest, and as a result this scheme enables entrepreneurs to collect the necessary capital 
for launching production.  
Gerber et al.’s (2012) explanatory study investigates motivations for participating in 
crowdfunding and suggests indeed that crowdfunders usually have a high willingness to 
pay and are motivated by more than merely consuming the product. Crowdfunding 
platforms depend on online social communities, therefore examining the reasons why 
some individuals are interested in participating in such communities is a significant step 
when analyzing crowdfunding practices. In order to do so, one must acknowledge that 
crowdfunders in reward-based crowdfunding may be compared to consumers, since – as 
indicated earlier – they can pre-order products. In this regard, Sheth, Newman and 
Gross (1991) defined consumer choice as a function of multiple consumption values 
and developed a theoretical framework of perceived value including five value 
dimensions: financial, functional, social, emotional and epistemic value. It can be thus 
concluded that consumers’ motivation to participate financially in a crowdfunding 
community is driven by these same five value dimensions, which will be explored in the 
following sections.
4 
 
1.1.1 Product Consumption  
The financial value dimension is defined in terms of the investor’s individual return on 
investment, which can either be tangible (e.g., a copy of the outcome of the supported 
project) or monetary (e.g., financial participation on future revenues generated by the 
outcome of the supported project). With regard to that, Gerber et al.’s (2012) conducted 
one-on-one semi-structured interviews with crowdfunding creators and funders, who 
were asked to describe their motivations for using crowdfunding platforms and how 
these influenced them and their work or contributions. Nevertheless, for the scope of the 
current section, findings regarding exclusively the funder perspective will be reported. 
In accordance with the aforementioned financial value driving the intention to 
participate in a crowdfunding project, research conducted by Gerber et al. (2012) 
indicates that funders engage in crowdfunding mostly because of the anticipated reason 
of getting a reward, often in the form of tangible products and/or services, thus 
considering the fundraising as an exchange of value. Rewards, whether in the form of 
status, privileges, or material benefits will motivate contributions. Individuals are 
therefore motivated to participate when knowing that they will either receive the 
product first or get a limited edition of the work: “A funder who supported a film 
commented: ‘I want to see [the film] right when it’s out. So, instead of giving $10, I 
gave $25.’” (Gerber et al., 2012: 7).  
The functional value dimension refers to the functional utility that the individual 
consumer derives from the project outcome, that is, from the product or service realized 
by virtue of the successfully funded campaign: the higher the functional utility a 
consumer expects to obtain from the product, the greater the consumer’s intention will 
be to invest in that project, in order to make use of that outcome. 
However, as already mentioned at the beginning of this dissertation, funders are 
prompted by more than merely consuming the product. If these paragraphs focused 
mostly on the material aspects – namely rewards and product utility – leading backers to 
support a crowdfunding project, the following section will outline the last three value 
dimensions, which will be investigated together by virtue of their rather priceless and 
intangible nature.
5 
 
1.1.2 Community Engagement 
The product’s social value has a positive effect on the intention to invest as well: 
individuals may use engagement in a crowdfunding community to express themselves, 
connect with the others and shape one’s online-identity, since “[…] acting with a 
product that has a specific meaning enables the consumer to a) express a role to others, 
b) define one’s unique or conformist character, or c) indicate common understanding in 
a socially constructed marketplace” (Mark Ligas, 2000: 986). Moreover, social 
identification with other peer-investors increases intention to be an active and involved 
member of the virtual community, hence motivates funders to back the project. The act 
of being part of a creative and collective initiative strengthens connections with people. 
As Kraut and Resnick (2011: 17–18) correctly observe: 
Social contact is a powerful motivator. Studies that correlate the tasks people are 
engaged in with their moods show that for most people, being engaged socially 
is associated with positive moods. […] [T]he greatest happiness [is] occurring 
when people are interacting with others. It is the intrinsic interest that so many 
people have in social interaction that makes discussion in many online forums so 
appealing […]. 
 
Prior research also revealed that backers supporting creators whose causes are 
consistent with funders’ identity are moved by philanthropic behavior. This sentiment 
of solidarity and philanthropy is explicitly enhanced by the linguistic choices of Gerber 
et al.’s (2012) interviewed funders, who describe the transactions by frequently 
resorting to the verb giving or other expressions exhibiting a sense of commonality and 
goodwill, as illustrated in the table below (cf. Table 1): 
Verb to give 
“I gave them 10 dollars […] So, I was like, I’m not going to give 
them 5 dollars, I’m going to give them 10 dollars because 5 more 
dollars will give me a high-definition download of this film. […]” 
“[…] it’s Graham’s brother, I’ll just like give him some money. Like, 
that will be nice…I think they were pretty close to their goal, but they 
hadn’t quite reached it at that point, and I was like, I think I’ll give 
them ten dollars.” 
Expressions 
“[…] seek design to create social impact… My goal is to be as 
supportive of these initiatives as possible… from an identity 
standpoint, that’s something that I would want to be associated with.” 
“[…] what I think what’s unique about this space [crowdfunding], is 
people feel more collaborative, so I feel more like funding these types 
of projects as an act of good will, and say like ‘hey you guys are 
doing great stuff’. I think we all need as much support as possible, 
and so I just wanted to be a part of that uplifting force.” 
 
Table 1 Occurrence of linguistic elements expressing philanthropic behavior   
(Adapted from Gerber et al., 2012)
6 
 
Moreover, this attitude of supportiveness is one of the emotions roused by the emotional 
value dimension, described as “the utility derived from the feelings or affective states 
that a product generates” (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001: 211). Research shows that this 
helping behavior is positively influenced when funders perceive to share a personal 
similarity with the project initiator, who usually introduces themselves and their 
company in the project’s video pitch. The emotional value therefore plays a key role in 
driving funders’ supportive motivation. In the context of crowdfunding, another induced 
emotion is that of involvement, which is closely related to the concept of identification 
with an organization (in this case, the project creator’s start-up). For instance, on 
crowdfunding platforms, creators could release up-to-date insights concerning the 
progress of the project, so that backers could track its latest developments, feel involved 
throughout its duration and fully experience the project, as if they were co-producers, an 
essential part of the frame. Through these constant development updates, creators can 
further fulfill backers’ desire for knowledge and curiosity, which leads us to the last 
dimension implicated in the decision to fund a crowdfunding project. 
The epistemic value dimension refers to the surprise or novelty aspect of a product: 
“[it] relates to a product’s capacity to arouse curiosity, offer novelty or satisfy a desire 
for knowledge and may be important for consumers who are considering new 
experiences” (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001: 208). Crowdfunding projects, aiming at 
financing the creation of something innovative, provide new experiences and are thus 
considered as providing epistemic value. Indeed, backers on crowdfunding platforms 
have the desire for novelty seeking and the common-trait of being innovation-oriented. 
Hence, this dimension is another influential factor in backers’ decision to pledge money 
to a project.  
 
1.2 Kickstarter: Determinants of Successful Funding  
At several points in this thesis, Kickstarter has been mentioned as a reference within the 
text. With more than 21 million backers, Kickstarter is indeed a prominent example of 
reward-based crowdfunding: launched in 2009, it is the world’s leading reward-based 
crowdfunding platform for financing independent creative projects. Kickstarter’s 
mission is to help bring creative projects to life (Kickstarter, 2022). 
Although creators participate in crowdfunding first and foremost to obtain financial 
support, Kickstarter is more than just collecting funds: although it is a for-profit
7 
 
company which aims at accomplishing positive outcomes for shareholders, it prioritizes 
positive impacts on society as well, by promoting arts and culture and fighting 
inequality. As a matter of fact, Kickstarter has been reincorporated as a Benefit 
Corporation in 2015, and social and environmental sustainability has been therefore 
integrated within their legally defined goals. For instance, the company included the act 
of limiting their environmental impact in their corporate charter: “[o]ur office has 
switched to compostable kitchenware and energy-efficient lighting. And we’ve stepped 
up our support of creators who want to be sustainable in their creative work — 
launching our Environmental Resources Center, adding environmental commitments to 
project pages, and spotlighting creative projects made from recycled materials” 
(Kickstarter, 2022). 
Moreover, Kickstarter uses an All-or-Nothing funding model, as opposed to 
RocketHub and IndieGoGo. RocketHub adopts the All-&-More fundraising system, and 
IndieGoGo, on a similar note, uses the Keep-What-You-Raise funding model: in both 
cases, with a few differences regarding submission fees, creators can keep the funds 
they raise even though their funding goal is not achieved. Kickstarter’s All-or-Nothing 
funding model differs from the others: if the funding goals is not reached, creators do 
not receive funds, which are thus returned to backers. Contrarily, when the funding goal 
is reached, the platform takes a 5% fee from every successfully funded campaign 
(Kickstarter, 2022).  
Crowdfunding campaigns can be either successfully funded or unable to reach their 
monetary goals within the deadline: Kickstarter regularly publishes overview statistics 
and, as of October 2022, it lists 228,348 successfully and 341,310 unsuccessfully 
funded projects (Kickstarter, 2022). Although this innovative form of financing within 
the area of entrepreneurship has emerged as one of the consequences of the 2008 
financial crisis (World Bank, 2013), it has quickly risen to prominence and it is 
nowadays a phenomenon for developed economies, in terms of the amounts transacted, 
the number of backers, projects and funds raised. Despite this, knowledge of the 
dynamics of successful crowdfunding is still lacking. As a remedy, Mollick’s (2014) 
work offers a description of the underlying factors leading to success and failure among 
crowdfunded ventures.