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

Introduction: Crowdfunding is an internet-based funding method that has quickly risen to prominence. By drawing on small monetary contributions from a large number of individuals, crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter allow initiators of projects to finance their creative ideas. An effective communication plan and a convincing language use – aimed at attracting an engaged audience – are therefore a crucial aspect when launching a new product. 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.

Objectives: Although previous studies have observed how including a video of the proposed product in the Kickstarter campaign can increase the likelihood of full funding, little research has addressed the communication styles employed on these videos or, more generally, on online crowdfunding platforms. In light of these considerations, by focusing on the language used in projects’ video pitches, this thesis is motivated by the following research question: how does the employed linguistic style affect backers’ decisions in funding – or not – a crowdfunding project? Hence, in which way could it impact the success or failure of a campaign? The aim of this work is to define how prepared speeches could be linguistically crafted in order to increase the campaign’s chances of success. Furthermore, this dissertation will examine motivations for participating in a crowdfunding community, as well as the role of persuasion and trust in reward-based crowdfunding, induced and conveyed through language.

Methodology: In this work, a case study of two specific Kickstarter projects, Pebble Time and Lifeclock One – a successful and an unsuccessful campaign respectively – has been conducted. Data were collected from video transcriptions of the aforementioned projects. In order to answer the research question, a mixed-method approach was adopted by combining the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) theory – with a focus on the Interpersonal Metafunction – and the Multidimensional Analysis (MDA). The former, deeply connected to the purposes of language use, enables to recognize the choices speakers and writers make from linguistic systems, and to explore how those choices are functional for construing meanings of different kinds. The latter, which has been applied by resorting to a computer program that replicates Biber’s (1988) tagger, the Multidimensional Analysis Tagger (MAT), is a quantitative corpus-based technique designed to find and interpret the co-occurrence of certain linguistic features in a corpus.

Results: To some extent, Pebble Time’s and Lifeclock One’s video pitches exhibited seemingly similar traits, which were however differently exploited. Research findings stemming from the Interpersonal Metafunction analysis illustrated that a positive impact on backers is achieved through an extensive demonstration of declarative statements that address the merits of the proposed product. The extensive use of you-pronouns – as in the case of Pebble Time’s video pitch – has been proven to be crucial to forge a relationship of trust, solidarity and reciprocity. Moreover, modal verbal operators signaling the creator’s high degree of certainty had a pivotal role in conveying a feeling of the project creator’s preparedness, credibility and trustworthiness. With regard to the Multidimensional Analysis, data indicated that high co-occurrence frequencies of positive linguistic features overtly marking persuasion are related to successful crowdfunding campaigns: both texts shared similar results in terms of involvement, lack of narrative concerns, and referential explicitness, yet Pebble Time’s stood out in terms of persuasion, since it revealed several of the linguistic features and co-occurrence patterns of Biber’s Dimension 4 (Overt Expression of Persuasion).

Discussion: These results provide support for the key argument, according to which successfully funded campaigns exploit language more efficiently than unsuccessful ones. Although it is here acknowledged that a project’s success does not exclusively depend on the usage of certain linguistic resources, this research provides evidence on how language is nevertheless a fundamental force in persuading the “crowd” to fund – or not – crowd-projects.