Volume 24 Issue 4 Article 3 December 2022 Exploring the Strategic Elements of Backers’ Persuasion in Exploring the Strategic Elements of Backers’ Persuasion in Reward-Based Crowdfunding Reward-Based Crowdfunding Sabina Griž anč ič University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, PhD Student, Ljubljana, Slovenia Mateja Drnovš ek University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, mateja.drnovsek@ef.uni- lj.si Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home Part of the Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Griž anč ič , S., & Drnovš ek, M. (2022). Exploring the Strategic Elements of Backers’ Persuasion in Reward- Based Crowdfunding. Economic and Business Review, 24(4), 222-239. https://doi.org/10.15458/ 2335-4216.1311 This Original Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business Review. ORIGINAL ARTICLE Exploring the Strategic Elements of Backers’ Persuasion in Reward-Based Crowdfunding Sabina Grizancic a , Mateja Drnovsek b, * a University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, PhD Student, Ljubljana, Slovenia b University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia Abstract In this paper we investigate the strategic elements that project founders' use in reward-based crowdfunding cam- paigns to achieve a higher level of persuasion. Exploration of these elements not only provides insights into an entre- preneur's experience with crowdfunding but also provides material for comparing results reported by other (quantitative) studies. We conducted an empirical study with 13 Kickstarter project founders through in-depth, semi- structured interviews which were analysed through a reflexive thematic analysis approach. Drawing from our findings, weproposefourstrategicelementsthatfoundersusetopersuadebackersandachievesuccessdrawingfromindividual- level experiences and observations. Keywords: Strategic elements, Reward-based crowdfunding, Thematic analysis, Project founders JEL classification: L26, D26 Introduction D ue to limited sources of revenues and/or high costs, the majority of young ventures are not able to launch their products without additional sources of external funding (Cooney, 2005). There- fore, entrepreneurship research has sought to un- derstand what actions entrepreneurs take to access fundsinordertobringnewproductsandservicesto the marketplace (Short et al., 2017). Over the last decade, several modes of entrepre- neurial financing have evolved, complementing traditional sources of finance (Belleflamme et al., 2014). Crowdfunding, for example, is an entrepre- neurs'callforsmallamountsofmoneyfromabroad audience (“the crowd”) using a virtual platform (Mollick, 2014), which has become a popular way of financing a wide range of activities, including charity projects, business ventures, and personal loans(Ma&Liu,2017).Thetotaltransactionvaluein the crowdfunding segment is estimated to be US$ 940.9 million in 2020 and is expected to grow and become the leading provider of start-up funding in the coming years (Crowdfunding - Statista Market Forecast, 2020). The current literature on crowdfunding is mainly characterised by quantitative studies focusing on the determinants of success in crowdfunding cam- paigns based on the available online data (see Cordova et al., 2015; Mollick, 2014). They suggested that the quality of the project, signals, founders' network, and internal social capital play an influ- ential role in a campaign's success (Giudici et al., 2018). At the same time, research has also revealed that heterogeneity exists in the types of crowd- funding projects, backers, and founders (Polzin etal.,2018).AccordingtoKaartemo(2017),73%ofall studies of crowdfunding have been quantitative, with little investigation of entrepreneurs' views, sense-making,andexperiences.Whileamajorfocus of the existing research has been on large-scale datasets scraped directly from crowdfunding web pages, with this study we underscore the need to dive deeper into the topic by better understanding Received 18 November 2020; accepted 10 October 2021. Available online 1 December 2022 * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: sabinagrizancic@gmail.com (S. Grizancic), mateja.drnovsek@ef.uni-lj.si (M. Drnovsek). https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1311 2335-4216/© 2022 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). how founders' use strategic elements in crowd- funding campaigns. The success of a new venture depends mostly on the initiatives taken by the founding team (Gilbert etal.,2006).Strategicchoicesmadetoprovidefunds are complex due to information scarcity, environ- mental uncertainty, and impersonal online contacts (DeTienne et al., 2015). To better understand the strategic elements that contribute to a successful campaign, it is important to integrate information from all stakeholders; entrepreneurs, backers and platforms. We respond to the call for new qualita- tiveresearchfocusingoncampaignfounders(Kraus et al., 2016) by exploring the strategic elements that founders use in designing reward-based crowd- funding campaigns to persuade backers. Under- standing and recognising founders' early strategic actions can provide insights into the success factors for effective crowdfunding campaigns. Moreover, figuring out how founders plan and implement strategic elements in reward-based campaigns can not only improve our understanding of the choices and processes involved in crowdfunding but also provide a benchmark against other sources of financing. These new findings acquired with pri- mary data from reward-based campaigns founders are of interest to scholars as well as to practitioners who may consider starting their own campaign, as they provide a more nuanced understanding of crowdfunding. Specifically, inexperienced practi- tioners in fund-seeking can use these insights to inform their crowdfunding activities, since similar data are not available elsewhere neither on crowd- funding platforms' web pages. According to Pollack etal.(2021),thepracticalrelevanceoffutureinsights from crowdfunding exploration should gain atten- tion and not be underestimated. By offering a thorough and systematic understanding of strategic efforts basedonprimarydata,weofferpractitioners a better understanding of the mechanisms that are used to persuade backers and attain financial goals. Finally, with this study, we applied a reflexive the- maticanalysis,amethodmainlyusedinpsychology and health research, to crowdfunding and entre- preneurship research. The method allows us to dig into the topic without bias in favour of any theory andunveiltheintrospectiveviewofthephenomena, which is a novel approach in this area. In the following, we outline theoretical founda- tions of the presented concept of strategic elements and their use in persuading backers. Next, findings from previous crowdfunding research are pre- sented, examining the interplay between different factors that lead to success. Following this, the researchdesignanddataanalysisusingreflexiveTA are presented. The paper concludes by discussing the contributions and practical implications, in addition to addressing some limitations of the research. 1 Literature review Since the establishment of the first crowdfunding platform, various types of crowdfunding have emerged. These differ in terms of the requested investment amount and the kind of compensation offered to investors (Cordova et al., 2015). Scholars have divided these types into four categories: donation-based crowdfunding, equity-based crowdfunding, crowdlending, and reward-based crowdfunding (Cholakova & Clarysse, 2015; Colombo et al., 2015). Despite their differences, the same three stakeholders are involved in the cam- paigns across categories: the entrepreneur who proposes the idea, the crowd (i.e. the individuals who financially support the campaign), and the platform that brings all parties together. However, not all stakeholders play the same role in all crowdfunding types. Probably the most intriguing aspect of entrepre- neurialfinanceresearchisunderstandingwhysome new ventures are more successful than others in raising funds (Kuratko, 2017). Providing funds for the project is one of the primary motivations for starting a crowdfunding campaign. According to Mollick (2014), it is crucial to understand what dy- namics drives crowdfunding success and failure. Reward-based crowdfunding is with its well-devel- opedplatforms(e.g.Kickstarter,Indiegogo)perhaps the best-known and predominant type of crowd- funding; instead of a debt or equity contract, fund providers (backers) are promised a non-monetary reward in exchange for their financial contribution to the project (Frydrych et al., 2014). This process is similartopre-orderingaproductfromtraditionale- commerce but has many unique characteristics. For example, project backers usually pay more than for traditionalonlinepre-ordersandareinvolvedinthe process of project development; backers can also establish a relationship with founders via recurrent transactions and institutional mechanisms (Zheng et al., 2016). As a result, the backerefounder rela- tionship plays an essential role in the process of fundraising (Belleflamme et al., 2014). In equity crowdfunding and crowdlending, supporters are intrigued by the potential return on investment, whileindonationcrowdfunding,thephilanthropyis the main motive. Contradictory, founders in reward-based crowdfunding have no tangible ele- ments or profit to attract backers, they may offer ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 223 only a reward or a product, which may never be delivered. Therefore, understanding strategic ele- ments that founders use in order to increase backers' motivation and commitment, seems immi- nentinreward-basedcrowdfundingascomparedto other types of campaigns. To date, studies analysing the success factors of crowdfunding campaigns focused primarily on accessible online data generated from platforms. Individual driven determinants that can influence the effectiveness of crowdfunding campaigns have beenlargelydisregarded.Crowdfundingtakesplace on web platforms where entrepreneurial narratives play a central role in communication between founders and potential funders (Allison et al., 2017). However, we believe that the exact mechanism of persuasion used by founders remains somewhat unclear, since the narratives and other features presented on the campaign's pages do not tap into the processes used by founders. To shed light on persuasion processes of campaign funders, we moved away from quantitative analytical ap- proaches (based on likelihood models) into a qual- itative investigation. In our analysis, we have included all the decisions and actions taken by founders during the pre-campaign and early campaign period, which they had used to attract backers and have the potential to convince backers to contribute to an effective campaign, thus helping founders to accomplish the established campaign goal. To address all the absence, two broad ques- tions were addressed: What strategic elements do project founders use in their reward-based crowd- funding campaign to persuade backers? Are those elements in line with previous studies? To address the questions, we have compiled a rich qualitative dataset based on personal interviews with crowd- funding entrepreneurs. There has recently been an upsurge in scholarly research on crowdfunding performance (Ahsan et al., 2018). Existing studies have aimed to under- stand the determinants of effectively attracting backers. Many researchers believe that the key fac- tors for the success of a crowdfunding project lie within the project itself (Sauermann et al., 2019). These factors include the quality of the product, the format in which it is presented, and the character- istics of the campaign. Scholars have investigated the determinants of crowdfunding success from a variety of theoretical and empirical approaches (Short et al., 2017), taking into account several var- iables (web presence, updates, number of rewards, comments, and pitch rhetoric) (Clauss et al., 2018), but drawing conclusions without access to primary data. In the following section, we expose the main finding from the literature, which will serve as a reflection and comparison with our findings. The most visible element of any crowdfunding campaign is the pitch. The structure and manifes- tation of pitch delivery are associated with the suc- cess on reward-based platforms. According to Parhankangas and Renko (2017), the linguistic style of the pitch is an essential predictor of success for social entrepreneurs. Using concrete language and an interactive format, in general, facilitates the fundraising of both social and commercial entre- preneurs.Others(Butticeetal.,2017;Colomboetal., 2015) have concluded that the amount of informa- tion about a project provided on the platform con- tributes to funding success. Moy et al. (2018) observed that the scope of information in a crowd- funding text is limited, and exceeding the optimal amount may reduce a project's chance of fund- raising.Anothercriticalfindingbasedonexamining the rhetoric used in successful Kickstarter cam- paigns is that the most well-funded projects contain the three types of rhetorical appeal outlined by Aristotle: ethos, which emphasises the credibility of thespeaker;pathos,whichproducesemotionsinthe crowd; and logos, which supports claims through logical argumentation (Tirdatov, 2014). Koch and Siering (2015) concurred that the heart of crowdfunding is a story that illustrates the pas- sion and motivation of the founding team. Techni- cally, the best approach is visualisation. However, since videos have now become standard on crowd- funding platforms, it may no longer be a sufficient approach. In fact, Kim et al. (2016) determined that video pitches couldevendecrease the probability of raising funds on Indiegogo. However, original videos still seem to positively influence crowd- funding on Kickstarter (Calic & Mosakowski, 2016). Lu (2018) investigated displayed passion (exhibition of positive feelings) and displayed preparedness (presentation of a business plan) in entrepreneurs' videos, finding that both are positively related to crowdfunders' contribution and the amount of funding attracted. Backers of crowdfunding campaigns face severe problems of information asymmetry, due to the lackofproductionhistoryandreputation(Kuratko, 2017). Therefore, founders need to provide signals that reduce backers' uncertainty (Mollick, 2014). In a study of online signals of quality, Bi et al. (2017) revealed that the introductory address and video (called the central route) and electronic word of mouth such as “Likes” and the number of online reviews (called peripheral route) had significant positive effects on the backer's decision. By contrast, projects boasting patented technologies 224 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 had no advantage over similar projects without a patent.Moreover,theassociationmaygenerallybe negative, as projects with patents have higher capital needs, tend to be riskier, more complex, and sophisticated in technical terms, and are less integrated into the crowd community (Meoli et al., 2017). Research on reward-based crowdfunding dealing with founders' characteristics has concluded that crowdfunding success is driven by project quality, geography, and personal networks (Mollick, 2014). SimilarlytoMollick(2014),Zhengetal.(2014)found that the entrepreneurs' social capital is a significant predictor of success. The impact of both external social capital (e.g. the number of Facebook and LinkedIn contacts) (Colombo et al., 2015) and in- ternal social capital (e.g. interactions developed within the crowdfunding community on the plat- form) appears to be influential (Mollick, 2014). Koch and Siering (2015) empirically evaluated the model onKickstarterandconfirmedthatfounderswhohad backed other projects in the past were more suc- cessful compared to those who had not supported other projects. Surprisingly, the founder's project experience, measured by the number of previously created campaigns, had no significant influence. However, internal social capital has a relatively short impact on the likelihood of funding, since the positive effect vanishes in a year and a half (Buttice et al., 2017). Nevertheless, there is no consensus in the literature on the importance of social media presence. Colombo et al. (2015) found that the number of an entrepreneur's social media connec- tions was not significantly related to campaign success, although it was linked to the number of early contributions. Cumming et al. (2019) found no difference between successful and unsuccessful reward-based crowdfunding campaigns in terms of the number of social media website links. Despite the fact that over the past years the suc- cess of reward-based crowdfunding has received extraordinary interest, it appears that entrepre- neurship scholars do not study strategic elements and consequently crowdfunding success based on primarily driving source of crowdfunding e foun- ders. It seems that their pitch andwritten presented facts on the platform are enough. However, we believe that to enrich the knowledge, we need to focus more deeply also on personal sense-making and not only analysing visible results. 2 Research design In this study, we adopted a qualitative research design, based on semi-structured interviews to uncover the founder's experiences in persuading backers. Data were analysed through thematic analysis (TA) e a method that has been used for identifying, organising, and offering insight into patterns of meaning (themes) across the qualitative dataset. Patterns are spotted through a process of data familiarisation, coding, and theme develop- ment. Numerous patterns can be identified across any dataset, with the aim of identifying those pat- terns that are relevant to the research question (Braun & Clarke, 2012). We followed a reflexive approach, developed by Braun and Clarke (2006), which locates TA entirely within a qualitative paradigm and has been pre- dominantly used in psychology where individual experiences, people's views, and opinions matter. Reflexive TA is a flexible and theoretically inde- pendent method that is not tied to a particular theoretical commitment. Although it can be carried out in different ways, TA requires the researcher to make a series of choices and a theoretically informed framework (Braun & Clarke, 2012; Clarke et al., 2015). Compared with traditional empirical methods used in entrepreneurship, such as interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) or content anal- ysiswhicharealsofocusedonwhatpeoplesayand the content of language use in their narratives, re- flexiveTAseemedthemoreappropriatemethodin this study, since it allows theoretical flexibility as well as accounting for subjective consideration of respondents, which considered as an advantage in this method. Even if IPA could provide similar re- sults, it was not a suitable approach to be used, since it requires a theoretically informed frame- work.Furthermore,IPAhasadualfocus.Itfocuses on the unique characteristics of individual partici- pants and the patterning of meaning across par- ticipants. In contrast, TA focuses mainly on the patterning of meaning across participants, which was the goal of this research. In Braun and Clarke's version of TA (2006, 2012), themes are developed from a detailed engagement with the data; they are not imagined or anticipated early on from theoretical concepts but are under- stood as something actively created and built by the researcher.Thistakesplaceattheintersectionofthe data and the researcher's theoretical andconceptual frameworks, disciplinary knowledge, skills and experience (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Themes are the outcomes of the analytical process, rather than the starting point, as they are in coding reliability TA (Terry et al., 2017). Coding can be done by one coder, as it is always considered a subjective process. Accordingly, the ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 225 subjectivity of the researcher is an integral part of the analysis, and consensual coding does not make sense in this approach (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Quality achieved through a deep engagement with the data is a vital concern in reflexive TA. Rather than focusing on coding accuracy and frequency of codes, quality-assurance strategies, such as review of candidate themes, are focused on encouraging reflection, rigour, a systematic and thorough approach, and greater depth of engagement (Braun & Clarke, 2006). 2.1 Data collection Our dataset consisted of 11 Kickstarter campaigns based in Slovenia, from which we interviewed 13 founders. Considering scarce funding opportunities after the global financial crisis, crowdfunding has reached recognisability and has become a popular mean of raising funds, with reward-based crowd- funding as the major channel. Kickstarter is the most frequently used reward- based platform in Slovenia and is renowned as “the most serious” in the crowdfunding commu- nity. Statistical data show that Slovenian-based Kickstartercampaignshaveanaveragesuccessrate of 43%, which surpasses the global average of 37% ( Stepec, 2020). We sample from Kickstarter cam- paigns, because it offers an all-or-nothing model, whichrequiresamorethoroughpreparationofthe campaign (compare to keep-it-all model, where founders receive the pledged money regardless of reachingthetargetamount).Addingotherreward- based crowdfunding platforms, such as projects from the Indiegogo platform, could increase the research's recognition; on the other hand, the dif- ferences betweenthe two platforms and keep-it-all model could produce less accurate and incompa- rable results. TA works with most types of qualitative data, includinginterviewdata(Braun&Clarke,2012).The number of interviews may vary depending on the project's size and scope, because TA focuses on identifyingpatternsacrossdata.AccordingtoBraun and Clarke (2013), the number of interviews could not be set arbitrary for each research; however, a smallerreflexiveTAprojectshouldincludebetween 6 and 10 interviews, medium TA project between 10 and 20 data items. Asemi-structuredin-depthinterviewformatwas used to collect experiential data, focusing on the founders and their understanding of strategic ele- ments. The population was conceptualised around the following parameters: Kickstarter campaigns based in Slovenia (to locate the study within the local socio-cultural context) with at least one backer, one comment, and one update, and that had raised at least 10% of its target goal. The pa- rameters guarantee that the chosen teams had prepared their campaign accurately (according to the default by Kickstarter). From the 44 campaigns that were on Kickstarter between 1 January 2016 and 31 March 2017, 1 13 did not meet the criteria. From all remaining, 11 founders replied to our invitation and voluntarily participated in the data collectionprocess.Amongthose,9campaignswere successful and reached the target goal, while two campaigns were not successful. The interviewed founders were in average male, 8 of them have not had prior experience of crowdfunding, while 5 of them were experienced crowdfunding entrepre- neurs (for more details, see Appendix, Table A1). The interviews lasted between 40 minutes and 80 minutes, with an average length of 60 minutes. Theinterviewswereaudio-recordedwithinformed consent. We structured the interviews according to a framework composed of four general topics: introductory questions, pre-campaign activities, activities during the campaign, and strategies. In the end, participants had the opportunity to ask anyadditionalquestionsorprovidesupplementary information. All interviews were transcribed verbatimandintervieweesweregivenpseudonyms to assure their anonymity. Although reflexive TA is theoretically flexible and can be carried out in different ways, it requires the researcher to make a series of choices and a theo- reticallyinformedframework(Braun&Clarke,2012; Clarke et al., 2015). We approached the TA from a critical realist framework, assuming that meaning and experience are articulated through language thatismoreorlessanaccurateandtruthfulindexof reality. We conducted data-driven inductive research, presuming that the starting point of the analysis was within the data, rather than in existing concepts or theories (Braun et al., 2019). We used a flexible coding system, which allowed for open engagement with the data. The analysis involved reflexive practices, which required a constant reflection on our position concerning our subjective understanding and our different ways of making sense of the accounts of others. This approach 1 The total number of crowdfunding campaigns based in Slovenia between 1 January 2016 and 31 March 2017, when data collection took place, was 100 (44 on Kickstarter, 32 on Indiegogo, and 24 Adrifud). 226 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 enabled us to identify themes at the semantic level (Braun & Clarke, 2006). 2.2 Data analysis Interviews were analysed using the six-phase re- flexive TA procedure: familiarisation with the data, generating codes, constructing themes, reviewing potential themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report (Braun & Clarke, 2012). The initial phase, familiarisation with the data, began during the collection of the data. The process involved carefully reading and re-reading the interview transcripts and writing notes. The second phase comprised code generation. If familiarisation was a process of making casual observational notes, codingwasasystematic andthoroughidentification of relevant information within each data item (interview) and tagging them with a few words or a pithy phrase to capture the conceptual meaning behind (Clarke & Braun, 2017). Initial coding iden- tified interesting features of the data. Codes either stored information about the Kickstarter campaigns or were more analytical, representing a link be- tween the data and the strategic elements and tac- tics used. In the interview transcripts, various sentences,phrases,orclauseswereassignedacode. To minimise subjectivity and to maintain the orig- inal meaning, codes largely mirrored the partici- pants' original words. Combining and collapsing codes together into bigger or more meaningful patterns (i.e. themes) to identify features of simi- larity and relationshipwas the main objective of the third phase e constructing themes. Codes were organised into potential themes using QSR NVivo. Similar codes were grouped into broader themes, and some codes were classified under several themes.Atafewpoints throughouttheanalysis,the codes were reorganised to reflect the themes pre- sent in the data better. At this stage, we created provisional or candidate themes. When all in- terviews were coded and all codes were classified under draft thematic headings, we systematically reviewed the themes to identify coherent patterns. Patterns have to be identified across the entire datasetandnotjustwithinasingleinterview.Inthis phase, some themes were merged, and some new oneswerecreatedtoensurethatthethemesworked well with coded data and research questions. Themes were organised hierarchically into sub- themes and further defined by labels to highlight the issues central to the themes. In this pre-final phaseofthethemedefinition,wemovedawayfrom themes as lists of collated codes towards an inter- pretative orientation. The final themes captured the patterns of meaning, representing the full range of experiences across the data in relation to strategic elements. The final step resulted in the production of the report. 3 Results Following familiarisation with the dataset and coding, 14 initial candidate themes were generated. Upon further revision, four main strategic elements (“themes”) were identified as distinctive, coherent, and relevant to the research questions: Bringing backers to the platform, Applying good practices, Providingproductexperience,andTacticsoffigures.The subtleties and nuances within each theme necessi- tated breaking these four themes into smaller cate- gories and subthemes (Fig. 1). 3.1 Bringing backers to the platform Traditional funding methods are related to a specific group of funders. This cannot be said about the crowdfunding audience, because every funding proposal has a relevant audience of interested people e backers who identify themselves with a given proposal and financially support the idea (Josefy et al., 2017). With the recognisability of Kickstarter, the numbers of launched campaigns and backers have increased. Therefore, amidst the flood of numerous products and campaigns, it is gettinghardertostandoutandgrabtheattentionof backers.Intheinterviews,findingthesebackersand bringingthemtotheplatformappearedtobeoneof the strategic elements that immediately stood out. Most of the founders admitted that it was not viable to be funded without pre-campaign activities and publicity,becausebackersrarelycomeatrandomor through a filter search: When Ifirst went to the platform, I had no clue what I was doing, but I wanted to try and see what would happen. It was a big blunder, because I didn't prepare anything. I thought that Kickstarter was the magic platform where you put the product, and you receive money […] No, it's not like that anymore. You have to work hard before launching the campaign. (CF7) In analysing the interview data, we divided the founders' attempts to capture and bring backers to theplatform into twodistinctsubthemes:Buildinga community with social media and Engaging influ- encers. Most interviewees tried to combine both strategic elements in a single campaign. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 227 3.1.1 Building a community Participants were asked to talk about their rela- tionshipwithsocialmedia.Thisledintervieweesto reflect on the role, presence, and importance of social media platforms. The role of social media was mainly associated with building a community e attracting groups of people who share the same interest and have a sense of belonging to a unit. The community was defined according to personal interests, common causes, problems, or social challenges: We were basically building some kind of community on Facebook, through anything related to the vinyl industry, records; from musicians to different turnta- bles and design. We somehow brought the group we were targeting together to our FB page. (CF5) Creating a pool of sympathisers who would then move over to Kickstarter and back the campaign once it was launched was the primary approach used by founders. In doing so, they adopted a va- riety of different channels, from Facebook to Insta- gram, YouTube, and other specialised forums. Knowing the product and understanding the nature ofpotentialbackershelpedthemtochoosetheright platform. Josefy et al. (2017) proved that the nature and characteristics of the community have an impact on crowdfunding success. Therefore, being omnipresent will not have a significant impact; it is better to bedecisive andfindthe right platform that matches the profiles of potential backers. Similarly, one of the founders explained: Our primary weapon, in terms of social networks, has always been YouTube. We also have Facebook, Twitter, but there's not much going on for us. On YouTube, things were different; we had more sub- scribers than elsewhere, about 8,000 at the beginning. The tactic was to post dev blog videos and increase popularity so that they would start talking about us. Before the YouTube channel, we had a bunch of friends on Steam. From those people a network of supporters evolved, converging into the Reddit com- munity and later YouTube. […] The other is a forum: supporters are isolated, separated on social networks; they are not interacting with each other. Once they came to the forum, they started talking and making their creations. And that's when they become real supporters, the ones who spread the project around and attract new followers. (CF6) During the campaign, another community may grow-up through interactions within the crowd- funding platform. Most platforms offer means to foster internal connections, such as discussion fo- rums, web messengers, backer profiles, and backer groupings (Skirnevskiy et al., 2017). In this way, backers who financially support the campaign have the opportunity to comment and ask questions. By replying and writing updates, founders build trust, empathy,andcommitmentamongbackers(DeLuca et al., 2019). The results showed that the use of up- dates and funder involvement in the development oftheprojectcouldhaveastrongerassociation with campaignsuccess(Mastrangeloetal.,2019)thanthe project'sdescription(Xuetal.,2014).Thissecondary community and the potential to develop lasting re- lations with backers is especially crucial for (serial) founders who repeatedly rely on crowdfunding and return to the platform. Fig. 1. Themes and corresponding subthemes. 228 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 3.1.2 Engaging influencers The popularity of bloggers on social media has introduced a new form of marketing: influencer marketing, wherein brands collaborate with influ- encers to promote their products. Bloggers have become opinion leaders, and their posts impact customers'decisions. Therefore, they are referred to as influencers. YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook oftenpresentplatformsforinfluencerstosharetheir opinions on tested products (Ladhari et al., 2020). Funders tend to contribute to projects that they believe in and identify with (Schwienbacher & Larralde,2012).Insearchofaneffectivewaytobring backers to Kickstarter, the founders recognised the potential role of influencers and started utilising them. Through the virtual word of mouth of influ- encermarketing,backersaremorelikelytoperceive and positively react to the product being presented. A good campaign can boost the reputation of a venture project and signal quality through opinion leaders' and project ambassadors' involvement (De Luca et al., 2019). The underpinning logic is that engaging famous people or trendsetters may attract backers: We focused on worldwide famous people from Lego world who had blogs, YouTube channels, were known inthecommunityandhadfollowers.Wesentthemthe prototypes and asked them for their opinions. They have extensive networks; just one of them has over 100,000 followers. When he published a review, he exposed us, and people who otherwise wouldn'thave foundusdid.Hepostedwhenweasked,justbeforethe Kickstarter release. […] When analysing where most of our supporters came from, it was from two influ- encers. (CF1) Inthiscase,backersdidnotcometothecampaign directly via social media, where the founders were collecting interested members of the public, but were guided to the platform by influencers. An influencer can be an individual with thousands or millions of followers or a specialised agency with a trusted reputation and countless crowdfunding en- thusiasts and interested public in their address book. One founder examined their experience: After we signed the contract, the Business Insider publishedourproject.Thefirstdayweraised$25,000, and then it just exploded and went viral. Everyone started posting; millions of people saw our video. […] We'd been building the community for six months without enough visibility and effect. The fact that Insider exposed us had such an impact. Someone with influence must expose you. Otherwise, you cannot succeed; that's it. Without them, our campaign wouldn't have been successful, because even if we had deeply engaged with one video, we could never have reached 40 million views, 360 thousand shares. (CF8) 3.2 Applying good practices Starting a new venture is always challenging, especially for young entrepreneurs who lack prior professional experience (Mollick, 2014). A ven- ture's lack of a track record results in liability of newness (Nagy & Lohrke, 2010), which makes it challenging to persuade providers of resources (e.g. customers, investors) to conduct business with a firm. In order to approach key resource providers,foundersoftenlearnfromanalogiesand practices applied by peers. Entrepreneurs often benefit from observing others' successful and unsuccessful initiatives and developingintuitionsaboutwhattypesofbehaviour contribute most to project success. Through the transfer of experience in the form of procedures or similar routines, founders benefit their campaigns (Yang & Hahn, 2015): We found on YouTube that campaign that had raised V 1.3 million. They set up the campaign in 14 days, but we worked on it for seven months. They invested all the money, and they knew everything, whether it was good or not and how it worked. We set our campaign relying on this video and all the knowledge they had shared. If I had had all this knowledge, I would have made it all by myself, but I didn't, and therefore I used others' know-how. (CF8) Implementing crowdfunding experiences from expertsandoutstandingcampaigns (good practices) represented a strategic element for the founders. The interviewees noted that imitating campaigns was the primary approach, while asking for advice helped to upgrade initial approaches. 3.2.1 Imitating campaigns Mason and Harrison (2006) exposed that many entrepreneurs recycle their resources after failures to create new ventures. However, entrepreneurs do not recycle only their resources; they reuse compo- nents developed by others (Stritar & Drnovsek, 2016).Whenfacingresourceconstraints,bricolagee recombining existing resources to create new ones e seems to be a legitimate approach to problem- solving (Senyard et al., 2009). Even in environments where resources are not scarce, bricolage still plays an important role (Stritar & Drnovsek, 2016). Some founders took into consideration the whole campaign and built their base on this model; others ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 229 instead made a collage of different campaigns or implemented parts of campaigns that had worked for others. Founders believed that looking at suc- cessful practices as role models would influence attracting backers: We examined similar Kickstarter campaigns and prepared our video and the overall appearance of the campaign based on three others; ZipChip, a similar product to ours, then Oto and Fidget Cube, which was one of the most successful campaigns on Kickstarter. They raised $ 6.5 million. If they had collected so much and we followed their example, something would work. We combined all three campaigns, what we liked in each, and then we made our campaign according to that. […] From ZipChip, we took the dimensions of the product. Some others had opinions, and we incorporated opinions in our presentation. We were composing a collage. Everything we liked and thought was good we pasted together. We couldn't use ZipChip'svideo,becauseitwasrecordedbyphoneand it wasn't professional. From others, we also copied the scene in the workshop to show the development and the production. (CF9) Theobservationwasperceivedasbeingparticularly helpfulnotonlytoidentifycasestofollowbutalsoto spot mistakes to avoid. An intriguing strategy was adopted by one team. Instead of implementing what workedforothers,theytooktheoppositeapproach: Westudiedhowallthecampaignslooked,andtheyall went into that hipster scene. […] We said we couldn't go that way, because it would not have much effect if we were the same as others. We said we had to do something completely different: no bricks, no flowers, no hipster flats. Moreover, we even skipped the intro trailer in the video. (CF5) 3.2.2 Asking experts Relianceonexpertadviceisacommonpracticein decision-making processes. The founder may lack the knowledge to find or analyse the information neededforcriticaldecisionsandmayrelyonexpert opinion (Bhattacharya & Mukherjee, 2013). The subtheme Asking experts focused on the founder's position to search and use expert knowledge and advice in the campaign. Asking an expert is simple and cheaper than doing market research or a test sale. Founders referred to an expert when talking about a person or professional usually known in the crowdfunding community or other fields (e.g. digital marketing, photographers, video di- rectors). Common to all experts was the power to give information or opinion regarding specific crowdfunding steps. Different team members talked about various times during the pre- campaign when they had used such elements. Someneededadvicealreadyinthestageofproduct development, while others needed it only later. Some founders met experts by chance, but in most cases, the process of searching and choosing ex- perts for advice was done carefully: Wehadawrittentextthatwesenttosomeonefamiliar with these things. We described how it should look, the product, the target audience, and what we were looking for. […] We approached N.K. and asked him how he would do it. We also went to Chipollo and P.Z. (CF8) Reaching experts seemed to be more accessible for those with a broader social network and higher numbers of interactions. For some founders, their use of expert knowledge went beyond a strategic element; CF10 connected it with a broader concept of sharing and reciprocity: You have to be aware that in life you are never able to do everything by yourself, and when you reach a friendly level with someone, he or she is more willing to help. I first searched in the circle of close friends, then through people who knew people. Sure, you have to pay many of them. And you also have to return some favour. […] We met with someone who helped many campaigns and told us to test and try a little. The same story was with the text content. We were advised by a woman from a campaign based on wood; she was from the same industry. (CF10) In many instances, entrepreneurs emphasised the specificroleofthecrowdfundingcommunity,where people knew each other and where experts were accessible. Even if they did not know whom to ask, they managed to find someone who could direct them to the right expert: The community in our country is so small that you somehow know people, you know whom you have to ask. Someone will always help or suggest someone to you. (CF5) 3.3 Providing product experience Potential backers, in particular those without strong ties to founders, need to be convinced of the value of the product (Clauss et al., 2019). Of all the identified strategic elements, Providing product experience was the most substantial and complex, manifesting indirectandindirectways.Participants in “studying crowdfunding” identified the product anditspresentationasoneofthecrucialelementsof success: 230 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 An excellent product is a precondition. If you don't have a product with potential or that people want to buy,it makes no sense, it'shardto doanything. I must emphasise that we made a phenomenal product with outstanding functionalities. (CF2) Founders described two types of products, both requiring a distinct approach: an outstanding, unique product that sells itself, and a product that solves a problem or improves performance: You have projects on Kickstarter, just like me, that solve a problem. I show the problem and the solution. Then you have others with an outstanding, top prod- uct, excellence. This is challenging, and everyone wants to have it. (CF7) Founders pitch their product or idea using text, which may be supported by images and videos. To persuade backers to contribute to the campaign, the interviewees exposed two distinctive subthemes providing a tangible product experience: Presenting aproduct'sbenefitsandArousingemotionswiththe video. 3.3.1 Presenting benefits Product features include all the characteristics of the product related to its components and appearance. Features often address common problemsexperiencedandprovideasolutionoran improvement: We always pay attention that our products are so- phisticated, functional and elaborately presented. The combination of this is the winning key. We combined three different methods of making coffee into one machine, plus we added a scale. The uniqueness of the product, the design is unique, functionality and tech- nology. We incorporated three devices in one, plus technology and the application. Moreover, everything was measurable. (CF2) In a competitive market, to maximise the value of the product, founders must present a benefit or set of benefits for the end-user beyond the product features. Benefits are the results that a consumer will experience by using a product or a service (Wenben Lai, 1995). In other words, these benefits are the reason why the potential of the product is realised. From this perspective, highlighting the benefits of certain features represents a strategy to shift part of the emphasis on the experience of the product or service: What our product has we call features: power, speed, accuracy, range, and easy battery charging via USB. These are technical qualities. But then you have to present this feature to customers as effectively as possible: through video, through photos and text. If I tell you our product has 13.7 volts, it doesn't mean anything. But if I say that you will now go 30 km/h instead of 20, this is something else. The customer immediately understands that his car will be faster; he may now drive up a steep slope, which he couldn'tdo before. We decided to highlight these. We made a list, and we sorted them by priority, which is difficult because not all benefits are equally important and meaningful to people. (CF1) The value that backers are seeking from the product may be multidimensional: to meet a need for enjoyment, to satisfy novelty, to affirm one's social status, and so on. Some founders tried to present the product by emphasising the perceptual benefits acquired from experiencing the product as a whole. We bet on the whole experience because that'swhat matters. It's hard to sell the turntable that is levi- tating, even if it has exceptional features and is levitating. Therefore, we presented the uplifting experience of listening to music. And this made the difference. (CF5) 3.3.2 Arousing emotions with the video Previous findings on video use in reward-based crowdfunding campaigns have been ambiguous. Lagazio and Querci (2018) confirmed that videos negatively affected potential backers' attitudes to- wards investing, because they preferred detailed textual descriptions. However, this finding does not disprove that a combination of images, animation, and audio may generate a higher level of narrative comprehension (Dikaputra et al., 2019). Our data showedthatthevideopresentationisstilloneofthe mostchallenginganddemandingstrategicelements necessary to persuade backers: I think that you need to convince backers with the video, because 80% of people will watch only this. In the video, we didn't explain the functionality and benefits, as in the text; we wanted to include feelings. (CF2) Emotions represent intense and complex psy- chological states that involve a subjective experi- ence, physiological response, and behaviour. Emotionsmayinfluencefunders'attitudestowards a project and, in turn, influence their decision to fund it (Wuillaume et al., 2019). It has been sug- gested that entrepreneurial emotions expressed through narratives participate in the formation of funders' opinions of the entrepreneurial proj- ect (Jennings et al., 2015). Not surprisingly, interviewees mentioned emotions many times, ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 231 notably in the context of the video presentation of the product. Founders tried to include in the videos everything that, in their opinion, would arouse emotions e from impressive new items to solutions the product offers. They frequently expressed how lifestyle and situations were con- nected to positive feelings: We wanted to present that the product is healthy and natural. We targeted emotions because people respond to it. I read about it. We tried to include emotional things; we put a couple and a mom with a baby in the video. (CF11) Therearelotsofdumbvideoswhich,aftertwominutes of watching, don't say anything or you even don't watch them entirely. We said let's do something purely action with riding, jumps, having a good time with friends, and drinking beer at the end. We tried to present the product, which is the best winter alterna- tive to cycling, and the whole lifestyle of the com- munity. (CF3) According to Davis et al. (2017), entrepreneurs' funding pitches need to evoke positive emotional reactions in potential funders, therefore founders put effort into the video not only to highlight the product but also to present the team and thus emphasise the credibility and passion of the founders: The video has a trailer at the beginning, and then a part in which Philip and I explain the game. Maybe it wasn't ideal. As I've seen, the most successful cam- paigns have a presentation of the product, just like us, but then the video also shows the team. So, backers can feel all our passion. (CF4) 3.4 Tactics of figures Frydrych et al. (2014) discovered that lower funding targets and shorter campaign durations signalled greater legitimacy, as the campaigns set modest and achievable expectations. The reward-basedplatformKickstarter, likemany others, requires users to set two numerical param- eters for their project: the campaign duration (in days) and the amount of money requested (in US dollars). When including these two parameters as subthemes, the strategic elements involved sur- prisedus.Wedidnotexpectintervieweestoidentify these as significant factors: We intensely followed Kickstarter the year before our campaign. We kept track of all statistics and expla- nation of statistics, from when to go to Kickstarter (which month, what day, what time) to when tofinish the campaign (on Sunday 8 AM or Wednesday 8 PM GMT/UTC-4). In theory, we elaborated everything, but in practice, we failed to follow all the instructions and plans, because then we would have had to launch in July and August, but we didn't want to, just as we didn't want to wait for September. How did we decide for 30 days? Supposedly, it is empirically proven that 30 days is the best and we believed it. (CF1) 3.4.1 Campaign length Previous studies have claimed that the length of the funding period doesnot haveasignificant effect on achieving the funding target. Wati and Winarno (2018),forexample,foundthatfinancialsuccesswas not significantly affected by fundraising duration. However, Lagazio and Querci (2018) argued that potential backers might appreciate more extended periods of time to understand the project's specifi- cations. If more time is available, investors can thoroughly evaluate projects' opportunities and risks, overcome information asymmetry, and screen projects effectively. Our data showed that the duration of the campaign was a critical strategic element. Founders talked about the importance of maintaining their activity at a certain level, which could be chal- lenging for small teams and longer campaigns. Some participants referred to the duration of the campaign ambiguously. On the one hand, they argued that it was an arbitrary decision, but on the other hand, they thought hard about the number of days: Everyonerecommended 44days tous. Even in thefirst campaign, we did 44 days, which was a coincidence. Otherwise, the decision on the campaign length was quite spontaneous. We targeted between 30 and 60; 30 was not enough, 60 (which is the maximum) was too much.Maybe we'resorry wedidn'ttakeanother week. Perhaps we could have got more money. Someone told us to take as much [time] as possible, because it couldn't harm. Backers don't care if you do 60 or 30 days, but others said to us that it was also important. Then we chose 44 days. (CF9) In two cases, founders spoke about campaign length, highlighting the importance of the launch time.We did not feel that this warranted creation of afurthersubtheme,butitisimportanttoemphasise the connection between these two elements: We completely chose the wrong time. The reason for the failure of the first campaign was the timing; the campaign was held in the last two or three weeks of the year and the first two weeks of the new year. The 232 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 first two weeks were pretty good, but during the Christmas holidays, we didn't get a single backer. During the holidays, people weren't on Kickstarter. In the second campaign, we changed the time and the season. We were strictly to launch on a Tuesday and ended on a Thursday. (CF9) To be honest, we wanted to catch the summer. Because of procrastination and problems that were occurring, we launched on the worst date. We signed up in August when the failure rate is high, plus one week before the Olympics when no one was following Kickstarter, or they were but less than usual. Maybe this was the reason why we failed. If only we had changed the date, it could have been different. (CF11) 3.4.2 Financial goal Previous research has found the link between the funding goal and success to be significant: the higher the funding goal, the lower the chance that a project will be successfully funded (Koch& Siering, 2015). According to the Kickstarter algorithm, the sooner a project reaches its target goal, the higher Kickstarter ranking and eventual exposure of the project. Most of the participants noted that calcu- lating and manoeuvring the financial goal defined ontheKickstarterwebsitewasthesubjectofdebate. One founder noted: With Kickstarter, you have to set a purely financial goal. You don'tsetafinancial goal based on how much money you need, but based on how much money you can get. Many people wash out because theycalculatethattocompletethewholeproject,they need 200,000, and set a target at 200,000. Based on a calculation of how much we could collect, we set a funding request. If we had decided based on how muchmoneyweneeded,thenumberwouldhavebeen higher and the chance of achieving it smaller. In any case, it is harder to achieve higher targets, because youmustinvestalotinapressrelease,socialmedia, marketing. (CF1) The founders struggled to establish and calculate the financial goal. Some of them consumed a lot of the pre-campaign time on this issue, since they perceived it as an essential strategic element. This finding is in line with Chen et al. (2019), who asserted that the funding goal affects backers' behaviour via an all-or-nothing mechanism. One interviewee explained: SomeofourYouTubevideoshad200,000views. These were impressive numbers. We predicted that we could get $ 80,000 and set the goal for this amount. If we got that amount, it would be enough money to do somethingandruntheproject.Wedidn'twanttoraise too much. It was too risky. It was better to get at least somethingratherthannothing.Thiswasthefirststage in which we estimated our range. […] We were looking at many things and decided that we could certainly get $ 80,000, more likely $ 150,000. In the end, we raised $ 300,000, which was the amount we had estimated based on similar campaigns. (CF6) 4 Discussion Crowdfunding is an alternative financing model that has emerged as an additional source of entrepreneurial financing to fill the gap between professional capital providers and family and friends (Skirnevskiy et al., 2017). The considerable growth of crowdfunding over the last several years has not only encouraged entrepreneurs to adopt different forms and operating models (Mollick, 2014)butalsoincreasedscholars'curiosity.Evenso, many critical aspects of resource acquisition remain misunderstood. To start a crowdfunding campaign, founders must apply to the platform with detailed information about the project (Belle- flamme et al., 2014; Bruton et al., 2015)andthe background. Effectively presenting this informa- tion is assumed to be a crucial component of suc- cess (Mollick, 2014). However, analysing only the information available on the platform without pri- mary data gained from project founders could produceweakinsightsandmisinterpretationofthe phenomena (Solesvik, 2016). The goal of this study was to explore the strategic elements of reward-based crowdfunding, identi- fying a set of elements that founders use in their campaign to influence backers' decisions positively. We did not rely on the online (secondary) data about campaign strategies available due to the limitationse such as that many platforms provide a strict template which may force founders to adjust the elements and strategies that they are to use. We wanted to hear the story behind the scenes and assess them against the existing knowledge on crowdfunding. Newventuresoftenactsuccessfullyinidentifying opportunities but have problems in designing competitive advantages. Crowdfunding seems to integrate both. However, founders need to strate- gically operate to convince backers to be success- fully funded. Our exploration of the strategic elements e actions taken by founders to attract backers who will financially support the campaign used in reward-based crowdfunding with a reflex- ive TA approach identify four relevant elements. The strategic element Bringing backers to the ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 233 platform encompasses the founders' direct mar- keting efforts to inform potential backers. We divided this theme into two subthemes: Building a communityandEngaginginfluencers.Accordingto Borstetal.(2018) , founders often broadcast their project on various social media. Our data revealed that founders indeed used multiple social media platforms when building a community. Neverthe- less, the founders predominantly identified and targeted the one that they perceived as most crucial. In this context, some previous studies have found more selective marketing strategies and confirmed that simultaneously feeding multiple social media platforms with much similar content in the spirit of “more is always better” seems mis- directed (Clauss et al., 2019). To attract backers, founders also communicated with their backers with the help of influencers. Utilising influencer marketing and engaging a trusted and admired person or entity is more likely to be perceived as positive compared to a sponsored post from a company (Sokolova & Kefi,2020 ). A diversity of acquired experiences by entrepre- neurshasavitalroleinopportunityrecognitionand firm innovation (Prebil& Drnovsek, 2017). Whether the founders imitated successful campaigns or applied experts' advice, they all used the strategic element Applying good practices. This view sup- plements Kaartemo's (2017) conclusions that build- ing a campaign by relying on empirical data, and the experiences of others can help in the design of rewarding strategies. Our results support Thürridl and Kamleitner's (2016) conviction that crowdfund- ing campaigns are widely designed based on intui- tion (what founders like from others). Many of the founders interviewed also talked about acquiring knowledge from experts (mainly from the crowd- funding community), which demonstrated how a vast social network could facilitate early-stage con- tact with experts (Kraus et al., 2016). The exhaustive and in-depth narration about the product itself resulted in a strategic element called Providing product experience and two subthemes: PresentingbenefitsandArousingemotionswiththe video. Founders shared Sagerman and colleagues' (2019) conviction that the most crucial aspects of success are the product and its presentation. Fun- ders' perceptions of the product characteristics affect their decision to back a project (Davis et al., 2017). According to Wuillaume et al. (2019), when visiting a reward-based platform, backers are look- ing preferably for emotions they can identify with. The fourth theme, Tactics of figures and its sub- themes,CampaignlengthandFinancialgoal(which are default requests of the Kickstarter platform), came as a bit unexpected. Previous findings on this topic seem inconsistent. In recent research, Dika- putra et al. (2019) revealed that the duration of the campaign, whether extended or not, had no signif- icant effect on the campaign's success. By contrast, Lagazio and Querci (2018) found that campaigns that lasted over 30 days were more likely to achieve their goals. The idea of choosing the length of the campaignprovidedfounderswithafeelingofsafety and helped them to deal with the unknown. Larger projects, especially those over US$ 100,000, are perceived as being unreasonable. Therefore, setting challenging but achievable goals is significant (Dikaputra et al., 2019). This evidence is in line with ourfindingthatthefounderstriedtosetappropriate financial goals to outsmart the Kickstarter formula and to make the most of the crowdfunding oppor- tunity. In fact, the Kickstarter support page recom- mends setting a campaign at 30 days or less (Kickstarter Support, 2020), but most of our inter- viewee did not take it for granted. The results of our deep engagement with the data captured from founders are primarily consistent with the findings reported by several prior studies drawingfromthereward-basedcrowdfundingdata. For example, Dai and Zhang (2019) extended prior research on consumer behaviour and showed that backers consider project quality and the requested funds. Yes, the motive in that study was mainly prosocial.Nevertheless,thestudybyDaiandZhang (2019)indicatesthatFinancialgoal,asemergedfrom our study matter. According to Wuillaume et al. (2019), perceived emotions shape the funders’ atti- tude towards supporting a project, which is congruent with the arousing emotions with the video strategic element that we identified in our research. The strategic element building a commu- nityhasbeenidentifiedalreadybydifferentscholars (Giudici et al., 2018; Josefy et al., 2017) who showed that funders who build a community and are con- nected in some way to a particular project are more inclined to support it financially. From this perspective, the primary data yielded similar con- clusions as studies based on the secondary data availableonacrowdfundingplatform;therefore,the secondarydatareflectwhatishappeningbehindthe scenes to a certain extent. However, our research identified some strategic elements that have not beencapturedintheresearchormadevisibleonthe project web page. The strategic element Applying good practices and its subthemes notably stood out. Upon first glance, it seems that using examples and bricolage represents just a first step in the pre- campaign activity; however, further exploration shows a different picture. Abundant scholarly and 234 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 practitioner evidence suggests that start-up ven- tures are innovative. This is a legitimate finding when evaluating the novelty of its products and services. In terms of strategic elements to persuade backers, well-tested approaches from the past, such as successful campaign pitches, seem the safest guide to follow. All of the interviewed founders chose some examples to follow. The campaigns includedintheanalysisareapatchworkofdifferent crowdfunding-related techniques that had worked inthepast. Theimportance ofthisstrategic element in achieving success has previously not been taken into consideration, nor has the importance of engaging influencers. Influencer marketing is becoming an omnipresent phenomenon, even in crowdfunding. The impact and implications of this element could be a topic of future interest. About the video presentation, some contradictory finding has emerged. Previous research results have demonstrated that videos do not systematically lead to enhanced persuasion of potential crowdfunders (Lagazio & Querci, 2018). Our results, however, showed that founders were unified in terms of the video presentation, perceiving it as a crucial element, especially for arousing backers' emotions. While we have shown the critical role and distinctiveness of each theme and subtheme, it is also evident that the identified strategic elements cannot be isolated. All four themes and their sub- themes are intricately related to and complement each other. For instance, setting a financial goal is connected to the community that one can build. Furthermore, in building a community, founders also incorporate the presentation of features and benefits in the pitch on the platform. Our data confirmed that strategic elements of backers' persuasion in reward-based crowdfunding are a bunch of actions taken by founders in the pre- campaign and early campaign period. To address backers and their expectation, founders used different approaches, some of them more thorough and others less. Combining them, it seems that this process is much more intuitional than strategic. 4.1 Implications and limitations This paper contributes to enriching reward-based crowdfunding knowledge in several ways. First, we have addressed Kraus and colleagues' (2016) appeal for a qualitative exploration of the unresearched as- pects of crowdfunding in the process, which are related mainly to the role of entrepreneurial in- dividuals. Second, the campaign data presented on the crowdfunding platforms' web pages do not offer anin-depthview.Thisstudyexaminedthefounders' perspectivesanduseofstrategicelementsassociated with attracting backers, and eventually financial success. Finally, we introduced a reflexive TA approach to the field of entrepreneurship, which enabled us to explore the phenomenon based on primarydataprovidedbythefoundersinawaythat wasnottheoreticallydriven.Thestudyhasinspiring implications for practitioners, since the results can guidepractitionerswithusefultipsandadvice.Itcan helpprojectcreatorsidentifywhatstrategicelements other successful and unsuccessful founders have used and determine what is most important in crowdfundingcampaigns.Practitionerscancompare those funding approaches with their own thoughts and different pitches on Kickstarter. Moreover, new ventureteamsandfuturestart-ups canlearn howto preparetheirprojectsinwaysthatwillbeststimulate backers'interestandencouragethem tosupportthe idea, since it is evident that data available on plat- formsdonotrevealthewholepicture.Thestudyalso reveals a new profile of entrepreneurs e crowd- fundingproject'sfounders,whichcouldbeofinterest forfutureanalysisofthephenomena. As with anyresearch,there are several limitations to the study. First, the collected data were based on voluntaryparticipation.Sincethestudyinvolvedin- depth interviews, it might have attracted founders who were more willing to discuss their experiences of crowdfunding. Researchers may consider a more anonymous approach allowing less extroverted founders to tell their story. Another limitation is related to the retrospective nature of the research. The interview narration may have potentially been affected by the campaign results. The inclusion of founders who were in the early stage of their campaign (before the launch) or during the campaign could have generated slightly different results. Therefore, successive studies may consider real-time reports of events or even in-person observation. The study presented results using data collected from one reward-based crowdfunding platform, Kickstarter. Expanding the scope of the research to other forms of crowdfunding may emphasize other insights. Nevertheless, we believe that relying on the data collected from campaigns published on a single platform does not represent a substantial concern. However, future research op- portunities may be associated with collecting the data from different platforms, and examining their potential heterogeneity. The research's final output couldbeofinteresttodifferentstakeholders,evenif it is not appropriate to generalise the results and proclaim the four strategic elements to be concrete. Generalisation, however, was never the aim of the research. Data were analysed through a critical ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 235 realist framework using a reflexive TA approach. Adopting a different method rooted in other theo- retical propositions could result in different emer- gent themes and conclusions. In addition to the limitations and future research avenues discussed above, it seems necessary to develop a deeper understanding of some unre- searched strategic elements. Based on our findings, the strategic element of Engaging influencers needs further engagement. In recent years, influencers have been shaping the social media and are tightly connected with crowdfunding community. As a starting point, the papers by Sokolova and Kefi (2020)andLadharietal.(2020)mayelucidatecritical influencer marketing events. This strategic element is undoubtedly connected also with building a community, as identified by our research. Another strategic element that allows avenues for future research is applying good practices. Scholars are familiar with the idea of recycling of resources (Stritar & Drnovsek, 2016). It will be interesting to understand whether and under what conditions crowdfunding entrepreneurs decide to use it. To advance our knowledge of backers' persuasion, we especially encourage future research to shed light on the process of persuasion from the backers' perceptions of these strategic elements. 5 Conclusion Previous research has indicated that crowdfund- ing success is associated with human capital, social capital, language and rhetoric, product attributes, and pro-social orientation. Although crowdfunding has attracted considerable research interest in recent years, it has not been systematically and thoroughlyexplored.Findingshavefrequentlybeen inconsistent, as the contexts of the research have diverged considerably. This paper explored the strategic elements of crowdfunding e founders' decisions and actions taken in successful and un- successful reward-based campaigns that they believe will attract backers and consequently contribute to an effective campaign. More specif- ically, the results showed that founders adopted four different strategic elements: Bringing backers to the platform, Applying good practices, Providing product experience, and Tactics of figures. These findings are an outcome of a comprehensive approach and deep engagement with primary data collected through 11 in-depth interviews with 13 founders. Some of the identified themes and sub- themes are consistent with the existing literature and theories, whereas others seem emergent. Exploring these strategic elements gave us insight into the campaign creators'mindandopensupnew opportunities for immersion in the phenomena. Conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest. References Ahsan, M., Cornelis, E. F. I., & Baker, A. (2018). Understanding backers' interactions with crowdfunding campaigns: Co-in- novators or consumers? Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship,20(2),252e272.https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME- 12-2016-0053 Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Webb, J. W., & Short, J. C. (2017). Persuasion incrowdfunding: Anelaboration likelihoodmodel of crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(6), 707e725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.09.002 Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585e609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent. 2013.07.003 Bhattacharya, S., & Mukherjee, A. (2013). Strategic information revelation when experts compete to influence. The RAND Journal of Economics, 44(3), 522e544. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/43186430 Bi, S., Liu, Z., & Usman, K. (2017). The influence of online infor- mationoninvestingdecisionsofreward-basedcrowdfunding. Journal of Business Research, 71,10e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2016.10.001 Borst, I., Moser, C., & Ferguson, J. (2018). From friendfunding to crowdfunding: Relevance of relationships, social media, and platform activities to crowdfunding performance. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1396e1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444817694599 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psy- chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77e101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun,V.,&Clarke,V.(2012).Thematicanalysis.InH.Cooper,P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf,& K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Researchdesigns:Quantitative,qualitative,neuropsychological,and biological (pp. 57 -71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage Publications Ltd. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 1e9. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis.In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in healthsocial sciences(pp.843e860).Springer.https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103 Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: Micro- finance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations. Entre- preneurship: Theory and Practice, 39(1), 9e26. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/etap.12143 Buttice, V., Colombo, M. G., & Wright, M. (2017). Serial crowd- funding, social capital, and project success. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(2), 183e207. https://doi.org/10.1111/ etap.12271 Calic, G., & Mosakowski, E. (2016). Kicking off social entrepre- neurship: How a sustainability orientation influences crowd- funding success. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 738e767. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12201 Chen,M.,Liu,Z.,&Ma,C.(2019).Earlybirdorversioning:Which pricing strategy is better for creators in reward-based crowdfunding? Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Logistics, 32(3), 769e792. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-12-2018-0529 236 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 Cholakova,M.,&Clarysse,B.(2015).Doesthepossibilitytomake equity investments in crowdfunding projects crowd out reward-based investments? Entrepreneurship: Theory and Prac- tice, 39(1), 145e172. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12139 Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. The Journal of Positive Psy- chology, 12(3), 297e298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016. 1262613 Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis. In J.Smith(Ed.),Qualitativepsychology:Apracticalguidetoresearch methods (3 rd ed., pp. 222e248). Sage Publications Ltd. Clauss, T., Breitenecker, R. J., Kraus, S., Brem, A., & Richter, C. (2018). Directing the wisdom of the crowd: The importance of social interaction among founders and the crowd during crowdfunding campaigns. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(8), 731e751. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599. 2018.1396660 Clauss, T., Niemand, T., Kraus, S., Schnetzer, P., & Brem, A. (2019).Increasingcrowdfundingsuccessthroughsocialmedia: The importance of reach and utilisation in reward-based crowdfunding. International Journal of Innovation Management, 1e30. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919620500267 Colombo, M. G., Franzoni, C., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). In- ternalsocialcapitalandtheattractionofearlycontributionsin crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 39(1), 75e100. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12118 Cooney, T. M. (2005). Editorial: What is an entrepreneurial team? International Small Business Journal, 23(3), 226e235. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0266242605052131 Cordova,A.,Dolci,J., &Gianfrate,G.(2015).Thedeterminantsof crowdfunding success: Evidence from technology projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 115e124. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.872 Crowdfunding - Statista Market Forecast. (2020). Statista market Forecast. Retrieved December 10, 2019, from STATISTA web- site https://www.statista.com/ Cumming, D. J., Leboeuf, G., & Schwienbacher, A. (2019). Crowdfunding models: Keep-It-All vs. All-Or-Nothing. Financial Management https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12262 Dai, H., & Zhang, D. J. (2019). Prosocial goal pursuit in crowd- funding: Evidence from Kickstarter. Journal of Mar- keting Research, 56(2), 498e517. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022243718821697 Davis,B.C.,Hmieleski,K.M.,Webb,J.W.,&Coombs,J.E.(2017). Funders' positive affective reactions to entrepreneurs' crowd- funding pitches: The influence of perceived product creativity and entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 90e106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.006 De Luca, V. V., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2019). Crowd- funding: A systemic framework of benefits. International Jour- nal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 25(6), 1321e1339. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2018-0755 DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Chandler, G. N. (2015). Making sense of entrepreneurial exit strategies: A typology and test. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(2), 255e272. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.007 Dikaputra, R., Sulung, L. A. K., & Kot, S. (2019). Analysis of suc- cess factors of reward-based crowdfunding campaigns using multi-theory approach in ASEAN-5 countries. Social Sciences, 8(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8100293 Frydrych,D., Bock,A. J., Kinder, T.,& Koeck,B. (2014).Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding. Venture Capital, 16(3), 247e269. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13691066.2014.916512 Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2006). New venture growth: A review and extension. Journal of Manage- ment, 32(6), 926e950. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206306293860 Giudici, G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2018). Reward- based crowdfunding of entrepreneurial projects: The effect of local altruism and localised social capital on proponents' success. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 307e324. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9830-x Jennings, J. E., Edwards, T., Devereaux Jennings, P., & Delbridge, R. (2015). Emotional arousal and entrepreneurial outcomes: Combining qualitative methods to elaborate the- ory. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 113e130. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.06.005 Josefy,M.,Dean,T.J.,Albert,L.S.,&Fitza,M.A.(2017).Therole of community in crowdfunding success: Evidence on cultural attributes in funding campaigns to “Save the Local Theater”. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(2), 161e182. https:// doi.org/10.1111/etap.12263 Kaartemo, V. (2017). The elements of a successful crowdfunding campaign: A systematic literature of crowdfunding perfor- mance. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 15(3), 291e318. Kickstarter Support. (2020). How can we help you?. Retrieved August 7, 2020, from https://help.kickstarter.com/hc/en-us Kim, P. H., Buffart, M., & Croidieu, G. (2016). TMI: Signaling credible claims in crowdfunding campaign narratives. Group & Organization Management, 41(6), 717e750. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1059601116651181 Koch, J.-A., & Siering, M. (2015). Crowdfunding success factors: The characteristics of successfully funded projects on crowd- funding platforms. Proceedings of the twenty-third European conference on information systems (ECIS) (May 2015), 1e15. https://doi.org/10.18151/7217393 Kraus, S., Richter, C., Brem, A., Cheng, C.-F., & Chang, M.-L. (2016). Strategies for reward-based crowdfunding campaigns. Journal of Innovation& Knowledge, 1(1), 13e23. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jik.2016.01.010 Kuratko, D. F. (2017). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice (10th ed.). Cengage Learning. Ladhari,R., Massa,E., &Skandrani, H.(2020).YouTubevloggers' popularity and influence: The roles of homophily, emotional attachment, and expertise. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, Article 102027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser. 2019.102027 Lagazio,C.,&Querci,F.(2018).Exploringthemulti-sidednatureof crowdfundingcampaignsuccess.JournalofBusinessResearch,90, 318e324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.031 Lu, L. I. (2018). Do displayed passion and preparedness bring funding for crowdfunding projects? Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), Article 17792. https://doi.org/10.5465/ AMBPP.2018.213 Ma, Y., & Liu, D. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on crowdfunding and FinTech. Financial innovation, 3(1), 3e6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-017-0058-9 Mason, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2006). After the exit: Acquisi- tions, entrepreneurial recycling and regional economic development. Regional Studies, 40(1), 55e73. Mastrangelo, L., Cruz-Ros, S., & Miquel-Romero, M. J. (2019). Crowdfunding success: The role of co-creation, feedback, and corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Entre- preneurial Behaviour& Research, 26(3),397e399.https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJEBR-06-2019-0391 Meoli, A., Munari, F., & Bort, J. (2017). The patent paradox in crowdfunding: An empirical analysis of kickstarter data. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), Article 13905. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.13905abstract Mollick,E.(2014).Thedynamicsofcrowdfunding:Anexploratory study.JournalofBusinessVenturing,29(1),1e16.https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.06.005 Moy, N., Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2018). How much is too much? The effects of information quantity on crowdfunding performance. PLoS One, 13(3), 40e41. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0192012 Nagy,B., &Lohrke,F.(2010).Onlythegooddie young?A review of liability of newness and related new venture mortality research. In H. Landstr€ om, & F. T. Lohrke (Eds.), Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research (pp. 185e204). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849806947.00019 Parhankangas, A., & Renko, M. (2017). Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among social and commercial entre- preneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(2), 215e236. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.11.001 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 237 Pollack, J. M., Maula, M., Allison, T. H., Renko, M., & Günther, C. C. (2021). Making a contribution to entrepre- neurship research by studying crowd-funded entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 45(2), 247e262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719888640 Polzin, F., Toxopeus, H., & Stam, E. (2018). The wisdom of the crowd in funding: Information heterogeneity and social net- works of crowdfunders. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 251e273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9829-3 Prebil, M., & Drnovsek, M. (2017). Exploring the interplay of an entrepreneur's thinking, knowledge, and firm-level innova- tion. Economic and Business Review, 19(1), 73e96. https:// doi.org/10.15458/85451.37 Sauermann, H., Franzoni, C., & Shafi, K. (2019). Crowdfunding scientific research: Descriptive insights and correlates of funding success. PLoS One, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0208384 Schwienbacher, A., & Larralde, B. (2012). Alternative types of entrepreneurial ventures. In D. Cumming (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of entrepreneurial finance (pp. 269e391). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780195391244.013.0013 Senyard, J., Baker, T., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Entrepreneurial bricolage: Towards systematic empirical testing. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29(5), 1e14. Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., McKenny, A. F., Allison, T. H., & Ireland, R. D. (2017). Research on crowdfunding: Reviewing the (very recent) past and celebrating the present. Entrepre- neurship: Theory and Practice, 41(2), 149e160. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/etap.12270 Skirnevskiy, V., Bendig, D., & Brettel, M. (2017). The influence of internal social capital on serial creators' success in crowd- funding. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(2), 209e236. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12272 Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jret- conser.2019.01.011 Solesvik, M. (2016). Crowdfunding and entrepreneurial finance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(1), 175e177. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-09- 2015-0206 Stepec, M. (2020). Kickstarter odpira vrata slovenskim podjetjem. https://www.dostop.si/kickstarter-odpira-vrata-slovenskim- podjetjem/ Stritar, R., & Drnovsek, M. (2016). What entrepreneurs discover when creating opportunities? Insights from skype and You- Tube ventures. The International Entrepreneurship and Manage- ment Journal, 12(3), 659e679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365- 015-0362-7 Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis.In C. Willig, & W. Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 17e36). SAGE Publi- cations Ltd. Tirdatov,I.(2014).Web-basedcrowdfunding:Rhetoricofsuccess. Technical Communication, 61(1), 3e24. Wati, C. R., & Winarno, A. (2018). The performance of crowd- funding model as an alternative funding source for micro, small,and medium-scalebusinessesinvariouscountries. KnE Social Sciences, 3(3), 16e33. Wenben Lai, A. (1995). Consumer values, product benefits and customer value: A consumption behavior approach. Advances in Consumer Research, 22(1), 381e388. Wuillaume, A., Jacquemin, A., & Janssen, F. (2019). The right word for the right crowd: An attempt to recognise the influ- ence of emotions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(2), 243e258. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJEBR-10-2017-0412 Xu, A., Fu, W.-T., Bailey, B. P., Yang, X., Rao, H., & Huang, S.-W. (2014). Show me the money! an analysis of project updates duringcrowdfundingcampaigns. Conference onHumanFactors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 591e600. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2556288.2557045 Yang, L., & Hahn, J. (2015). Learning from prior experience: An empirical study of serial entrepreneurs in IT-enabled crowd- funding. 2015 International Conference on Information Systems: Exploring the Information Frontier, ICIS 2015,1e40. Fort Worth, Texas, USA. Zheng, H., Hung, J. L., Qi, Z., & Xu, B. (2016). The role of trust managementinreward-basedcrowdfunding.OnlineInformation Review,40(1),97e118.https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2015-0099 Zheng, H., Li, D., Wu, J., & Xu, Y. (2014). The role of multidi- mensional social capital in crowdfunding: A comparative study in China and US. Information and Management, 51(4), 488e496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.003 238 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 Appendix Table A1. The overview of respondents. Pseudonym Gender Year Category Length (in days) Founder history Money pledged (US$) Goal (US$) No. of backers CF1 M 2016 Technology (gadgets) 30 1st $55,165 $50,000 318 CF2 F 2016 Design (product design) 60 2nd (1st also successful) $501,612 $50,000 2389 CF3 M, M 2016 Design (product design) 45 1st $14,154 $64,000 64 CF4 M 2016 Games (video games) 41 1st $2665 $2500 188 CF5 M 2016 Design (product design) 40 1st (participated in another successful campaign) $552,178 $300,000 717 CF6 M 2017 Games (video games) 30 1st $298,608 $80,000 4375 CF7 M 2017 Fashion (accessories) 60 2nd (1st also successful) $101,193 $5000 2343 CF8 M 2016/2017 Design (product design) 45 1st $143,477 $18,000 4057 CF9 M, M 2017 Design (product design) 44 2nd (1st unsuccessful) $12,510 $10,000 492 CF10 F 2016 Design (product design) 30 1st $18,666 $17,000 86 CF11 M 2016 Fashion (footwear) 45 1st $5643 $10,000 81 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:222e239 239