Advertisement

Alone or in Concert? Creative Entrepreneurs and the Role of Multiple Institutional Logics in Crowdfunding Pitches

  • Raissa PershinaEmail author
  • Birthe Soppe
Chapter

Abstract

Crowdfunding is a new digital platform that creative entrepreneurs can use to pitch their ideas to potential investors to attract resources to support their projects. We investigate how creative entrepreneurs construct crowdfunding pitches under conditions of multiple institutional logics and how the crowd how “the crowd” evaluates these attempts. While prior research has shown that straddling conflicting logics generates tensions inside organizations, we still know little about how external constituencies evaluate entrepreneurial ideas when multiple logics are at play. We focus on the aesthetic and business logics in crowdfunding pitches and analyze their role alone as well as in concert in mobilizing backers to financially support ideas in the creative industries. Analyzing a sample of ca. 500 digital games by indie developers and their pitching practices on the crowdfunding platform Kickstarter, including crowdfunding video pitches, our study shows that employing a hybrid approach to pitch creation in which both logics are deployed “in concert” discourages potential backers from supporting creative entrepreneurs. Instead, the business logic seems to be most beneficial for game creators whose ideas are at an early stage of development. Utilizing the aesthetic logic tends to be more effective at an advanced stage of development. The findings of our study hold important implications for the literature on entrepreneurship and institutional theory, as well as the creative industries and crowdfunding.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the volume editors as well an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank Ajla Nesimovic for her research assistance.

References

  1. Aarseth, E. (2006). The culture and business of cross-media productions. Popular Communication, 4(3), 203–211.Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2014). Some simple economics of crowdfunding. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 14(1), 63–97.Google Scholar
  3. Ahlers, G. K., Cumming, D., Günther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980.Google Scholar
  4. Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.Google Scholar
  6. Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 690–707.Google Scholar
  7. Almerico, K. (2014). 6 tips to create a top-notch crowdfunding video. Entrepreneur.Google Scholar
  8. Alvarez, J. L., Mazza, C., Pedersen, J. S., & Svejenova, S. (2005). Shielding idiosyncrasy from isomorphic pressures: Towards optimal distinctiveness in European filmmaking. Organization, 12(6), 863–888.Google Scholar
  9. Ba, S., Whinston, A. B., & Zhang, H. (2003). Building trust in online auction markets through an economic incentive mechanism. Decision Support Systems, 35(3), 273–286.Google Scholar
  10. Bakhshi, H., & Throsby, D. (2012). New technologies in cultural institutions: Theory, evidence and policy implications. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(2), 205–222.Google Scholar
  11. Balachandra, L. (2011). Pitching trustworthiness: Cues for trust in early-stage investment decision-making. Newton: Carroll School of Management.Google Scholar
  12. Balachandra, L., Briggs, A. R., Eddleston, K., & Brush, C. (2013). Pitch like a man: Gender stereotypes and entrepreneur pitch success. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 33(8), 2.Google Scholar
  13. Barnett, C. (2013). Top 10 crowdfunding sites for fundraising. New York: Forbes.Google Scholar
  14. Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(1), 106–116.Google Scholar
  15. Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Model, J. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685.Google Scholar
  16. Benghozi, P. J., & Salvador, E. (2016). How and where the R&D takes place in creative industries? Digital investment strategies of the book publishing sector. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(5), 568–582.Google Scholar
  17. Blitz Games Studios, “Project Lifecycle”. (2011). Available at http://www.blitzgamesstudios.com/blitz_academy/game_dev/ project_lifecycle.
  18. Brooks, A. W., Huang, L., Kearney, S. W., & Murray, F. E. (2014). Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12), 4427–4431.Google Scholar
  19. Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(1), 64–78.Google Scholar
  20. Burns, R. P., & Burns, R. (2008). Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  21. Chandler, H. M. (2009). The game production handbook. Ontario, Canada: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Chen, C. F., & Rothschild, R. (2010). An application of hedonic pricing analysis to the case of hotel rooms in Taipei. Tourism Economics, 16(3), 685–694.Google Scholar
  23. Chen, X. P., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199–214.Google Scholar
  24. Clark, C. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurs’ oral pitch presentation skills on business angels’ initial screening investment decisions. Venture Capital, 10(3), 257–279.Google Scholar
  25. Courtney, C., Dutta, S., & Li, Y. (2017). Resolving information asymmetry: Signaling, endorsement, and crowdfunding success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 265–290.Google Scholar
  26. Cumming, D., & Hornuf, L. (Eds.). (2018). The Economics of crowdfunding: Startups, portals and investor behavior. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Currid, E., & Williams, S. (2010). Two cities, five industries: Similarities and differences within and between cultural industries in New York and Los Angeles. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(3), 322–335.Google Scholar
  28. Dailey, L., & Mumford, M. D. (2006). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Errors in appraising the implications of new ideas. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 385–390.Google Scholar
  29. Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. (2016). Combining logics to transform organizational agency: Blending industry and art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 347–392.Google Scholar
  30. Doblinger, C., Soppe, B., & Huber, S. (2019). Converging logics. Coopetitive ties and innovation in the early clean transportation industry. Proceedings of the 2019 Academy of Management Meeting.Google Scholar
  31. Eikhof, D. R., & Haunschild, A. (2006). Lifestyle meets market: Bohemian entrepreneurs in creative industries. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(3), 234–241.Google Scholar
  32. Eikhof, D. R., & Haunschild, A. (2007). For art’s sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative production. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 523–538.Google Scholar
  33. Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgements. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 283–301.Google Scholar
  34. Erikson, T., & Sørheim, R. (2005). ‘Technology angels’ and other informal investors. Technovation, 25(5), 489–496.Google Scholar
  35. Fishman, E. (2016). How long should your next video be? WISTIA.Google Scholar
  36. Flew, T. (2012). The creative industries. Culture and policy. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Frey, B. S., & Eichenberger, R. (1995). On the rate of return in the art market: Survey and evaluation. European Economic Review, 39(3–4), 528–537.Google Scholar
  38. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–267). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Galbraith, C. S., McKinney, B. C., DeNoble, A. F., & Ehrlich, S. B. (2014). The impact of presentation form, entrepreneurial passion, and perceived preparedness on obtaining grant funding. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28(2), 222–248.Google Scholar
  40. Glynn, M. A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298.Google Scholar
  41. Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1031–1055.Google Scholar
  42. Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. (2011). Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the professional work of pharmacists. Sage, 38(3), 372–416.Google Scholar
  43. Gorbatai, A., & Nelson, L. (2015). The narrative advantage: Gender and the language of crowdfunding (Research Papers). Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  44. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.Google Scholar
  45. Hendrick, A. (2009). Project management for game development.Google Scholar
  46. Henry, C. (Ed.). (2007). Entrepreneurship in the creative industries: An international perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Jones, C., & Livne-Tarandach, R. (2008). Designing a frame: Rhetorical strategies of architects. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(8), 1075–1099.Google Scholar
  48. Jones, C., Livne-Tarandach, R., & Balachandra, L. (2010). Rhetoric that wins clients: Entrepreneurial firms use of institutional logics when competing for resources. In D. S. Wesley & J. D. Robert (Eds.), Institutions and entrepreneurship (pp. 183–218). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  49. Kerr, A. (2006). The business and culture of digital games: Gamework and gameplay. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Kerr, C. (2017). 10,000 game projects have been funded through Kickstarter. Gamasutra.Google Scholar
  51. Khalid, H. M., & Helander, M. G. (2006). Customer emotional needs in product design. Concurrent Engineering, 14(3), 197–206.Google Scholar
  52. Kickstarter Creator Handbook. (2018). Available at https://www.kickstarter.com/help/handbook/.
  53. Koch, J. A., & Siering, M. (2015). Crowdfunding success factors: The characteristics of successfully funded projects on crowdfunding platforms. In Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2015), Münster, Germany.Google Scholar
  54. Kuppuswamy, V., & Bayus, B. L. (2018a). A review of crowdfunding research and findings. In P. N. Golder & M. Debanjan (Eds.), Handbook of research on new product development (pp. 361–374). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Kuppuswamy, V., & Bayus, B. L. (2018b). Crowdfunding creative ideas: The dynamics of project backers. In D. Cumming & L. Hornuf (Eds.), The economics of crowdfunding (pp. 151–182). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Landau, S., & Everitt, B. S. (2004). A handbook of statistical analyses using SPSS. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Livingston, C. (2015). Are cinematic trailers worth getting excited about? PCGamer. Available at https://www.pcgamer.com/face-off-are-cinematic-trailers-worth-getting-excited-about/#comment-jump.
  58. Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 545–564.Google Scholar
  59. Luo, H. (2014). When to sell your idea: Theory and evidence from the movie industry. Management Science, 60(12), 3067–3086.Google Scholar
  60. Maiolini, R., Cappa, F., Leone, M. I., & Pinelli, M. (2018). The impact of narrative style and entrepreneur’s experience in crowdfunding campaigns. In Third Entrepreneurial Finance Conference Proceedings 2018. Milano, Italy.Google Scholar
  61. Mangematin, V., Sapsed, J., & Schüßler, E. (2014). Disassembly and reassembly: An introduction to the special issue on digital technology and creative industries, 83, 1–9.Google Scholar
  62. Mason, C., & Stark, M. (2004). What do investors look for in a business plan? A comparison of the investment criteria of bankers, venture capitalists and business angels. International Small Business Journal, 22(3), 227–248.Google Scholar
  63. Massolution. (2015). The crowdfunding industry report (Complete Report).Google Scholar
  64. Mavlanova, T., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Koufaris, M. (2012). Signaling theory and information asymmetry in online commerce. Information & Management, 49(5), 240–247.Google Scholar
  65. McDonald, J. H. (2009). Handbook of biological statistics, 2 (pp. 173–181). Baltimore, MD: Sparky House Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. McKenny, A. F., Allison, T. H., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Short, J. C., & Ireland, R. D. (2017). How should crowdfunding research evolve? A survey of the entrepreneurship theory and practice editorial board. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 291–304.Google Scholar
  67. Mirabello, J. (2014). How long does it take to make an Indie game? Gamasutra.Google Scholar
  68. Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  69. O’Connor, E. (2002). Storied business: Typology, intertextuality, and traffic in entrepreneurial narrative. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 39(1), 36–54.Google Scholar
  70. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.Google Scholar
  71. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.Google Scholar
  72. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.Google Scholar
  73. Parker, L. (2017). Video game raised $148 million from fans. Now it’s raising concerns. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  74. Pershina, R., & Soppe, B. (2017). Let the games begin: Institutional complexity and the design of new products. In M. A. Höllerer, T. Daudigeos, & D. Jancsary (Eds.), Multimodality, meaning, and institutions (pp. 219–254). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  75. Pietraszkiewicz, A., Soppe, B., & Formanowicz, M. (2017). Go pro bono: Prosocial language as a success factor in crowdfunding. Social Psychology, 48(5), 265–278.Google Scholar
  76. Pindyck, R. S. (1993). Investments of uncertain cost. Journal of Financial Economics, 34(1), 53–76.Google Scholar
  77. Pollack, J. M., Rutherford, M. W., & Nagy, B. G. (2012). Preparedness and cognitive legitimacy as antecedents of new venture funding in televised business pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 915–939.Google Scholar
  78. Powell, W. W. (2017). A sociologist looks at crowds: Innovation or invention? Strategic Organization, 15(2), 289–297.Google Scholar
  79. Purchese. (2017). Is Kickstarter for video games dead? An investigation. Eurogamer.Google Scholar
  80. Ramadan, R., & Widyani, Y. (2013, September). Game development life cycle guidelines. In Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), 2013 International Conference on (pp. 95–100). IEEE.Google Scholar
  81. Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2005). Border crossing: Bricolage and the erosion of categorical boundaries in French gastronomy. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 968–991.Google Scholar
  82. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.Google Scholar
  83. Ross, T. (2011). What really worries game designers: Game design driven by psychological theory and behavioral quantification. Gamasutra.Google Scholar
  84. Rüling, C. C., & Duymedjian, R. (2014). Digital bricolage: Resources and coordination in the production of digital visual effects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 83, 98–110.Google Scholar
  85. Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970.Google Scholar
  86. Svejenova, S., Slavich, B., & AbdelGawad, S. G. (2015). Creative entrepreneurs. The Oxford handbook of creative industries (pp. 184–199). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Takahashi, D. (2017). Data-driven versus intuition-driven game design. Venturebeat.Google Scholar
  88. Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kury, K. (2005). Institutional logics and institutional change in organizations: Transformation in accounting, architecture, and publishing. In Transformation in cultural industries (pp. 125–170). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  90. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.Google Scholar
  91. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 840, 99–128.Google Scholar
  92. Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Tompet Games. (2017). What 27 superbackers think is the most important element on your Kickstarter page. Available at https://tompetgames.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/what-27-superbackers-think-is-the-most-important-element-on-your-kickstarter-page/.
  94. Tschang, F. T. (2007). Balancing the tensions between rationalization and creativity in the video games industry. Organization Science, 18(6), 989–1005.Google Scholar
  95. Vissers, J. (2018). 8 facts you should know before crowdfunding a video game on Fig. Meverick. Available at https://www.merchantmaverick.com/8-facts-you-should-know-before-crowdfunding-a-video-game-on-fig/.
  96. Weinreich, H., Obendorf, H., Herder, E., & Mayer, M. (2008). Not quite the average: An empirical study of Web use. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 2(1), 5.Google Scholar
  97. Writer, S. (2016). How crowdfunding changed gaming. Atomic.Google Scholar
  98. Xu, A., Yang, X., Rao, H., Fu, W. T., Huang, S. W., & Bailey, B. P. (2014, April). Show me the money!: An analysis of project updates during crowdfunding campaigns. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 591–600). ACM.Google Scholar
  99. Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–443.Google Scholar
  100. Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations