The Role of Novelty in Securing Investors for Equity Crowdfunding Campaigns

Proceedings of the 6th AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, HCOMP 2018

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 50-59

  Horvát, Emoke Ágnes ^a   Wang, Rong ^a   Wachs, Johannes ^b   Hannák, Anikó ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMMERCE; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; FINANCIAL MARKETS; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

DATA SET; INNOVATIVENESS; TRADE OFF;

CROWDSOURCING;

EID: 85059448188     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1609/hcomp.v6i1.13336     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (51)

1. Adjei, M. T.; Noble, S. M.; and Noble, C. H. 2010. The influence of c2c communications in online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38(5):634-653.
2. Agrawal, A. K.; Catalini, C.; and Goldfarb, A. 2011. The geography of crowdfunding. Working Paper 16820, National Bureau of Economic Research.
3. Ahlers, G. K.; Cumming, D.; Günther, C.; and Schweizer, D. 2015. Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(4):955-980.
4. Allison, T. H.; Davis, B. C.; Short, J. C.; and Webb, J. W. 2015. Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(1):53-73.
5. An, J.; Quercia, D.; and Crowcroft, J. 2014. Recommending investors for crowdfunding projects. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on World Wide Web, 261-270.
6. Askin, N., and Mauskapf, M. 2017. What makes popular culture popular? Product features and optimal differentiation in music. American Sociological Review 82(5):910-944.
7. Belleflamme, P.; Lambert, T.; and Schwienbacher, A. 2014. Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of business venturing 29(5):585-609.
8. Blei, D. M.; Ng, A. Y.; and Jordan, M. I. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3(Jan):993-1022.
9. Boudreau, K. J.; Guinan, E. C.; Lakhani, K. R.; and Riedl, C. 2016. Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Science 62(10):2765-2783.
10. Burgoon, M.; Denning, V.; and Roberts, L. 2002. Language expectancy theory. In The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. 117-136.
11. Ceyhan, S.; Shi, X.; and Leskovec, J. 2011. Dynamics of bidding in a P2P lending service: Effects of herding and predicting loan success. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on World Wide Web, 547-556.
12. Chan, C. S. R., and Parhankangas, A. 2017. Crowdfunding innovative ideas: How incremental and radical innovativeness influence funding outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41(2):237-263.
13. Cholakova, M., and Clarysse, B. 2015. Does the possibility to make equity investments in crowdfunding projects crowd out reward-based investments? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(1):145-172.
14. Colombo, M. G.; Franzoni, C.; and Rossi-Lamastra, C. 2015. Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39(1):75-100.
15. Cunningham, C. 2017. When does novelty pay? In Academy of Management Proceedings, volume 2017, 16957.
16. Davidsson, P., and Wiklund, J. 2001. Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25(4):81-100.
17. Drover, W.; Busenitz, L.; Matusik, S.; Townsend, D.; Anglin, A.; and Dushnitsky, G. 2017. A review and road map of entrepreneurial equity financing research: Venture capital, corporate venture capital, angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators. Journal of Management 43(6):1820-1853.
18. Dutta, S., and Folta, T. B. 2016. A comparison of the effect of angels and venture capitalists on innovation and value creation. Journal of Business Venturing 31(1):39-54.
19. Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science 47(1):117-132.
20. Fradkin, A.; Grewal, E.; Holtz, D.; and Pearson, M. 2015. Bias and reciprocity in online reviews: Evidence from field experiments on Airbnb. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 641-641.
21. Hall, D.; Jurafsky, D.; and Manning, C. D. 2008. Studying the history of ideas using topic models. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 363-371.
22. Hannák, A.; Wagner, C.; Garcia, D.; Mislove, A.; Strohmaier, M.; and Wilson, C. 2017. Bias in online freelance marketplaces: Evidence from taskrabbit and fiverr. In CSCW, 1914-1933.
23. Hastie, T., and Tibshirani, R. 1990. Generalized additive models. Wiley Online Library.
24. Horvát, E.-Á., and Papamarkou, T. 2017. Gender differences in equity crowdfunding. In Proceedings of the Fifth AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 51-60.
25. Howe, J. 2008. Crowdsourcing: How the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. Random House.
26. Hyytinen, A.; Pajarinen, M.; and Rouvinen, P. 2015. Does innovativeness reduce startup survival rates? Journal of Business Venturing 30(4):564-581.
27. Jennings, J. E.; Jennings, P. D.; and Greenwood, R. 2009. Novelty and new firm performance: The case of employment systems in knowledge-intensive service organizations. Journal of Business Venturing 24(4):338-359. Lin, M., and Viswanathan, S. 2016. Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. Management Science 62(5):1393-1414.
28. Lukkarinen, A.; Teich, J.; Wallenius, H.; and Wallenius, J. 2016. Success drivers of online equity crowdfunding campaigns. Decision Support Systems 87:26-38.
29. Marom, D., and Sade, O. 2013. Are the life and death of an early stage venture indeed in the power of the tongue? Lessons from online crowdfunding pitches.
30. Meer, J. 2014. Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 103(C):113-124.
31. Mitra, T., and Gilbert, E. 2014. The language that gets people to give: Phrases that predict success on Kickstarter. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing, 49-61.
32. Mohammadi, A., and Shafi, K. 2018. Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding investors. Small Business Economics 50(2):275-287.
33. Mollick, E. 2014a. The Danger of Crowding Out the Crowd in Equity Crowdfunding. Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative. Book 29.
34. Mollick, E. 2014b. The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing 29(1):1-16.
35. Munger, K.; Bonneau, R.; Nagler, J.; and Tucker, J. A. 2018. Elites tweet to get feet off the streets: Measuring regime social media strategies during protest. Political Science Research and Methods 1-20.
36. Parhankangas, A., and Renko, M. 2017. Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 32(2):215-236.
37. Pennebaker, J. W.; Mehl, M. R.; and Niederhoffer, K. G. 2003. Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual review of psychology 54(1):547-577.
38. Redi, M.; O'Hare, N.; Schifanella, R.; Trevisiol, M.; and Jaimes, A. 2014. 6 seconds of sound and vision: Creativity in micro-videos. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4272-4279.
39. Riedl, J. 2013. Crowdfunding technology innovation. IEEE Computer 46:100-103.
40. Tan, J.; Shao, Y.; and Li, W. 2013. To be different, or to be the same? An exploratory study of isomorphism in the cluster. Journal of Business Venturing 28(1):83-97. Special Issue: Institutions, Entrepreneurs, Community.
41. Tausczik, Y. R., and Pennebaker, J. W. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology 29(1):24-54.
42. Thebault-Spieker, J.; Terveen, L.; and Hecht, B. 2017. Toward a geographic understanding of the sharing economy: Systemic biases in UberX and TaskRabbit. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 24(3):21.
43. Uzzi, B.; Mukherjee, S.; Stringer, M.; and Jones, B. 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468-472.
44. Vulkan, N.; Astebro, T. B.; and Sierra, M. F. 2016. Equity crowdfunding: A new phenomena. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 5:37-49.
45. Wachs, J.; Hannák, A.; Vörös, A.; and Daróczy, B. 2017. Why do men get more attention? Exploring factors behind success in an online design community. In Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.
46. Wachs, J.; Daróczy, B.; Hannák, A.; Páll, K.; and Riedl, C. 2018. And now for something completely different: Visual novelty in an online network of designers. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science (WebSci). ACM.
47. Weitzman, M. 1998. Recombinant growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(2):331-360.
48. Xu, A.; Yang, X.; Rao, H.; Fu, W.-T.; Huang, S.-W.; and Bailey, B. P. 2014. Show me the money! An analysis of project updates during crowdfunding campaigns. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 591-600. ACM.
49. Xu, B.; Zheng, H.; Xu, Y.; and Wang, T. 2016. Configurational paths to sponsor satisfaction in crowdfunding. Journal of Business Research 69(2):915-927.
50. Zhang, J., and Liu, P. 2012. Rational herding in microloan markets. Management science 58(5):892-912.
51. Zuckerman, E. 2016. Optimal distinctiveness revisited. The Oxford handbook of organizational identity 183.