4.7 Article

Shock and awe: Loudness and unpredictability in Twitter messages and crowdfunding campaign success

期刊

JOURNAL OF INNOVATION & KNOWLEDGE
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 246-256

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2021.06.002

关键词

Crowdfunding; Social media; Twitter; Unpredictability; Venture finance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the relationship between higher frequency and more unpredictable Twitter activity with the success of crowdfunding projects. The findings suggest that increasing the number of tweets and their unpredictability can improve the odds of meeting goals and achieving success, highlighting the importance of social media message management in crowdfunding campaigns.
Although recent evidence has found support for the importance of social media in communicating specific messages between venture founders and their target audience, there remains a relative paucity of research regarding how specific temporal elements of social media activity are related to key venture development outcomes. In this context, the current study draws on the conceptual framework of shock advertising to understand how louder (i.e., an increasing number of tweets) and unpredictable (i.e., tweets at non-standard times) Twitter activity can improve the odds of crowdfunding success. Using a sample of Kickstarter projects between 2009 and 2018 and cross-sectional regressions (ordinary least squares and the logit model), we find that the odds of meeting goals increase 1.24 times with each percentage increase in tweets, relative to tweets in the project-category-year. The odds of success increase further with an increase in the unpredictability and number of project-category-year adjusted tweets. In an era when standing out in the social media is increasingly challenging, our findings have implications for managing social media messages during crowdfunding campaigns. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据