1. Accréditée
EQUIS
et
AACSB.
MSc Entrepreneurship & Innovation Thesis
Promotion 2015
How
to
succeed
a
Crowdfunding
Campaign
on
KissKissBankBank
Name
and
Surname
of
the
Student:
Julien
CARBONI
Student
Number:
140536
Supervisor:
Mrs
Renata
KAMINSKA
I
hereby
certify
that
this
is
my
own
original
work,
that
all
citations
are
correctly
identified
with
speech
marks,
that
all
sources
are
correctly
referenced
and
that
my
master
thesis
is
completely
free
of
plagiarism.
Signature:
Julien
CARBONI

2.
2
«
Les
propos
tenus
dans
ce
document
n’engagent
que
leur
auteur
».

3. KEY WORDS
Key Success Factors,
Reason of Failure,
Crowdfunding,
KissKissBankBank,
Mollick,
Reward-based/Pre-Purchased Crowdfunding Model,
Investor’s quality perception,
Entrepreneur Implication,
Crowdfunding Campaign,
Sense of Community

4.
4
ACKNOLEDGMENTS
Before presenting my research, we would like to thanks my research supervisor, Renata
Kaminska, for all the advice I received for the conception and the research question.
I would like to thanks every person who were concerned in this subject for their support and
recommendations.

5.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
KEY
WORDS
3
ACKNOLEDGMENTS
4
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
7
INTRODUCTION
9
LITERATURE
REVIEW
10
A.
Financial
Solutions
to
Launch
a
Company:
10
B.
From
Internet
and
Crowdsourcing
to
Crowdfunding:
12
C.
Crowdfunding
Literature
Findings:
14
1.
Definition:
14
2.
Why
using
crowdfunding?
15
i.
For
the
Entrepreneurs:
15
ii.
For
the
Investors:
15
iii.
For
the
Platforms:
16
3.
Choosing
the
right
model:
16
i.
Models:
16
ii.
Choosing
equity
crowdfunding
or
reward-­‐based
crowdfunding?
17
4.
Role
of
Crowdfunding
Platform:
18
5.
Agrawal
et
al.
Findings:
19
6.
Factors
of
Success:
20
7.
Risks
and
Opportunities
in
the
Crowdfunding
Field:
20
i.
Risks:
20
ii.
Opportunities:
22
8.
Regulation:
23
9.
Market
Retrospective:
23
RESARCH
QUESTION
26
A.
Introduction:
26
B.
Data
Base:
27
1.
Platform:
27
2.
Data:
30
i.
Variables:
31
A
QUALITATIVE
ANALYSIS
OF
KISSKISSBANKBANK
PROJECTS
32
A.
Success
Projects:
32
1.
ti’Be:
32
2.
PiouPiou:
34
3.
Hydrao:
35
4.
Ween:
37
5.
Weecame:
38
B.
Failed
Project:
40

6.
6
1.
Just
The
Bell:
40
2.
Taxihub:
42
3.
The
Shoppers:
43
4.
Freedom:
44
5.
1001boxers.com:
45
FINDINGS
47
CONCLUSION
49
REFERENCES
50
APPENDIX
53
Appendix
1:
Crowdfunding
guide
book
53

7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The dissertation aims to identify the key success factors for an entrepreneur to reach his
funding goals in a crowdfunding campaign. As a result, we will try to answer to the question
bellow:
“What are the key success factors and reason of failure in a crowdfunding campaign?”
We performed a qualitative analysis of 10 projects on KissKissBankBank platform. The
projects belong to the category “web and technology” category because it is one of the lowest
success rates on the platform (29%). They are divide in two groups: Groups 1 represent 5
projects that reached or went beyond their funding goal; Group 2 are 5 projects that failed
their funding goal.
We choose variables based on Mollick’s study (2013) link to the crowdfunding campaign and
final result, the effective participation, the entrepreneur’s implication in the crowdfunding
campaign and the investor’s quality perception of the project. Then, we propose
recommendations to entrepreneurs to increase their chance of reaching their founding goal.
Our recommendations confirm Ethan Mollick’s (2013) funding relating to the investor’s
perception to the quality signals.
We show that carefulness of the presentation is not the only variables that send quality to
potential bakers. Then, that the entrepreneur implication in the crowdfunding campaign is a
key driver to prove the quality of the project and help to attract potential bakers. Moreover,
the sense of community is another key driver for success. Finally, bakers play a key role in
the success of the campaign with their network by sharing the project.

8.
8
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES:
CHART
1:
CROWDFUNDING
MARKET
IN
2015
24
CHART
2:
CROWDFUNDING
INDUSTRY
DYNAMIC
2011
-­‐2015
24
TABLE
1:
KEY
FIGURES
IN
2015
FROM
CROWDFUNDING
PLATFORMS
25
TABLE
2:
STAKISSTICS
ON
KISSKISSBANKBANK
PLATFORM
IN
AUGUST
2015
27
TABLE
3:
KISSKISSBANKBANK
ACTION
PLAN
29
FIGURE
1:
TI’BE
SCREENSHOT
FRONT
PAGE
32
FIGURE
2:
PIOUPIOU
SCREENSHOT
FRONT
PAGE
34
FIGURE
3:
HYDRAO
SCREENSHOP
FRONT
PAGE
36
FIGURE
4:
WEEN
SCREENSHOT
FRONT
PAGE
37
FIGURE
5:
WEECAME
SCREENSHOT
FRONT
PAGE
38
TABLE
4:
KEY
VARIABLES
WITH
PROJECTS
THAT
REACH
THEIR
FUNDING
GOALS
39
FIGURE
6:
JUST
THE
BELL
FACEBOOK
PAGE
41
FIGURE
7:
JUST
THE
BELL
SCREENSHOT
FRONT
PAGE
41
FIGURE
8:
TAXIHUB
SCREENSHOT
FRONT
PAGE
42
FIGURE
9:
THE
SHOPPERS
SCREENSHOT
FRONT
PAGE
43
FIGURE
10:
FREEDOM
SCREENSHOT
FRONT
PAGE
44
FIGURE
11:
1001BOXERS.FR
SCREENSHOT
FRONT
PAGE
45
TABLE5:
KEY
VARIABLES
WITH
PROJECTS
THAT
DID
NOT
REACH
THEIR
FUNDING
GOALS
46

9. INTRODUCTION
From the past few years, we observe the emergence of a new type of economy based on
collaboration between people: the collaborative economy. Sharing knowledge, material and
financial resources lead to create new models. It has the advantage to reduce inequality due to
the implication of the crowd and encourage solidarity.
This collaborative economy has emerged thanks to innovation like Internet facilitating
interaction between individuals.
In this dissertation, written for the graduation of the M.S.c Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
we would like to talk about crowdfunding.
The crowdfunding propose a financial collaboration between people and potential investors.
Especially for an entrepreneur that faces a lack of resources to finance his project, he can get
access to a crowd instead of traditional finance.
For us, the crowdfunding democratizes the access to investment to a large population.
Because it encourages the creation of projects valued by the crowd, it breaks the monopole of
Venture Capitalists or Business Angels to fund potential growth projects. The Pebble’s watch
crowdfunding campaign is a good example. They managed to raise one million dollar in 30
minutes ending with 20,3 millions dollars.
In the literature review, we will present the findings about this new area. We will talk about
the drivers of the creation of the crowdfunding, the reasons for using it. We will give a
definition and will present the advantages and risks of this model. In the end, we will give an
update of the regulation and the market retrospective.
Furthermore, we will try to answer to this question: “What are the key success factors and
reason of failure in a crowdfunding campaign?”.
We will present an in-depth qualitative analysis of “web and technology” category projects on
KissKissBankBank platform based on several variables used by Ethan Mollick study (2013).
We analyse the crowdfunding campaign and final result, the effective participation, the
entrepreneur’s implication in the crowdfunding campaign and the investor’s quality
perception of the project.
In a final part, we will give recommendations to entrepreneurs to increase their chance of
reaching their funding goal.

10. LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this dissertation is to analyse the reasons of success and failure in a
crowdfunding campaign. Before going in depth, we should explain the different financial
solutions at the disposal of an entrepreneur in order to fund his project. After that, the origin
of crowdfunding. Finally, we will discuss the general research findings on this subject.
A. Financial Solutions to Launch a Company:
An entrepreneur that wants to launch and develop his company has different solutions: invest
his own money, indebtedness, attract investors such as venture capitalist or business angels;
finally go for an I.P.O. Unfortunately for different reasons, start-ups are facing difficulty to
get access to resources (Bradford, 2012).
Schwienbacher and Larralde (2010, p.9) describe those different alternatives. The
entrepreneur can finance with money coming from his entourage, “Friends & Family”, attract
business angels or venture capitalists. At a certain point, founders can go for an Initial Public
Offering.
Companies can also seek money with indebtedness. Usually, they are able to obtain a loan of
the bank, get subsidies from the government (1,175 in France – IFRAP (2015). Unfortunately,
seeking money through traditional finance is more and more difficult.
As Bradford explained (2012, P.9), founders with their personal savings combine with money
from theirs friends and family still represent a lack for developing their project. As a result,
they seek other types of founding.
The bank has to evaluate the risk, it will require elements to deliver a loan: dispose of
guarantee as assets, financial records. Start-up frequently cannot present those data (Berger &
Udell, 1998, pp.8-9 / Burkett, 2011, p.70). Tomboc (2013, p.256) demonstrated the bank
mistrust during a crisis period, especially regarding those types of enterprises.
As regard the venture capital, Schwienbacher and Larralde (2010, p.7) specify hedge funds
invest between two and ten million dollars or more in projects with high potential growth. It
does not match with start-up financial needs (Ibrahim, 2008, p.1416). Moreover, venture
capitalists are not enough to match the demand (Lavinsky, 2010). In France, venture
capitalists represented only 1.9% of private investment in start-up in 2013 regarding 7.9% in
the European Union (COFACE Study).

11.
11
Studies show that business angels are the more adequate to invest in seed stage. Ramadi
describe them as “private investors who, during their active work, have gained wealth and
experience and are ready to invest them in new small and medium enterprises in order to help
the young entrepreneurs and receive profit simultaneously”. According to APCE website,
French agency for launching businesses, business angels invest for less than one million euro,
between 300 000 and 500 000 euros. As Laurent Soubrevilla explained, an entrepreneur
interviewed in France Inter in February 2013, business angels hardly invest above 100.000
euros in start-up. Thus, start-ups are facing what we call “equity gap” for amount between
100.000 euros and 1 million because they cannot find any financial resource. COFACE count
only 8.000 business angels in France in 2013 enlightening the lack of private investment in
France.
Finally, the Initial Public Offering is not a good solution for a young company due to the
introduction cost and high level of risk for it (Schwienbacher and Larralde, 2010, p.11).
The actual economic period in the European Union is still delicate for companies that seek
financial resources, despite in the U.S where business angels and venture capitalists never
invested as much. Berger and Urdell (1998, p.38) explained the influence of the
macroeconomic environment on the financial resources for SMEs. In consequence, the crisis
had an impact on the traditional finance that unable start-up to get access to financial
resources.
We can observe crowdfunding can represent an alternative for those entrepreneurs who want
to finance their projects.

12.
12
B. From Internet and Crowdsourcing to Crowdfunding:
What we call crowdfunding is collecting small amount of money through a large crowd. One
good example of the first crowdfunding campaign was the Sagrada Famìlia construction by
Gaudi. Indeed, the Spiritual Association of Devotees of St. Joseph wanted to build a religious
institution. They bought the field and started the construction thanks to the almsgiving of the
crowd. Started in 1882, the construction is still in progress and would be done in 2026 thanks
to the almsgiving. In France, the first identified crowdfunding campaign was in 2004 in the
field of artistic project with the movie “Demain la Veille” to cover cost production and
promotion. Which innovations are at the premises of crowdfunding?
Innovation enables crowdfunding to expand nowadays. Literature focuses on the creation the
web 2.0 as a determinant for crowdfunding development because web users collaborate and
interact online (Kleeman et al., 2008, p.11). Moreover, Surawieski (2004) defend in his book
“The Wisdom of crowd” the idea that a collective intelligence has more impact than the
individual intelligence. A group will be more effective to solve a problem than a single
person.
We may mentioned the definition of Tim O’reilly (2005) for the definition of web 2.0:
“Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web2.0 applications
are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software
as a continually- updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and
remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own
data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through
an “architecture of participation”, and going beyond the page metaphor of web1.0 to deliver
rich user experiences.”
As a result, web 2.0 contributes to the creation of open innovation through the crowdsourcing
(Kleeman et al., 2008, p.6). For them, crowdsourcing take place “when a profit oriented firm
outsources specific tasks essential for the making or sale of its product to the general public
(the crowd) in the form of an open call over the internet, with the intention of animating
individuals to make a [voluntary] contribution to the firm’s production process for free or for
significantly less than that contribution is worth to the firm.”
Thus, combining web 2.0 and the power of the crowd can represent a great opportunity for a
firm so it can use this collective intelligence to find efficient solutions. With the emergence of

13.
13
the social networks, Kleeman et al. (2008) notified the rise of “working consumer”
empowering the consumer role in a company activity.
We combine crowdfunding with crowdsourcing thanks to the crowd’s monetary contribution.
According Lawton and Marom (2013), the crowd is facing a lack of information and
knowledge in accordance with the sector they invest. We can trust the collective intelligence
to acknowledge projects with high value.
For Agrawal et al. (2013, p.6), Internet has the advantage to allow entrepreneurs and potential
investors through a platform and will reduce the cost of the transaction (Bradford, 2012,
pp.27-28) but also the information about the entrepreneur and the project. For them, Internet
gives the possibility to invest very small amount of money so it reduces the risk for investors.
They also notify that investors are highly involved in the evolution and development of the
project.
As we observed, web 2.0 and the lack of financial resources boost the crowdfunding
emergence.

14.
14
C. Crowdfunding Literature Findings:
In this section we will present the definition of crowdfunding, the different models present on
platforms, the incentives and risks for using it. In the end, we will have a closer look to the
regulation and the market trends.
1. Definition:
Belleflamme et al. (2013, p.7) based their definition of crowdfunding on the work of Kleeman
et al. on crowdsourcing:
“Crowdfunding involves an open call, mostly though the internet, for the provision of
financial resources either in form of donation or in exchange for some form of reward and/or
voting rights.”
Literature developed several definitions but we found common key elements such as financial
research, Internet use and the usage of the crowd.
Mollick ’s definition (2013, p.2) focus on entrepreneurs’ nature and their contribution:
“Crowdfunding refers to the efforts by entrepreneurial individuals and groups- cultural,
social, and for-profit- to fund their ventures by drawing on relatively small contributions from
a relatively large number of individuals using the Internet, without standard financial
intermediaries.”
Crowdfunding involve on the one hand the match between a project financed by a numerous
investors but also on the other hand, a meeting across an online platform.
As Rubinton (2011, p.2 and 12) explained, bank is now excluded from this new type of
funding system. A form of “disintermediated” system is born where investors and
entrepreneurs can get in touch. According to him, crowdfunding answered to fundamental
questions: “Who decides which projects deserve financing?”, “How can we guarantee they
represent the project markets?” and “What can we do to systematically reduce entrepreneurs
exposure to the risks that they fail to cover their start-up costs?”. Therefore, this new
mechanism answer funding problematic for entrepreneurs and give legitimacy to a project due
to the crowd selection (Lenher, 2012, p.9). Why using crowdfunding to found your project?

15.
15
2. Why using crowdfunding?
We present the literature findings about the advantage for the entrepreneurs, investors and
platforms to use the crowdfunding.
i. For the Entrepreneurs:
Here we quote the main advantages for entrepreneurs from Agrawal et al.’s studies (2013, pp.
11-14).
First, capital cost decrease. Thanks to Internet, an entrepreneur is able to attract more
potential investors to his project. The more they are willing to invest the more it is related to
their participation to the project. They pay attention about the information of the project and
the benefits they can gain (Agrawal et al., 2013, pp. 11).
Secondly, crowdfunding enables entrepreneur to have access to ideas and advises for the
product development. More important, it is a free expertise thus it must increase the value of
your project (Agrawal et al., 2013, pp. 12-14).
Furthermore, the entrepreneur can get an idea of how the crowd value his. He can evaluate the
potential demand for his product and the potential sales (Agrawal et al., 2013, pp. 12-14).
Referring to Schwienbacher and Larralde (2010, p.12), he can develop his product knowledge
thanks to social network. Mollick (2013, p.3) says that he can use the information gained from
the crowd to prove his concept so he can have access to the traditional finance resource.
Finally, an entrepreneur still owns his company at the end of a crowdfunding campaign
(Schwienbacher and Larralde, 2010, p.13).
ii. For the Investors:
For investors, one of the main advantages is the variety of project available (Agrawal et al.,
2013, pp. 14-15).
They have the possibility to invest in innovative projects and sometimes disrupt ones. At the
end, they will be perceived as “lead-users” and “precursors”. Investors usually just want to be
part of a project and help the company to succeed. Entrepreneurship spirit is part of their
mind-set (Agrawal et al., 2013, pp. 14-15).
Other investors just feel passion about a cause and participate selflessly. Agrawal et al.
describe this as “philanthropy” (2013, pp. 14-15).

16.
16
For summarising, people are motivated to invest for a monetary/material benefit but not only.
Some backers are simply altruist.
iii. For the Platforms:
From a business point of view, crowdfunding is a business activity with profit expectative.
Their business model is based on a percentage fee between 4 to 8% only if the project reached
his funding goal (Agrawal et al., 2013, p.16). You can refer to Appendix 1 explaining in
detail the different platforms charges.
Belleflamme & Lambert (2014, p.10) emphasis the limits of business model when a platform
diversify its revenue model. Investors would be discourage to invest when a platform charge
them with a subscription.
3. Choosing the right model:
i. Models:
Literature distinguishes five types of models in crowdfunding field (Tomboc, 2013, p.260).
In the first place, donation-based model where funders donate to causes they want to
support, with no expectation of monetary compensation. Foundly platform is a good example.
Then, reward-based model offers funders a non-financial benefit in exchange for their
investment. Tomboc (Tomboc, 2013, p.260) quoted some benefits as a reward or an
acknowledgement published on the project’s website. Symbolic has to be consider has the
main part of the process. Kickstarter is a good example.
Thirdly, the pre-purchase model where investors pre-purchased a product that will deliver if
the founding campaign succeeded so production can start (Tomboc, 2013, p.260). He also
noticed that this type of model can also be associate with the reward-based model due to the
assumption that pre-purchase can be associate with a reward. As, we will explain, platforms
are specialised with a model. Usually, platforms propose both reward and pre-purchase model
like Kickstarter or Indieggo. Those platforms usually propose two type of funding condition:
Keep it All (KIA) or All or Nothing (AON). In KIA model, entrepreneurs set up the funding
goal and keep the amount either or not they meet their goals. In AON model, entrepreneurs
still set funding goals but keep nothing unless the goal is achieved (Cumming and
Schwienbacher, 2015, p2)

17.
17
Then, entrepreneurs can have access to loan model where entrepreneurs borrow from
investors to finance their project. Tomboc quote Kiva platform where investor free lend
without interest rate.
Finally, we have equity model where investors can take share, earn dividends as in the
traditional equity field. WiSeed is a good example.
Ahlers et al. (2012, p.8) presented on a detailed study about this model. For them, equity
crowdfunding is:
“A method of financing whereby an entrepreneur sells equity or equity-like shares in a
company to a group of (small) investors through an open call for funding on internet-based
platforms.”
Literature focus on distinguishes different types of investments in the crowdfunding field:
active and passive.
On one hand, passive investment is related to initiative for seeking investment in return for
rewards; on the other hand, active investment is when an investor takes initiatives in the
development of the product other than his monetary participation (Schwienbacher and
Larralde, 2010, p.13). For instance, “this may provide valuable feedback to the entrepreneur
on potential market demand and product characteristics that the market may prefer most”.
ii. Choosing equity crowdfunding or reward-based crowdfunding?
This chapter is based on the study of Belleflamme et al. (2013).
They developed a theoretical model to predict the optimal choice for an entrepreneur between
equity based and pre-reward based. They focus on the nature of community benefits for the
investors. One key element is that investors value when they directly participate at the
campaign and share a “community experience”
Authors explain reward-based model enable entrepreneur to differentiate customers based on
pricing selection. Indeed, customers are willing to pay more if they care about the product
value proposition. In addition, they have the opportunity to buy it at a lower price than the
official price. Furthermore, investors are willing to pay more to gain access to community
benefits such as participate to the crowdfunding campaign, or product development. Investors
choose themselves to participate to a campaign as a result entrepreneur discriminate his
customers by the price. Nevertheless, entrepreneur cannot fix the price too high because no

18.
18
one would participate. Related to market size, this model is optimal when you have low
funding objectives. The more your financial needs are higher the more you need investors. In
conclusion, more the price is low the less the model is profitable (Belleflamme et al., 2013).
In equity-based, interest of the product is not related to the price. Community benefits are
linked to the act of investing itself. In this model, an entrepreneur can touch a larger
community of investors so he can increase the price. This model is optimal when you seek for
a large amount of investment.
Finally, according to Belleflamme et al. (2014, p.7), relationship between entrepreneur and
investors is different depending on the type of crowdfunding. Moreover, type of project
determines the model.
In conclusion, the entrepreneur has to choose the type of crowdfunding model but also his
pricing strategy. We observe crowdfunding platforms usually specialised and propose only
one of those models. But is the role of a crowdfunding platform?
4. Role of Crowdfunding Platform:
Belleflamme and Lambert (2014, pp.8-9) noticed a crowdfunding platform coordinate
investors and entrepreneurs behaviour. This has more efficiency if actors would meet in a
bilateral relationship. They explain the network effect thanks to the interaction between them.
Shapiro and Varian (1999, p.13) define the network effect when “the value of a product to
one user depends on how many other users there are, economists say that this product
exhibits network externalities, or network effects”.
In fact, platform value is bound for an investor or an entrepreneur to the number of investors
and recent projects on this platform (Belleflamme and Lambert, 2014, p.9).
An investor will consider a platform based on the number of project because he has a large
choice to choose the project to invest. Thus, there is a big competition to finance the variety
of project. Belleflamme and Lambert (2014, p.9) pay attention to the number of active
investors on the platform. More this figure is high; the greater to see the project in which they
financed is high.
On the one hand, the entrepreneur may value a platform that present a high number of
investors because it will increase his chance of success to reach his funding goal. On the other
hand, he will avoid platforms presenting a large choice of projects due to the competition.

19.
19
As a result, Belleflamme and Lambert (2014, p.12) predict crowdfunding market must
consolidate because investors are looking for platforms with large investors and entrepreneur
values platform with great number of investors. We can observe platforms are often
differentiate in several ways: type of model, type of sector, geography.
Actually, crowdfunding platforms are specialised and choose one type of crowdfunding
model. As in Indiegogo platform, reward-based and pre-purchased based coexist and the other
one are distinctive. Other platforms propose large variety of sectors and some other only
propose one discipline.
5. Agrawal et al. Findings:
This part focus on the literature about the crowdfunding phenomena and present the first
trends based on Agrawal et al. study (2011). Crowdfunding is a new sector so studies are
taking facts in a short term. It may be appropriate to verify the trends in the future.
Agrawal et al. (2011) study is based on the Dutch Sellaband platform specialised in financing
music projects. The study focuses on geography and investment timing. He firstly highlights
the role of “Love money” – Friends and Family – because they are the first to invest during
the campaign. Friend and Family investment and local contributor invest more compare to
distant contributors. The reason is that friends and family have access to more information
about the project. As a result, we are facing an asymmetry of information dilemma. Secondly,
without love money variable, distant contributors compared to traditional finance invest more
because online mechanisms can reduce economic frictions associated with investing in early-
stage. Another observation is investment increase with the project’s capital gain. According to
authors, investors pay attention to signals delivered by the other investors in their investments
decisions. They “emphasizes the important role that friends and family may play online and
offline in generating early investment in entrepreneurial ventures.”
In conclusion, Agrawal et al. (2011) show investment distribution is distort. Indeed, only a
few projects reach their funding goals and those who succeeded receive most of the
investment. Therefore, major part of investments are allocate to few projects. After this, why
some entrepreneurs succeed their crowdfunding campaign?

20.
20
6. Factors of Success:
Literature also tried to identify factors of success when a project reaches its funding goal.
Some factors are linked to the quality of the project itself and others are linked to the
entrepreneur.
Based on Mollick’s study (2013, pp.7-8 and p.14) with data extract from Kickstarter platform,
the success of a crowdfunding campaign is bounded to the quality of the project. Bakers pay
attention to signals reflecting the quality such as spelling mistakes, video explaining the
project, updates about the project progress posted by the entrepreneur.
Mollick (2013, pp.6-8) identified other elements. He shows that a high level of funding goal
or a longer campaign reduce the probability of success. He highlights the role of the size of
social network (Facebook) but also the boost observed when your project has been published
on the front page of the platform web site. We will emphasis this part in the research question.
Considering equity crowdfunding, Ahlers et al. (2012, p.3) noticed that investors matter to
education of entrepreneurs, work experience, financial records. As with Mollick’s study, network
is again identified as a factor of success. What about the risks and opportunities ?
7. Risks and Opportunities in the Crowdfunding Field:
i. Risks:
As any business, crowdfunding present risks when you invest. Platforms decided to create
mechanism of control to attenuate the risk.
For Agrawal et al. (2013, pp.20-21), the main risk in crowdfunding is related to asymmetry of
information between entrepreneur and investors. An entrepreneur will naturally possess more
information than the investors will. With the platform, investors are not contacting directly
the founder as a result; it may have difficulty to evaluate his credibility.
The authors identified three main situations of asymmetry of information that would collapse
the market. First of all, as Akerlof defined (1970) with the lemons problem, we could face an
adverse selection. Investor could not identify which project present a lower risk based on the
quality due to the lack of information there is at their disposal. Therefore, the price they are
willing to pay represent only medium quality projects. For the entrepreneur, this price is not
sufficient to make profit so actors will leave the market.

21.
21
Another issue relating to the asymmetry of information is moral hazard: “The creator may
behave in a short-term opportunistic manner and not exert the level of effort that was implied
at the outset. This is a form of moral hazard. The most extreme example of this is outright
fraud.”(Agrawal, 2013, p.21). Investor could also face delay in the delivery of the product
thus would leave the market. The Mollick’s study (2013, pp.11-13) clearly show that fraud or
failure cases are rare but delay in the delivery is recurrent. Furthermore, they add when a
project reach beyond its funding goal, they would face delivery issue. They conclude project
with high expectation in funding goals are likely to face longer delivery delay than the small
funding goals.
The third risk identified by Agrawal and al. (2013, pp.21-22) is the “free riding” risk:
“individual crowdfunders are disadvantaged in terms of due diligence because they typically
have a much smaller stake and therefore less incentive to spend time and money investigating
creators.”
The authors noticed other problems for investor and entrepreneur. Investor can face
incompetency in management or lack of investment experience of some founder.
Entrepreneur will face intellectual property issues because of information they have to reveal.
Choosing crowdfunding for an entrepreneur is renouncing to real expertise from qualified
investors.
What mechanisms a platform can propose to reduce the risk?
Agrawal et al. (2013, pp.22 – 31) described tools to reduce the asymmetry of information.
Platform created index to evaluate the reputation of the entrepreneur to reassure investors
such as the quality of the project (patent) or entrepreneur skills (work experience). We can
also create a system of peer evaluation based on feedback where contributors can post
comments, evaluations. Platform also uses independent cabinet to certify the quality of a
project. It is in their best interest to deliver serious certifications (Agrawal et al., 2013, pp.22-
25). The platform itself can certify the quality of the project. For instance, French equity
crowdfunding platform Anaxago audit 40 index and proclaim a rigorous selection process
with only 3% of candidature go to campaign. KissKissBankBank select with an audit but ask
his community to vote if the project could access to the campaign.
Agrawal et al. (2013, pp.25-28) pointed out the matter of regulation both on platform and in
the law. Platforms can require a high level of divulgation to entrepreneur. The regulator fixes

22.
22
a limit of investment for each investor and a limit of fund-raising per year. We will emphasis
on this part in a next chapter.
In the end, Belleflamme and Lambert (2014, p.11) propose an alternative solution: found a
referent investor per project so it will give legitimacy to the crowd to invest in this project.
They quote the example of MyMicroInvest platform.
ii. Opportunities:
Crowdfunding sector is expanding very fast due to its advantages and literature is recent.
What literature proposed remain hypothesis and projections, it must be verify in the next
years.
This sector has an impact on innovation because it can reallocate funds toward innovative
firms (Agrawal et al., 2013, pp.13-14). It may influence the reallocation process exclusively
on innovative firms.
Crowdfunding expansion is creating jobs thus economic growth.
As Rubinton said (2011, p.12), crowdfunding democratize the access to financial resources
because everyone can invest in a project with just little of money. Then, democracy is an
important aspect of crowdfunding because it ensures legitimacy of a project, especially for
social one (Lenher, 2013, pp.9-10).
Agrawal et al. (2013, p.34) explain the potential opportunity to redistribute the funds
worldwide because it give access to entrepreneurs who live in area with lack of financial
resources thanks to internet and new technology. In consequence, it may give opportunity to
developing countries to create economic growth and jobs.

23.
23
8. Regulation:
Because crowdfunding is a new phenomenon, regulators are passing a bill to regulate the
collaborative economy.
In Europe, State members regulate themselves crowdfunding but the European Commission
did not propose yet a directive (European Crowdfunding Network, 2013).
France has passed an ambitious reform in 2014 regulating equity crowdfunding model. France
can be considered as a precursor to develop this market. Every crowdfunding platform must
obtain an agreement from the S.E.C French agency call “Intermédiaire en financement
participative” (IFP) to reassure potential investors. In addition, the Government ensure to
protect investors fixing a limit to invest per contributor per project per year with 1.000 €.
Start-up can raise a maximum of 1.000.000 € per year. The law facilitate/reduce the
administrative forms to fill-in to the Security and Exchange Commission.
United State passes on April 2012 the Jumstart Our Business Startups Act or J.O.B.S Act.
The purpose is to promote business creation through equity crowdfunding. As in the French
Bill, it fixes a limit of investment per contributor and facilitates administrative forms.
Schwartz (2013, pp. 1461 – 1462) noticed that it increases the maximum number of
stakeholders.
9. Market Retrospective:
Crowdfunding is a market with very high potential of growth. In 2014, the crowdfunding
sector raised $16.2B worldwide; it represented a growth of 167%.
Loan platforms concentrated 68% of the total raise with $11,1B (+223% compare to 2013),
Simple donation $1.9B, Reward donation $1.3B. Equity Crowdfunding count for $1.1B.
USA is leading the market with 58.6% ($9,5B) following by Europe with 20% ($3,3B) and
finally Asia with 20.1% ($3,4B).
According to Massolution’s global report (2015), platform would double their amount
reaching $34.4B raising. In 2012, crowdfunding only raised $2.7B.
In France, since the bill was passed, the market share double with 152 million euros raised in
2014.

24.
24
Chart 1: Crowdfunding Market in 2015
Chart 2: Crowdfunding industry Dynamic 2011 -2015
Leaders on the Market:
Kickstarter is with Indiegogo the leaders on the crowdfunding market. They are both
specialized in the donation and reward/pre-purchased model.
Kickstarter was created in 2009 in New York. In 2014, official website statistic declare B2$
of rising which financed 89.675 projects with an average of success funding of 37.35%. More
than 53.000 projects were financed with a funding goal between 1.000$ and 9.999$ (59.3%).
153.407 projects did not reach their funding goal.
Indiegogo was born in 2007 in the US. In 2013, they launched 44.498 projects and raised 193
million dollars with an average success rate of 33%.
Source: MASSOLUTION, « Crowdfunding Industry Report », 2015
Source: LES ECHOS, « La finance participative accélère son incroyable
expansion » 03/31/2015

25.
25
Thanks to the reform, the French market is expending doubled in 2014 with 152 million euros
raised dispatched with 33.5M€ for donation, 88.2M€ for lending and 25.4M€ for equity.
The leaders are Wiseed (equity) with 43%, Ulule (reward) with a success rate of 63%,
Anaxogo (equity) and KissKissBankBank (reward) with 56% of SR.
Ulule is claiming the European leadership with 35 million euros raised (12,865,037€ in 2014)
since 2012 for 9,756 projects funded. They declare a success rate of 67% in 2015.
Table 1: Key figures in 2015 from Crowdfunding Platforms
Kickstarter (2014) Indiegogo (2013) Ulule KissKissBankBank
Funds collected
(in millions of €)
500 193 11.2 6.6
Average Success
Rate
(in %)
37.34 33 67 59
Average
Contribution
(in €)
- - 45 61
Nb of successful
projects
22,252 4,348 2,781 4,227

26. RESARCH QUESTION
We will present in this second part our research question, our database and finally the
variables we used.
A. Introduction:
The literature review enables us to present the crowdfunding area: how it worked, the
different business models, its limits and finally introduce the research findings.
The study of Ethan Mollick, Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right Crowd, in 2013 had all our
attention. His database comes from Kickstarter platform. He tried to determine the key
success factors for a crowdfunding campaign in this platform. He concludes that backers
(investors) respond positively to signals reflecting the quality like a neat presentation or the
presence of a video presentation. The crowd would act as a traditional investor, able to
evaluate the project quality and thus choose those with high potential growth.
We decided to conduct a similar study based on database from French reward-based
KissKissBankBank platform. We will try to determine key success factors and reason of
failure in a crowdfunding campaign. We will perform a qualitative study through different
variables.
We will firstly present KissKissBankBank platform and a framework of the selected projects.
We will present the different variables and describe the data. After this, we will present every
projects selected in order to describe precisely what are the drivers for a successful
crowdfunding campaign but also the errors performed in projects that did not reach their
funding goals.
In conclusion, we present this research question:
What are the key success factors and reason of failure in a crowdfunding campaign?

27.
27
B. Data Base:
In this section, we present the platform and the method of analysis of our data.
1. Platform:
The data were gathered on the crowdfunding platform of KissKissBankBank. We choose this
platform among others for three reasons. Firstly, KissKissBankBank is one the leaders on the
French market. Secondly, this platform proposes a large choice for the investors, classify in
categories, and strengthen the quality of the analysis. Finally, KissKissBankBank is one of the
few to keep online the projects that did not reach their funding goals and even after the
campaign end date. Competitors may pay attention to their public image by not showing the
failed projects. As a result, it will be easier for us to compare projects and therefore,
determine the elements of a success or failure of a crowdfunding campaign.
KissKissBankBank was created in March 2010, and raised 36,7 million euros for 55,739
projects created financed by 665,142 KissBankers (08/19/2015). Actually, they are 489 live
projects. The average of success rate for every category is 54%. Projects are categorizing in
several sectors: music, film and video, theatre, solidarity, journalism, art, book and edition,
photography, ecology, education, food, adventure and sport, mode, Show, web and
technology and Game. KissKissBankBank aims to promote innovation and creativity through
artistic and creative projects.
KissKissBankBank propose a reward/pre-purchase model based to finance projects. In this
type of crowdfunding, the average contribution is smaller compare to loan or equity
crowdfunding platform. In KissKissBankBank, the average contribution is 64€.
KissKissBankBank pay attention to the risks and propose transparent statistics compare to
other platforms. Potential bakers and entrepreneurs have access to statistics on live. The next
table present the statistics of the platform on the 19th August 2015.
Table 2: StaKissTics on KissKissBankBank platform in August 2015

28.
28
The platform works with the All-or-Nothing rule (A.O.N). If an entrepreneur does not reach
his funding goals, he will not receive the money that he raised so the investors will recover
their contribution.
Before explaining our database and variables, we would like to discuss about the process of a
crowdfunding campaign on KissKissBankBank’s platform.
You have several sections on the main page where you have to write an in depth presentation
of your project and the allocation of your future resources. In order to succeed your campaign,
the website propose a method: “How to develop and write your project”.
You can develop your project with the tab “News” in order to entertain and provoke the buzz.
You can also use the intern email account to discuss with potential bakers. Finally, the
platform recommends the use of a mini Frequent Ask Question (F.A.Q.) to propose the best-
detailed project.
Source: KissKissBankBank, Statistic August 2015,
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/stats

29.
29
When you write about your project, the platform recommends the presence of a video
(maximum 2 minutes) but also insert other videos in the “detailed project presentation”.
KissKissBankBank encourage you to link your project with a Facebook page or Twitter
account or a Google+1 account. They also advise the entrepreneur of the importance of the
counterparts in the success of his campaign.
In the end, KissKissBankBank detail a step-by-step methodology to promote your project by
writing an emailing campaign to your first network circle, personalised them, create events
and guerrilla marketing and convince bloggers and journalist to talk about your project. You
can see it on the Figure bellow (Table 3). You need to first involve your first circle (friends
and family), then the second circle (friends from your friends) and the third circle (public
audience).
Table 3: KissKissBankBank Action Plan
To confirm his reputation as a crowdfunding leader, KissKissBankBank propose for
entrepreneur the next statistic:
“Vous avez 96% de chance de réussir lorsque votre collecte atteint 41% de son objectif.
40% des projets qui dépassent 1% de leur objectif réussissent leur collecte.
87% des projets qui dépassent 21% de leur objectif réussissent leur collecte.
96% des projets qui dépassent 41% de leur objectif réussissent leur collecte.”
Source:
KissKissBankBank
web
page,
Promote
your
project
(2015)
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/fr/pages/guide/promote_your_project

30.
30
2. Data:
The database contains 10 projects on the category of “web and technology” which 5 succeed
(Group 1) and 5 failed (Group 2). We decided to focus on this specific category because it has
one the lowest success rate on the platform with 29%. Projects were selected if they succeed
or not their funding goal. We choose sometime projects that went beyond their funding goals
(139% to 100%) the rest raised are between 0% and 3% of their funding goal. We will present
them in another section. Projects that failed took place between June and August 2015 and the
projects that succeed were between March 2014 and August 2015.
We choose variables used in different studies especially from Mollick’s study (2013).
Firstly, we choose variables linked to the crowdfunding campaign and the final results such as
the funding goal, the final result and the percentage of the objective financed.
Then, we focus on the effective participation on the campaign with the final number of
investors and the average contribution.
We want to measure the implication of the entrepreneur by analysing the characteristic of the
project. We choose the variables carefulness of the presentation of the project (noted from 0
to 3 through the detailed description, the layout and the effort of presentation), the degree of
innovation (noted from 0 to 3 with the ability of distinguish itself from competitor), the
presence of a video and pictures, the number of news posted from the entrepreneur, the
presence of F.A.Q, the presence of a social network account and website.
Finally, we used variables to measure the investor’s quality perception with the use of the
social networks, the number of share and comments and the presence of mentors on the front
page.
You can find the resume on the Tables 4 and 5 on the third part.

31.
31
i. Variables:
In this section, we present a general view of the projects that succeed or not through the
variables. We present an in depth analysis of each project in Part III.
When we look at the success project, the funding goal oscillate between €8,000 and €30,000
with an average of €21,550 compare to failed project that are between €4,000 and €89,000
(average €27,000).
The effective participation is also important with an average of 236 final investors for the
succeed projects compare to 7 for the other Group project. Final bakers invested €118 in
Group 1 and only €7 for Group 2.
Entrepreneurs are much more implicating in the promotion of their project in Group 1. We
will present in much more detail the projects but Group 1 present projects with more
innovative concepts and take time to have a nice and clear presentation than the Group 2. He
grade with an average rate of 3 against 2 for both variables. Videos and pictures are present in
both groups except one project that did not have a video in Group 2. We observe that every
project that succeed posted news (with an average of 5) in opposition with failed projects that
posted zero news! On Group 2, 66% had a Facebook Page and Group 1 had 100%. A large
majority in both groups had their website (83%). Finally, entrepreneurs that used the F.A.Q
framework had much more success (83% used it); only one project used it in the failed
projects.
Finally, investors used their network to promote the project. In Group 1, they shared projects
on Facebook 212 times compare to 114 to Group 2. Success projects had 983 averages “likes”
in comparison with 139 for failed projects. Comments are also important; in Group 1 the 6
projects had ones (average rate: 46) instead of only 66% in Group 2 had none (average rate:
2)! Mentors seem not to have an incident in the investor’s perception: 33% in Group 1 had
ones and one project in Group 2.
Those different variables reflect the importance of the quality of the different projects and the
degree of implication of the entrepreneur base on the number of news posted all along the
campaign. As a result, the network is a strong asset in the success of a campaign.
It confirms the Mollick’s model (2013) arguing that investors respond positively to those
quality signals in their choice of investment.

32. A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF KISSKISSBANKBANK PROJECTS
This section will present an in-depth qualitative analysis of each projects based on their ability
to achieve or not their funding goals. Then, we will present our recommendation to
entrepreneurs in order to achieve a crowdfunding campaign.
A. Success Projects:
1. ti’Be:
ti’Be propose a smart beacon to find lost objects with an app on your smartphone. It ended on
March 23rd
2014 with duration of 90 days. This project has the higher success rate of our
entire database with 139% of final objective financed. The initial funding goal was €25,000
and ended with €34,762. In addition, the project catches the most KissKissBankers (bakers) in
the database with 518. The average contribution was €67.
Figure 1: ti’Be screenshot front page
We decided to grade the gracefulness and innovative variables with a 3. The structure of the
text is simple, clear, and even funny. A potential baker understands quickly the value
proposition: find your object with your smartphone and be part of the “ti’Be” community.
They explained the allocation for manufacturing.
Source : KissKissBankBank web page, ti’Be front page (August 2015),
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/ti-be-un-porte-cle-bluetooth-basse-consommation-pour-ne-
plus-perdre-ses-affaires-ti-be-by-ticatag?ref=successful

33.
33
The projects posted few pictures and the video is 2m04s like KissKissBankBank advised.
Regarding the social medias, ti’Be posted his Facebook and Twitter account and his website.
It was shared only 25 times on Facebook and 73 on Twitter.
For us, this project had success because of the implication of the entrepreneur in order to
create a community spirit. They posted 6 news but the first one was 10 days before the ending
of the campaign to thanks the bakers to already achieve the funding goal (€25,000). They
encouraged them to keep sharing the projects to their network and gave updates about the
product, delivery and advancement.
We can measure the implication of the crowd thanks to the number of comments: it has the
highest number of comments of our database with 117. Most of them asked details and
answer about bugs and the app. The company replied directly 5 times to answer those
questions by taking in account their remarks and keep posted about the corrections of the
product. They also designed a F.A.Q that most of the bakers checked.

34.
34
2. PiouPiou:
PiouPiou is a wind sensor to measure on live speed and wind direction, strength and soft gusts
and atmospheric pressure. It ended on August 14th
2014 with duration of 45 days. This project
went beyond his objective by 128% raising €38,177 instead of 29,850 initially asked. Bakers
were 264 with an average contribution of €144.6.
Figure 2: PiouPiou screenshot front page
The carefulness and innovative variables are rank as a 3. The text clearly expose the target
market, the value proposition (5 to 10 times cheaper than the competitors, self-powered, small
device). Innovation part is related to the technology, the entrepreneur decided to have an open
data about the wind measures and the hardware hihlighing the benefit of beeing part of a
« PiouPiou » community. He aslo used a F.A.Q framework. We noticed the entrepreneur took
time to explain his motivations and challenge, a lot of pictures shows how he created the
product.
The entrepreneur had a Twitter account and a website. He was followed by many bakers
(269).The news was used 7 times about sealing journey, giving solutions about bakers’s
stealing concern and encourage the community to share it to their network. For instance, his
second newsletter dated on July 13th 2014 presented a geolocation technology with the sensor
that alamarded you directly. We counted 48 comments from bakers encouraging the
Source : KissKissBankBank web page, PiouPiou front page (August 2015),
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/pioupiou?ref=category

35.
35
entrepreneur in his projects, asking questions regarding the product and giving technical
advise.
3. Hydrao:
Hydro is a smart shower educating you with a colour system of the quantity of water you
used. They collected €18,759 (125%) supported by 222 bakers. The duration was 60 days and
ended on December 20th
2014.
Both gracefulness and innovative variables were grated with a 3. The text structure is
composed of short and clear sentences sending a powerful value proposition (Universal
plugged, Education, Sustainability and savings on energy bill). The video present the product,
the team and the future allocation of resources. Moreover, animated pictures help the potential
baker to understand the project as well as the graphs explaining the timeline, detailed
potential savings (web link to calculate it yourself) and they gave precise figures of the
resources they needed. They presented the team, media and public institutions support. They
also used a F.A.Q framework. Innovation is related to the product and the application on the
smartphone where you can see your savings, modulate your water variables ect…
They posted a Facebook Page, a Twitter account and their website. The company was
implicated during the campaign. They posted 8 news about press cover, application
advancement and encourage the crowd to share the projects. In consequence, bakers shared it
442 on Facebook and commented 32 times.
We noticed the company proposed 13 counterparts from low to high prices proposing to buy
the product (€5; €19; €26; €54; €69; €80; €96; €126; €135; €180; €4,000; €5,500). As a
result, they had a proof of concept with 203 customers. The bakers invested an average price
of €84.5.

36.
36
Figure 3: Hydrao screenshop front page
Source: KissKissBankBank web page, Hydrao front page (August 2015),
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/hydrao-la-douche-intelligente-the-smart-
shower?ref=category

37.
37
4. Ween:
Ween is a smart thermostat that raised €41,627 (104%) in December 18th
2014 support by 232
bakers. They invested an average price of €179.3.
We think the success of this project is link to his innovation (3): it controls the temperature
(gas, electricity, oil) by detecting your “unplanned absences”. In addition, they file a patent.
The carefulness is high (3) by highlighting the competitive advantage compare to competitors,
ecology spirit and money saving arguments. The company presented the team and explained
clearly their needs of the crowdfunding campaign with graphs. The video duration is 3m14s
with a high professional presentation. They used a F.A.Q framework.
Figure 4: Ween screenshot front page
The entrepreneur was implicated in the campaign: 7 news linked to press cover of the product.
They had a Facebook page, a Twitter account and a website. As a result, bakers were
implicated too because they shared it 435 times and followed it by 246. The 35 comments
revealed the enthusiasm of the crowd for the product.
The counterpart proposed to buy the thermostat. As a result, Ween had a proof of concept
with 114 buyers.
Source: KissKissBankBank web page, Ween front page (August 2015),
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/l-energie-sur-mesure?ref=category

38.
38
5. Weecame:
Weecame is a free app helping you to organize and find parties at homes or in public places.
This campaign ended on August 21st
2015. They raised 103% of their funding goal objective
(€8,268) and supported by 85 bakers. The aim of the raising is to develop the app on
Android’s platform.
Carefulness and innovative is medium high with both 2. The text structure focuses on the
presentation of the app, the team, the media and the allocation of the raise. Innovative is the
geolocation technology and the discount price with the bars.
The company focus on the advantage of being part of a “Weecamer” community by attending
or participating to parties. They had a Facebook page shared 264 times and like more than
4,000 times. They posted 2 news asking the community to continue to share the project to
their network.
Figure 5: Weecame screenshot front page
Source: KissKissBankBank web page, Weecame front page (August 2015),
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/fr/projects/weecame-l-application-qui-revolutionne-

39.
39
Table 4: Key Variables with projects that reach their funding goals
Variables Ti’Be
(03/23/2014)
PiouPiou
(08/14/2014)
Hydrao
(12/20/2014)
Ween
(12/18/2014)
Weecame
(Ended on
08/21/2015)
Funding goal (in K€) 25 29,8 15 40 8,2
% of objective financed 139% -
€34,7K
128% -
€38,1K
125% -
€18K
104% -
€41,6K
103%
KissKissBankers 518 264 222 232 80
City (>10000) Lannion Grenoble Grenoble Aix-en-
Provence
Paris
Time of the campaign (in
day)
90 45 60 43 45
Carefulness 3 3 3 3 2
Innovative 3 3 3 3 2
Photos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Videos Yes
(english)
(2m04s)
Yes Yes
(3m34s)
Yes
(3m17s)
Yes
(39s)
Website Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Nb of News 6 7 7 7 2
Facebook’s Share 25
(Twitter: 73)
10
(Twitter: 269)
442 435
(Twitter: 246)
264
Facebook Page Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Nb of likes in Fb Page 324 - 221 163 4,008
Nb of Comments 117 48 29 35 20
Nb of Comments from the
Entrepreneur
5 1 0 0 0
Average Contribution in € 67 144.6 84.5 179.3 102.5
Nb of counterparts 6 13 13 12 13
Mentors 2 2 0 0 0
F.A.Q Yes Yes Yes Yes No

40.
40
B. Failed Project:
1. Just The Bell:
Just the Bell is an alarm clock that aims to “free the bedrooms from smartphone”. It was
launched on July 25th
2015, with a funding objective of €89,000. On August 24th
, they raised
€2,231 (3%) by 35 bakers.
The front page is beautiful, classy (grade: 3) but it is fill in with only images. Innovation is
low with 1, the bell is connected with smartphone to set the alarm clock. They have a
Facebook page shared 340 times and liked by 167 people. They used a F.A.Q framework.
They had a mentor and very strong media support (Time, TechCrunch…). The story and
action plan were well explained.
So, what went wrong?
Few errors were identified: Just The Bell did not explain at all the allocation of the €89,000.
After one month of campaign, they did not post any news to encourage the community to
participate or share the projects. However, the main problem is the difficulty to understand the
value proposition. There is a contradiction between ‘leaving the phone in the bedroom” and
using the phone to set the alarm clock. Moreover, the bell is not intuitive because you need to
shake it and count the number of lights to now the time.
Then, there is no mention of being part of a community like in the success projects.
Moreover, they explained briefly on their Facebook page the KissKissBankBank campaign
was as you can see on Figure 6.
Finally, the company proposed 9 counterparts with very high prices (1; 10; 78; 89; 173; 329;
1 482 and €3,342).
In conclusion, Just The Bell presented a nice project on the paper with many likes on the
social media but they did not succeed to create and gather a community. They should post
news and create the network. In our opinion, the objective seems to be too high.

41.
41
Figure 6: Just The Bell Facebook Page
Figure 7: Just The Bell screenshot front page
Source: KissKissBankBank web page, Just The Bell front page (August 2015),
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/introducing-justthebell
Source: Just The Bell Facebook Page (August 2015),
https://www.facebook.com/justthebell?fref=ts

42.
42
2. Taxihub:
Taxi Hub is an app to find taxi like Uber. It was launched on July 25th
2015 and stopped on
August 19th
because they raised only 1% of their funding objectives (€4,000) by 2 bakers.
The gracefulness and innovative aspect of the project were low 0 and 1. The text structure has
a political-orientation with an Uber/ V.T.C conspiracy speech. The resources would be used
to travel and communication expenses. They did not used a video tape to explain their project.
Regarding their implication, they did not post any news. They had a Facebook page shared 45
times but with the same political orientation. Moreover, they counterpart were high (from €20
to €4,000).
Figure 8: Taxihub screenshot front page
Source: KissKissBankBank web page, TaxiHub front page (August 2015),
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/taxihub-et-si-trouver-un-vrai-taxi-etait-simple

43.
43
3. The Shoppers:
The Shoppers is a social marketplace between customers and retail dealer. It started on July
14th
2015 and will end in September. They raised 1% of their objective (€25,000). This
project is interesting because it has a neat presentation (gracefulness 3) with pleasant
calligraphy. Plus, the allocation of resources was clearly explained with figures.
There are a Facebook page, a Twitter account and website. Furthermore, the Facebook page
was shared 258 times and liked 195 proving an implication of the network. We observed on
his Facebook page that the crowdfunding campaign was shared 83 times.
What went wrong?
The Shoppers did not post any news asking help to the community. The video contained only
images without anysound. As a result, we do not understand the purpose of the project and the
campaign. In addition, we noticed the entrepreneur was one of the first baker and it may have
been perceived has a bad sign for potential bakers. Then, there were no comments posted.
In conclusion, the crowd seems to respond positively by sharing the project but respond
negatively to the entrepreneur’s implication.
The crowd may not share the value proposition of this project thus does not meet their needs.
Figure 9: The Shoppers screenshot front page
Source: KissKissBankBank web page, The Shoppers front page (August
2015), http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/the-shoppers-la-
marketplace-sociale-et-solidaire

44.
44
4. Freedom:
Freedom is an app enabling automation in your home. It started on July 25th
2015 and will
end the 28th
of August. This project failed his funding goal by raising only €55 for €18,000
asked.
The project is well presented explaining in detail the purpose of the campaign, the value
proposition (powerful and ergonomic graph with customized pictures from your home) and
his cost (less than €1,000). The video is very professional and is longer enough (3minutes) to
understand the project but it was a promotional adds. Thus, it did not explain the needs of the
campaign. We graded both the carefulness and innovative with a 3.
The project failed because of the non-implication of the entrepreneur during the campaign. He
posted zero news and had not a single comment. We noticed the entrepreneur did not
communicate about his crowdfunding campaign both on his Facebook page and on his
website. As a result, it was shared only one time. Nevertheless, he was active on the social
media posting news with innovative updates and press cover. He should have done that on the
KissKissBankBank front page to show implication for bakers. One remark concerns
communication that is concentrated for local customers in Toulouse.
It is also the second project of the database that invested in the crowdfunding campaign. He
was the first to bake the project with €50 on the first day of the campaign. The second baker
came one month later.
Figure 10: Freedom screenshot front page
Source: KissKissBankBank web page, Freedom front page (August 2015),
http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/freedom-la-maison-connectee

45.
45
5. 1001boxers.com:
The 1001 boxer’s project is a website selling male customized boxers. The goal of the
campaign is to finance the creation of the website. It was launched in July 2015.
We choose this project because it had the lowest funding goal objective of the database
(€3,400), it did not reach to raise a single euro and it will finish on August 28th.
The carefulness on the front page is at his minimum level with blur pictures ruining the
quality product perception. At the contrary of lots of projects, they explained with figures the
allocation of the raising. In addition, the video is very short (54s) without explanation about
the project or campaign. It shows the creative process for customizing your boxer on the
future website.
This project is the only one that did not have a Facebook page or Twitter account but was
shared one time. As a result, potential bakers rejected the project because of the un-
implication of the entrepreneur. We count zero news and comments. Thus, the entrepreneur
did not communicate at all with it network.
Figure 11: 1001boxers.fr screenshot front page
Source: KissKissBankBank web page, 1001boxers.fr front page
(August 2015), http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/1001boxers-
fr?ref=search

46.
46
Table5: Key Variables with projects that did not reach their funding goals
Variables Just the Bell
(Launched
07/25/2015)
Taxi
Hub
(Launched
07/21/2015)
The Shoppers
(Launched 07/11/2015)
Freedom
(Launched
06/29/2015)
1001
Boxers
(Launched in
July 2015)
Funding goal (in K€) 89 4 25 18 3,4
% of objective financed 3% - €2.2 1% - €40 1% - 170€ 0% - €55 0% - 0€
KissKissBankers 35 2 3 2 0
Last KissKissBankers invested 6th
August 22th July July 14th July 25th -
City (>100.000) Paris Nantes Boulogne
Billancourt
Toulouse Paris
Remain Time (in days) 21 Stopped
08/19/2015
12 End on
08/28/2015
8
Carefulness 3 0 3 3 0
Innovative 1 1 3 3 2
Photos Yes Yes Yes Yes
(3)
Yes
Videos Yes
(1m54s)
No Yes (1m35s) Yes (2m59s) Yes
(59s)
Website Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Nb of News 0 0 0 0 0
Facebook Share 340 45 258 1 1
Facebook Page Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Number of likes on FB Page 167 44 195 151 -
Nb of Comments 8 2 0 0 0
Nb of Comments from the
Entrepreneur
4 1 - - -
Average Contribution in € 65,5 20 56,6 27,5 -
Nb of counterparts 9 7 13 6 6
Mentors 0 0 0 0 0
F.A.Q Yes No No No No

47. FINDINGS
The dissertation purpose is to identify the key success factors to reach your funding goal
when an entrepreneur has a “web ant technology” project.
We noticed few common points between success and failed projects: the carefulness standard
is very important. The entrepreneur should have an in-depth detailed project presentation with
a clear message of the value proposition and the competitive advantage. The structure must be
written without grammar errors and should be fun or direct to understand the project.
Then, he should explain the needs of the funding with precise figure for the allocation. A
large majority of the projects had videos (between 2 to 3 minutes) that detailed the project, the
team and the needs of the funding. The entrepreneur should post his social media’s account
(Facebook Page, Twitter, Google +, Instagram, Trumbl) and website (if he has one) so the
potential bakers can share the project. Obviously, they can post pictures has they want but
they must be smart to understand the project.
In our opinion, the Group 1 succeed because of several points:
The innovative variable is quite significant. Group 1 proposed concrete projects linked to
sustainability, education and carefulness of your favourite objects. It might be a driver for the
bakers. However, in our opinion, those projects succeed because we can feel to be part of a
community.
One crucial driver is positive signals send by the entrepreneur to his community through his
continuous implication in the crowdfunding campaign. From the first day until the end, the
entrepreneur must post news. It can concerns press cover of the product, updates and answer
to potential baker’s questions. Nevertheless, you have to encourage your bakers to share and
discuss your project with their network. Regarding the comments from bakers, the
entrepreneur can respond directly to them or by the “news” tab and keep asking to share the
project. Moreover, the sense of community is another key driver for success.
It seems that providing mentors is not mandatory but it can still represent a plus. The number
of counterpart can be, for us, many as the entrepreneur want but should be scaled from a low
to a large rank.
We think the entrepreneur should not bake his project because it seems to send a negative
perception on the project quality.

48.
48
We finally strongly recommend the use of a F.A.Q framework so bakers would be reassured
about the project itself.

49. CONCLUSION
The crowdfunding is a new phenomenon coming from starch and is now escalading. It is
becoming a new and important alternative to finance a project. Academic research and public
institutions are studying and regulating this sector. Because of its newness, lake of database
and resources give it difficult to study.
In this dissertation, we wanted to present the crowdfunding sector to every person interested
by this subject. We also tried to explain in details the drivers to success a crowdfunding
campaign in the “web and technology” projects. It can be interesting for entrepreneurs if they
want to launch a crowdfunding campaign.
We noticed correlation between our finding and the academic literature. Crowdfunding
enables innovative projects and creative entrepreneurs to get access to fund. We confirm
Ethan Mollick’s (2013) study relating to the investor’s perception to the quality signals. First,
carefulness of the presentation is not the only variables that send quality to potential bakers.
Then, we show that the entrepreneur implication in the crowdfunding campaign is a key
driver to prove the quality of the project and help to attract potential bakers. Moreover, the
sense of community is another key driver for success. Finally, bakers play a key role in the
success of the campaign with their network by sharing the project.
We give from a managerial perspective, recommendations to increase the chance of success
of a crowdfunding campaign. Crowdfunding is an interesting solution to fund a project for an
entrepreneur as long as it shows innovation and community spirit. We advise every
entrepreneur to consider this solution to finance his project.
From a society point of view, we think that crowdfunding can give many advantages for
entrepreneurs and investors for the sharing knowledge. Thanks to the regulation, it represents
a reliable solution compare to traditional canals.
Nevertheless, our findings must be relativizing because of the newness of this sector. It should
be confirm in the future when the crowdfunding market will be consolidated. They will have
access to more important database for research. A study should consider verifying the drivers
of success of crowdfunding campaign in every category to identify similarity or not. In
addition, one could also continue to analyse drivers to interest or not bakers to fund projects.
Thus, identify new key success factors.

50. REFERENCES
Anaxago (2015), Statistic, https://www.anaxago.com/, (Visited on August 20th
2015), Equity
crowdfunding platform
Agrawal, A., Catalini, C. & Goldfarb, A. (2011). The Geography of Crowdfunding. NET
Institute Working Paper, 10-08, 56.
Agrawal, A., Catalini, C. & Goldfarb, A. (2013). Some Simple Economics of Crowdfunding.
NBER Working Paper, w19133, 46.
Ahlers, G.K.C., Cumming, D., Guenther, C. & Schweizer, D. (2012). Signaling in Equity
Crowdfunding. working paper, 47.
Akerlof, G.A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the market
mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, 84-3, 488- 500.
APCE website, Les Business Angels (Visited on June 10th
2015)
http://www.apce.com/pid2772/les-business-angels.htmlC=173
Askenazi A., (March 2015), “Des Start-up freinées par le manque d’investissements privés”,
Les Echos
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T. & Schwienbacher, A. (2013). Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right
Crowd. Journal of Business Venturing; CORE Discussion Paper, 2011/32, 45.
Belleflamme, P. & Lambert, T. (2014). Crowdfunding: some empirical findings and
microeconomic underpinnings, Revue bancaire et financière, forthecoming, 15.
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T. & Schwienbacher, A. (2013). Individual Crowdfunding
Practices. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 15(4), 313-
333. 61.
Berger, A. N. & Udell, G.F. (1998). The economics of small business finance: the role of
private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle. Journal of Banking and
Finance, 22, 52.
Boulay, C. (2013). Reportage radio sur le crowdfunding. Dans Rosier, C. (réalisatrice), On
n’arrête pas l’éco. Paris: France Inter.
Brabham, D.C. (2008). Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: The composition of the crowd and
motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application.

51.
51
Bradford, C. S. (2012). Crowdfunding and the Federal Securities Laws. Columbia Business
Law Review, 2012-1, 150.
Burkett, A. (2011). A Crowdfunding Exemption? Online Investment Crowdfunding and U.S.
Securities Regulation. Transactions (Tennessee Journal of Business Law), 13-1, 63-106.
Clifford, C. (2014). Crowdfunding generates more than $60,000 an Hour (Infographic).
Cumming, Schwienbacher and Leboeuf (2015). Crowdfunding models: Keep-it-All vs. All-
or-Nothing, SSRN, May 2015
European Crowdfunding Network (2013). Review of Crowdfunding Regulation:
Interpretations of existing regulation concerning crowdfunding in Europe, North America and
Israel. Publication of the Tax & Legal Work group of the European Crowdfunding Network,
246. 62.
Le Guide Du Crowdfunding Website (2013), Mode d’Emploi.
www.leguideducrowdfunding.com/a-savoir-mode-d-emploi/ (Visited on June 2015)
Ibrahim, D. M. (2008). The (Not So) Puzzling Behavior of Angel Investors. Vanderbilt Law
Review, 61, 1405-1452.
Indiegogo, Statistic, https://www.indiegogo.com/, (Visited on August 20th
2015), Reward/Pre-
Purchase crowdfunding platform
Kickstarter (2015), Statistic, https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats?ref=footer ,(Visited on
August 20th
2015), Reward/Pre-Purchase crowdfunding platform
KissKissBankBank (2015). Les Stakisstiques. http://www.kisskissbankbank.com /fr/stats
(Visited on August 21st
2015) Plate-forme de crowdfunding KissKissBankBank.
Kleemann, F., Voß, G.G. & Rieder, K. (2008). Un(der)paid Innovators: The commercial
utilization of consumer work through crowdsourcing. Science, Technology & Innovation
Studies, 4-1, 5-26.
Lavinsky, D. (2010). Funding Fathers. http://www.sbnonline.com/article/funding-fathers-the-
birth-of-business-crowdfunding-is-providing-new-ways-to-get-money/ (Visited in July 20th
2015) Website talking about strategy and business.
Lawton, K. & Marom, D. (2013). The crowdfunding revolution: how to raise venture capital
using social media. New York: McGraw Hill.

52.
52
Edouard Lederer (31/03/2015), « La finance participative accélère son incroyable
expansion », Les Echos
Massolution Global Report (2015), http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/global-
crowdfunding-market-to-reach-344b-in-2015-predicts-massolutions-2015cf-industry-
report/45376, (Visited on August 20th
) Crowdsourcing website
Jérôme Marin (28/03/2015), “La montre Pebble lève 20 millions de dollars sur Kickstarter,
un record”, Le Monde
Mollick, E. (2013). The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study. Journal of
Business Venturing, 29, 16.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). Web2.0: Compact definition? http://radar.oreilly.com /2005/10/web-20-
compact-definition.html (Visited on May 10th
2015) O’Reilly’ website.
Rubinton, B.J. (2011). Crowdfunding: Disintermediated Investment Banking, MPRA paper,
31649, 20.
Schwartz, A.A. (2013). Crowdfunding Securities. Notre Dame Law Review, 88, 1457-1490.
Schwienbacher, A. & Larralde, B. (2010). Crowdfunding of Small Entrepreneurial Ventures.
Handbook of entrepreneurial Finance, Oxford University Press, 23.
Sen, A. (2000). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
Shapiro, C. & Varian, H.R. (1999). Information rules – A strategic guide to the network
economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
Tomboc, G.F. (2013). The lemons problem in crowdfunding. The John Marshall Journal of
Information Technology & Privacy Law, 30, 253-279.
Ulule (2015), Statistic, https://fr.ulule.com/stats/, (Visited on August 20th
2015), Reward/Pre-
Purchase crowdfunding platform
Verdier-Mollinié A. IFRAP Think Thank (2015), On va droit dans le mur, Albin Michel, p154
Wiseed (2015), Statistic, https://www.wiseed.com/fr , (Visited on August 20th
2015), Equity
crowdfunding platform

53. APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Crowdfunding guide book
Typede
plateforme
Naturedes
projets
Conservati
onde
Propriété
intellectuell
e
Selection
desprojets
Règledu
“Toutou
Rien”
Tarifs
Contribute
urs
Réussites
Kickstarter
Crée en 2009
Financement
avec
contreparties
non
financières
Projets
créatifs
Oui Oui Oui 5% de la
somme
collectée
+ 3% frais
bancaires
<1,3
millions
44%
Ulule
Crée en 2010
Financement
avec
contreparties
non
financières
Projets
créatifs
Oui Oui Oui Entre 5 à
8%
<200
000
63%
KKBB
Crée en 2010
Financement
avec
contreparties
non
financières
Projets
créatifs
Oui Oui Oui 5% +3%
FB
<166
000
56%
INDIEGOGO
Crée en 2008
Financement
avec
contreparties
non
financières
Généraliste Oui Non Oui et non 5% si obj
atteint /
9% si boj
non
atteint +
3% FB
NC NC
ANAXAGO
Crée en 2012
Financement
avec prise de
participation
Entreprise Non :
cession
d’une part
de capital
de
l’entreprise
Oui Oui / seuil
de
faisabilité
fixé entre
50% à
80% de
l’obj
Frais de
dossier :
500 euros
HT + 5%
de la
somme
collectée
NC NC
Source:
Le
Guide
du
Crowdfunding
(2013),
www.leguideducrowdfunding.com/a-­‐savoir-­‐mode-­‐d-­‐emploi/