Please Share! Online Word of Mouth and Charitable Crowdfunding

When the winner takes it all: online campaign factors influencing the success of donation-based crowdfunding for charitable causes

“…In particular, Facebook users were assumed to be more responsive to desirable behavior within social groups such as charitable giving, while users of other social networks as Twitter were assumed to be more responsive to consumer goods and services. In this sense, an increase of the campaign spreadability from Facebook was proved to have just positive effects in the case of social campaigns, while the spreadability via Twitter only had positively affected private (creative) goods campaigns (Moqri & Bandyopadhyay, 2016).…”

“…In both cases, spreadability emerges as a sine qua non condition in the digital realm, understood as the wide distribution and circulation of information on digital media platforms (Jenkins et al, 2013). In the context of DCF campaigns, the spreadability of campaign details seems to be crucial as both cause and effect of success, in the light of previous research (Mano, 2014;Saxton & Wang, 2014;Beaulieu & Sarker, 2015;Fondevila et al, 2015;Choy & Schlagwein, 2015Korolov et al, 2016;Moqri & Bandyopadhyay, 2016;Snyder et al, 2016;Aprilia & Wibowo, 2017;Berliner & Kenworthy, 2017;Lacan & Desmet, 2017;Gleasure & Feller, 2018) affecting aspects such as the design itself of campaigns aiming to be successful, and the inclusion of factors inherent to it.…”

“…DCF campaigns are open and searchable through online search engines, and spread on different social media, networks and platforms, enlarging their potential effect. In particular, the DCF campaigns spreadability seems to positively affect their success by: (1) maximizing the effects of the campaigns to wider potential donor audiences (Mano, 2014;Saxton & Wang, 2014;Fondevila et al, 2015;Snyder et al, 2016;Berliner & Kenworthy, 2017); (2) enabling the dialogue based on the electronic word-of-mouse (Paulin et al, 2014;Saxton & Wang, 2014;Beaulieu & Sarker, 2015;Du & Li, 2016;Gleasure & Feller, 2016;Moqri & Bandyopadhyay, 2016;Lacan & Desmet, 2017); (3) influencing (impulse) online donations (Ghosh & Mahdian, 2008;Bennett, 2009;Saxton & Wang, 2014;Sura et al, 2017); (4) helping to increase the ethical consumption both online and offline (Mano, 2014); and (5) reinforcing the legitimacy of campaigns (Tanaka & Voida, 2016) as it increases their perceived credibility (Hsieh et al, 2011;Kim et al, 2016a, b;Khurana, 2021).…”

Mapping the Field of Donation-Based Crowdfunding for Charitable Causes: Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework

“…Since pure DCF targets public benefit causes in a very broad sense-from social ventures to scientific purposes or social care needs-the profile of individuals, groups, or organizations fostering them is accordingly diverse. However, most studies focus on traditional charities as promoters of DCF campaigns (Cao and Jia 2017;Body and Breeze 2016;Chung and Moriuchi 2016;Gleasure and Feller 2016a;Moqri and Bandyopadhyay 2016;Bellio et al 2015;Ferguson et al 2015;Lee et al 2015;Steinemann et al 2015;Castillo et al 2014;Nogami 2014 ;Paulin et al 2014a, b;Saxton and Wang 2014;Reinstein and Riener 2012 ;Smith et al 2012 ;Ordanini et al 2011;Ozdemir et al 2010;Bennett 2005Bennett , 2009Wojciechowski 2009 ;Eller 2008;Goecks et al 2008).…”

“…DCF campaigns promoted by individuals are the majority in the context of medical causes, where the patient, its relatives or friends, personally solicit contributions for individual medical treatments (Berliner and Kenworthy 2017;Kim et al 2016bSnyder et al 2016;Farnel 2015;Burtch and Chan 2014). Beyond health care, individuals also promote DCF campaigns to ask for monetary assistance to cope with personal (e.g., funerals, education costs, and memorials) and collective causes (Ge et al 2016;Gleasure and Feller 2016a;Kim et al 2016a;Moqri and Bandyopadhyay 2016;Smith et al 2015;Ordanini et al 2011).…”