Graph of the week: Crowdfunding

Or How technology improves market efficiency (by linking successful projects to alternative funding sources).

The Economist produced a graph on crowdfunding and what works and what doesn't on the biggest crowdfunding site Kickstarter. For those unaware of this recent technological phenomenon, crowdfunding is a collective funding platform for individuals who use networking to pool money and fund their creative ideas and projects. It is usually done online and is used to support a variety of activities. It is a great way to replace more formal and traditional funding techniques. It is literally funding by crowds of people.

How does it work? People who have innovative, great ideas or projects, but lack the funds to finance them, "upload" them online on a specialized site and that way enter a relatively large market of potential investors. Depending on interest and the idea itself, a variety of individuals fund the project, and naturally bear a certain risk, but also expects a payoff. I don't know how crowdfunding sites get around the problem of intellectual theft, but I'm sure they've come up with something.

And if anyone thinks that crowdfuning is still small and couldn't be used to fund big projects, the numbers claim the opposite: 

Source: The Economist
"LAST year more than 18,000 projects were successfully funded on Kickstarter, the largest crowdfunding website. A total of $320m was pledged by 2.2m people, making possible creative projects including a documentary on fracking, a home aquaponics kit and a community centre for circus arts. Games, a category which includes video, board and card games, received the most support, with $83m pledged to more than 900 projects. Given their high development costs and passionate fans, video games are a good match for crowdfunding, particularly as established publishers churn out ever more sequels, leaving a long tail of unmet demand (see article). In all, 44% of the projects launched last year managed to raise the money they requested, but the success rate ranged from a threadbare 26% in fashion to a sprightly 74% in dance. Seventeen projects raised more than $1m apiece in 2012. Technology projects received the highest average pledge by category, at $107 per backer. The biggest Kickstarter project to date is Pebble, a watch that connects to a smartphone via Bluetooth, which received almost $150 per backer to raise $10.3m in May. (The first finished products are due to be delivered to backers next week.) According to Kickstarter, the total amount raised last year increased by more than 200% compared with 2011. Having opened itself to British-based projects in October, the site expects to see further growth in 2013."
And Kickstarter is only one crowdfunfing site. There's plenty more.

I am always in favour of such innovative ideas that can help fix existing market failures, particularly if the idea is originated within the market itself. As Arnold Kling says: "markets often fail, that's why we need markets". The idea of crowdfunding, as it is with many new technological improvements, is among the best possible proof of this. When there is a downturn in the credit market, and banks are highly restrictive of lending and borrowing due to tight conditions which seems to lead us to a self-perpetuating vicious cycle, a new idea comes along, generated by the market participants allocating information and comes up with an innovative solution. 

It's all about quality as only the best perceived projects get funded, i.e. projects that offer a good value for money, or are simply a great idea (some campaigns and charities get funded as well). Crowdfunding is, in my opinion, the future of financing successful projects. For a technological visionary (which I'm not but many people are) it's not hard to imagine that sites like Kickstarter will soon enough replace banks (or at least take a big portion of their assets). This is excellent for at least two reasons: (1) more projects get funded that probably wouldn't have received funds in a traditional way, and (2) banks get more competition, which forces them to adapt or perish. The final outcome will be mutually beneficial for all market participants - we get more new ideas in more quickly, and more people are able to fulfill their entrepreneurial dream. 

Comments

  1. Unknown11 February 2013 at 10:47

    Great post, there was also a nice article in the Economist about a market solution to "illiquidity" problems where smaller startup companies buy liabilities on discount and try to get most of the money back (or something similar).

    But my primary reason for writing the comment was to say, that it was a nice surprise this week when I got my Lider in the post box and saw you in a Lider feature, along some other Croatian economists. Things may be moving in a positive direction "idea wise" in Croatia, especially after seeing the Jutarnji article this morning ;) Congrats!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vuk Vukovic11 February 2013 at 13:22

      Thank you! I'm glad you liked the articles.
      (P.S. I haven't forgotten about our monetary policy debate, but you probably see why I haven't had the time to finish my response yet)

      Delete
  2. KyleN11 February 2013 at 18:56

    It is another great example of how the internet has changed everything. I helped fund a game I was interested in on Kickstarter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. QUALITY STOCKS UNDER 5 DOLLARS4 March 2013 at 19:24

    I have not a problem with the notion of finding a funding source for a great idea. The one major problem that one has to contend with when private investors are brought into a company as owners is the possible potential of losing control over the company that one founded. When one becomes a minority owner of a business all bets are off because once you lose control over your company to a outside group of investors its pretty much like your just another employee of the company. And than you can quickly be cast aside for many reasons. In some ways it can be worse than borrowing money to fund a business. Remember most major investors a very likely numbers crunchers and pretty much nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vuk Vukovic5 March 2013 at 19:05

      Yes, but the ownership isn't given away to investors - just like in a regular business model they take shares in ownership. They don't take over a company. It's like going for an IPO, you don't give away your company, you just use investor's money to finance your company's growth.

      Delete
  4. best crowdfunding sites3 May 2013 at 16:42

    Anyhow my essential purpose behind composing the remark was to say, that it was a great astound without much fanfare when I got my Lider in the post box and saw you in a Lider characteristic, along some other Croatian economists .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10 September 2013 at 13:18

    These are genuinely impressive ideas in about blogging.

    You have touched some good factors here. Any way keep up wrinting.


    My website ... North Coast Tribal Loans

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Short-selling explained (case study: movie "Trading Places")

Image
After seeing the movie "Trading Places" (1983), starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, for the thousandth time during the holiday season, I decided to write a quick post explaining what happened at the end of this movie that gets so many people puzzled (including me for the first couple of times I've seen it). This entertaining 80s comedy can actually teach you more about finance and trading than any other Hollywood movie (not counting documentaries), including the infamous "Wall Street" (1987), starring Michael Douglas as the ruthless Gordon Gecko, and especially the latest Scorsese film "The Wolf of Wall Street" (2013). Anyway, we all know the story from Trading Places. Dan Aykroyd plays a snobbish investor Louis Winthorpe ("the Third"), while Eddie Murphy plays a street con artist Billy Ray Valentine whose lives get reversed as a result of a bet between two cruel millionaires, the Duke brothers. The Dukes own a commodities bro
Read more

Economic history: mercantilism and international trade

Image
All too often during poor economic times many debunked economic fallacies of the past get reinvented. The reason is simple: a search for ideas and solutions alternative to the "mainstream" (however we define it) allows those who succumb to these fallacies to repeat the ancient errors classical economics was hoping to get rid of. The short-termism of politics plays a crucial role in the process of persistent perpetuation of such fallacies. This is why in times like these it is essential to go back in economic history and debunk some of the ideas that tend to surface repeatedly. In the following couple of posts, I attempt to do just that.  Misunderstanding trade  One of the most misunderstood areas of economics is international trade. More precisely, the idea that if we were to boost net exports - by subsidizing exports and constraining imports - we can achieve higher GDP growth. If one looks at the simple arithmetic of a standard Keynesian macro model: Y=C+I+G+NX, the
Read more

Rent-seeking explained: Removing barriers to entry in the taxi market

Image
The taxi market is undoubtedly one of the best examples of something economists like to call rent-seeking . What does this phenomenon stand for and why do economists (particularly political economists) devote a lot of attention to it?  The classical definition was given by Gordon Tullock back in his  1967  seminal paper "The welfare cost of tariffs, monopolies and theft" , even though the phrase itself was coined by Anne Krueger in 1974 .  Rent-seeking is a process of gaining private benefits through the political process (by lobbying or logrolling for example). It implies gaining protection for a certain privileged group, which in return promises political support, large campaign contributions, or even bribes. This protection varies from giving a monopoly status to a certain company, regulating market entry than hampers competition (such as introducing licences to specific occupations), imposing tariffs to import goods to protect the domestic industry, handing out su
Read more

Graphs (images) of the week: Separated by a border

Image
Usually comparing countries or regions requires looking at GDP growth data, GDP per capita, living standards, relative income or even the happiness index. But even a simple areal glimpse at the borders separating two systems can be more than enough to conclude which country is richer, healthier, more educated and on average more prosperous. It tells us that the causes of between-country differences have to be more than just climate, geography, culture or mentality. Particularly when the same nation is separated by nothing more than a border depicting the striking differences in political systems of the two countries (a classical example here are East and West Germany, but an equally good example can be North or South Korea).  As a result I found that the following set of images paint a better  picture  on between-country differences   than any existing data on global inequality.  The first one is from a  blog post I encountered on the Why Nations Fail blog, comparing the citi
Read more