Comparative Analysis: Success Factors in Crowdfunding Campaigns

This case study examines two contrasting crowdfunding campaigns: a successful initiative to protect endangered Hawaiian forest birds and a failed attempt to fund a software application called 'U in a Bottle.' The 'Protect Hawaii's Stunning Endangered Forest Birds Campaign' achieved its goal by employing a unique theme, a clear objective ('Birds, Not Rats'), and a strong social media presence, offering appealing perks to donors. In contrast, the 'U in a Bottle' campaign failed due to an unclear concept, a confusing name, and a lack of compelling content or a clear value proposition. The analysis concludes that the 'Protect Hawaii' campaign is a more appealing investment due to its clarity, engaging perks, and worthwhile cause, while 'U in a Bottle' suffers from a lack of clarity and a weak marketing approach. Desklib provides access to this and other solved assignments to aid students in their studies.

CROWD FUNDING
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EXAMPLES OF CROWD FUNDING

POSITIVE EXAMPLE
‘PROTECT HAWAII’S STUNNING ENDANGERED FOREST BIRDS
CAMPAIGN’
This online campaign was carried out by employees from Kaua’i
Forest Bird Recover Project who aimed at raising funds through
crowd funding to protect the indigenous Hawaiian bird species.

SUCCESS
• Primary goal was to raise $10,000 for purchasing 25 rat traps.
• The campaign attracted over 350 investors into the project
• 20% of the goal was achieved within 24 hours after running the
campaign
• The campaign raised above $29,000

WHY IT WAS A SUCCESS
I liked the campaign due to the following factors used in the campaign
A unique theme and an interesting idea intertwined
-The idea was simply ‘ buy traps to kill rats’. This is an idea that was well understood
by the public and it is something they could relate to.
-This idea was enriched with a perfect slogan, social media presence and unique
aspects.
-Their slogan was ‘Birds, Not Rats’ which was simply the aim of the online campaign

Cont.
-Most donors were attracted by the unique aspects used. They
ranged from t-shirts bearing the slogan, own traps with the donors
names and an indication of how many rats trapped, key chains, note
cards, DVDs and bumper stickers
-Additionally ,the top donor was offered a trip to Alaka’I Plateau to
watch the traps in action.
-The use of simple and unique aspects made the campaign
outstanding.

Cont.
 Social media strategy
-The campaign used a well established social media network to reach to
more people.
-They used a Facebook Page , with daily increased postings and inviting
followers to get to more individuals
-They practiced heavy presence on social media platforms
-They sent news letters to potential donors who were not on social
media.

Cont.
- They also incorporated press releases to kick start the online
campaign.

NEGATIVE EXAMPLE
‘U IN A BOTTLE ONLINE CAMPAIGN’
This crowd funding was a total failure that did not meet the targeted
goal of 1,849 Euros
It was carried out by Carlos with the aim of raising capital to cover
the software licensing app and to purchase programming equipment

FAILURE
The online campaign had projected to raise 1,849 Euros within 30
days.
 Only one donation was made of 1 Euro
 The target amount was not achieved by the end of the campaign

WHY IT WAS A FAILURE
First , the concept of the name was not clear. I do not understand the
meaning of ‘U in a Bottle’
The name of the online campaign lacks clarity.
There is little mention of an App in the About section , however ,
most of the content focuses on throwing bottles into the water
The use of pictures of faceless lego men and rooms filled with water
creates a weird theme for this campaign that is quite hard to
comprehend.

WHICH OF THE TWO
 I would invest in the first crowd funding campaign on ‘Protect Hawaii’s
Stunning Endangered Forest Birds’
 This is because it has a clear objective which is outright and clear to
understand .
 They have appealing perks that attract me towards the initiative such as
having a trap named after me , this is quite appealing and interesting.
 Additionally, the concept of saving native species is something worth
supporting.

Cont.
• On the other hand , the ‘U in a Bottle’ crowd funding campaign is
quite unclear on what the initiative is.
• I can not comprehend what the main initiative is for raising funds to run
an app yet there lacks clarity on the use of the app
• The is no slogan to accompany this campaign making unappealing
• There lacks the morale from the owner to attract my attention.
• Also, Carlos creates the idea of a blog in his app, when he talks of
sharing stories and thoughts through the app. Basically this is a blog
concept and I would not support such an app when blogs are so many
today.