Shared publicly  - 
 
Crowdfunding Share Estimates [Curagami exclusive]
Wondering how big #crowdfunding is getting? Based on published stats from Kickstarter, web metrics such as traffic rank, inbound links, pages in Google and predictive modeling our exclusive +Curagami Estimates for crowdfunding market share:

Kickstarter     
40% market share
$481,000,000 funded
$24M in fees

IndieGoGo
36% Market Share
$433,000,000 funded
$22.6M in fees

GoFundme
24% Market Share
$288,000,000 funded
$14.4M in fees

Thanks To our Duke Law Intern Michael Herrera for working hard to unlock the mysteries and value of crowdfunding. Here are the totals:

CrowdFunding Totals
$2.8B Pledged
$1.2B funded
$60M in fees

Numbers like these are why our +Triangle StartUp Factory funded #startup team Curagami thinks crowdfunding is a new #marketingchannel .  What about you?

+Phil Buckley +Mark Traphagen +David Amerland +jan gordon +Janet Kennedy +Frank Pollock +Neil Ferree +Kelly Hungerford +Cendrine Marrouat +Dave Neal +Chris Heivly 
12
4
Mark Traphagen's profile photoAlex H Yong's profile photoKelly Hungerford's profile photoMoondashAudiodotcom's profile photo
9 comments
 
Sure do!  Should I crowdfund my podcast?
 
Great stats, Marty. The fees are relatively low which is great to hear. More money for the projects!
 
That's right +Kelly Hungerford I used Kickstarter's 5% for the model. Some are more, but crowdfunding is intensely profitable since , like any good content network, most of the most expensive stuff (the content) comes free.

In fact a little known stat is 75% of the money for MOST funded campaigns comes from the entrepreneurs own network (Dynamics of Crowdfunding  by Mollick). What that stat means is #crowdfunding is a moveable feast.

We can put a crowdfunding board on +MoondashAudiodotcom and chances are great hifi projects can get funded since most of the money is coming from the entrepreneurs network and Moon Audio can help headphone creators earn more since Moon's crowd is so RELEVANT to the ask.

I just described Phase II for +Curagami. We've mapped the journey in three phases:

I: Listening
II: Curating and Crowdfunding
III: Sharing The Commons & Curating A New Kind of Affiliate Program

You can see how well +Paper.li would fit into every one of those phases (not to pressure or be pushy :). Key is Cuate, Listen, Collaborate, Rinse and Repeat much like creating a Paper.li :). M
 
I like that!

Here's something that is often debated with my husband.

The weakness I see (and have experienced) with crowdfunding is control of projects. Once a project is funded there are no controls ( i.e. guidance) to help project teams ensure delivery.

Funding a project can be really frustrating when the project runs a year over or never makes it off the ground.

There is always risk and if projects rely on a lot of third party suppliers the control is somewhat out of the project creator's hands.

I just read this morning that KickStarter is loosening the controls to open the floodgate for more projects to be funded. Good for project creators but what happens to the vetting process?

Really interesting market! 
 
Interesting in Mollick's extensive research delivery wasn't the problem as much as being on time. Ironically when a project goes way over it is LESS likely to deliver on time for reasons you noted (throws everything into chaos).

One aspect of Curagami is to create a feedback loop and reviews so production tightens up and functions more like real #ecommerce and less like garage band.

The other challenge we see is "haystacking" where its hard to find a golden needles someone may be interested in. Here again we see a role for Curagami (gamification and better email would solve half the problem profiling and algorithms the rest).

We believe #crowdfunding will become a channel similar to #emailmarketing but more "so fascinating we visit via social and push notifications and alerts" instead of batching and blasting.

We are betting on fascination with "crazy guys and girls" in the basement. NEW is always powerful. Retail and the web form a series of wheels within wheels. If an engine's flywheel can gain momentum via scale and breaking into "friends of friends" marketing then community and markets get built; hearts, mind and loyalty won.

Remember we are NOT in the crowdfunding space. We are in the #contentmarketing and #ORM   (reputation mgmt) space where crowdfunding is one type of content we test, one with a powerful built in social shares engine (the entrepreneur raising the money) and a short deadline.

We see #conversations as the new links. Conversations, unlike links, need to be optimized for engagement and scored against their real value (traffic generation, list growth and $ conversion).

The challenge is not all content is equal.

That is why we do a lot of work to FIND the "right" kind of content to spark conversations and conversion. Every cycle tightens our AI-like engine so eventually our customers will hardly curate at all as the business rules will be doing 99% of the work).

What if we could SCORE a conversation much like we earn KLOUT now? That's the goal and crowdfunding is one set of content we will use to get there, but there are many more including beautiful mashups like Paper.li

Could I and we be ALL WRONG? Sure, but what if we are even a little right. Better to surf these nascent waves early as you know. We have 2 customers headed into beta and expect to see things like:

* Abandonment go down (buying primes the conversation cycle).
* LTV to be up 40% or more for "engaged" vs. non.
* More return visits and so quarter to a half a point gain in conversion.
* List growth 2x to 3x vs. baseline (no Curagami).

For most ecom sites help even a little bit on any 2 of those areas and millions drop to the bottom line. Going to be fun. Marty



M
Add a comment...