Using Crowdfunding in Higher Education
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Using Crowdfunding in Higher Education

on

  • 1,435 views

Crowdfunding has become a hot topic for many development professionals in the United States, accounting for $2.7 billion dollars raised in 2012. Estimates for 2013 were even higher. ...

Crowdfunding has become a hot topic for many development professionals in the United States, accounting for $2.7 billion dollars raised in 2012. Estimates for 2013 were even higher.

It appeals to many fundraisers because it leverages the social networks of donors to generate funding for projects and organizations. With the proliferation of crowdfunding sites and the recent success of campaigns on platforms like KickStarter and IndieGoGo, development programs in higher education are beginning to take notice.

Questions persist about how the platform translates to fundraising in higher education and if it has the potential to become a sustainable addition to the tool kit of annual giving programs.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,435
Views on SlideShare
1,433
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
29
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

https://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Using Crowdfunding in Higher Education Using Crowdfunding in Higher Education Presentation Transcript

    • Using Crowdfunding in Higher Education What is crowdfunding and can it be used effectively in higher education? Dayna L. Boyles-Carpenter
    • Project Abstract Crowdfunding has become a hot topic for many development professionals in the United States, accounting for $2.7 billion dollars raised in 2012. Estimates for 2013 were even higher. It appeals to many fundraisers because it leverages the social networks of donors to generate funding for projects and organizations. With the proliferation of crowdfunding sites and the recent success of campaigns on platforms like KickStarter and IndieGoGo, development programs in higher education are beginning to take notice. Questions persist about how the platform translates to fundraising in higher education and if it has the potential to become a sustainable addition to the tool kit of annual giving programs.
    • Project Introduction How can crowdfunding be used by higher education institutions?  Understanding crowdfunding principles and practices  Applications to donor renewal and retention  Cannibalization of unrestricted annual giving programs
    • Project Context and Relevancy  UMBC launched its crowdfunding program in June of 2013.  Development professionals in higher education are starting to experiment with the crowdfunding model, but its use in higher education is so new that not a lot of research exists.  This research will serve as a resource for development professionals in higher education prior to their launch of a crowdfunding project.
    • What is crowdfunding? crowd·fund·ing ˈ kroudˈfəndiNG / noun 1. the practice of funding a project or venture by raising many small amounts of money from a large number of people, typically via the Internet. "musicians, filmmakers, and artists have successfully raised funds and fostered awareness through crowdfunding" (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014)
    • History of Crowdfunding  Originated from crowdsourcing  First platform launched in 2001  Musicians and artists  Grassroots political fundraising • 2008 Obama Campaign • Blue State Digital • Raised $272 million from over 2 million, mostly small, donors (Gerber, Hoi, and Kuo, 2013, p. 2., Howe, 2009, and Parry, 2009).
    • Crowdfunding is Growing Fast $5.1 Billion 2013 $2.7 Billion 2012 $1.5 Billion 2011 (Gerber, Hui, and Kuo, 2012, Jarrell, 2013, Danmayr, 2014, and Hanselman, 2014)
    • Four Primary Crowdfunding Platforms  Donation  Lending  Rewards  Equity (Danmayr, 2014, and ScaleFunder, 2013)
    • Two Types of Funding Models Threshold Model • Funds held in escrow account until the goal is reached. • If goal not reached, contribution is refunded to donor. All-or-Nothing Model • Project owner keeps all funds raised, regardless of whether or not the project goal is reached. (Valanciene and Jegeleviciute, 2013, p. 41)
    • Motivations of Crowdfunding Donors  Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants  Want to believe that their contributions matter  Feedback loops  Goals  Challenged  Specific  Attributed to an individual vs. group  Reciprocal relationships  Rewards/Perks  Wash’s Completion Bias  Social Loafing (Howe, 2009, p. 261, Brabham, 2013, Gerber and Hoi, 2012, Wash, 2013, Danmayr, 2014, and Klaebe, 2012)
    • Frameworks for Analysis  Rosso’s Concentric Circle Constituency Model  Danmayr’s Archetypes of Crowdfunding Models  Kihlstedt’s Four Phases of a Capital Campaign
    • Rosso’s Concentric Circle Constituency Model
    • Danmayr’s Archetypes of Crowdfunding  Type of Crowdfunding Platform Offered  Business Model  Platform Setting  Target Group for Platform Users (Danmayr, 2014)
    • Kihlstedt’s Four Phases of a Capital Campaign  The Quiet Phase  The Campaign Kickoff  The Public Phase  The Campaign Closing Celebration (Kihlstedt, 2009, p. 178-179)
    • Methods and Context  Developed a 37-Question Online Survey  Emailed to institutions known to be using crowdfunding  Listservs  Fundlist  CampusCALL  LinkedIn  Higher Education Fundraisers Crowdfunding Users Group  The Annual Giving Network  Crowdfunding University
    • Survey Participants  University of Connecticut  Hartwick College  Towson University  St. Mary’s College of  University of Bridgeport  Cornell University   Penn State University   University of California,      Santa Cruz Temple University Washington State University Middlebury College University of Maryland Baltimore County      Maryland St. Joseph’s College DePaul University University of Queensland Augsburg College Worcester Polytechnic Institute University of Cincinnati Salem College Anonymous
    • Results & Findings  Institutions were motivated to explore crowdfunding:  To drive alumni participation rates  To engage student and young alumni donors  To explore all available revenue streams  To be more donor-centric and to connect donors with their impact on students  To build a culture of philanthropy
    • Results & Findings When did your institution first launch its crowdfunding platform? 2010 0% Other 10% 2011 5% 2012 5% 2014 35% 2013 45%
    • Results & Findings
    • Results & Findings
    • Rosso’s Concentric Circles Constituency Model Applied to Crowdfunding (Adapted from Temple, Seiler, and Aldrich, 2011, p. 20-21)
    • Danmayr’s Archetypes of Crowdfunding Platforms  Crowdfunding Types  Most colleges and universities are using a donation- based model  Others use hybrid approach with rewards-based model  Business Model  Crowdfunding Platform Setting  Target Group (Danmayr, 2014)
    • Crowdfunding as an extension of major gifts? Planned or Principle Gifts Major Gifts Annual Giving Crowdfunding Prospects (Adapted from Temple, Seiler, and Aldrich, 2011, p. 45)
    • Capital Campaigns (Revisited)  The Quiet Phase  The Campaign Kickoff  The Public Phase  The Campaign Closing Celebration (Kihlstedt, 2009, p. 178-179)
    • Crowdfunding and the Millennial Generation  Will inherit $140 trillion between now and 2052*.  Respondents shared a goal of engaging younger and recent graduates.  15/20 respondents were using crowdfunding to help support student organizations and grassroots student-generated programs.  Passionate about causes, not necessarily about organizations or institutions. (GiveCorps, 2014)
    • A fully integrated approach  Don’t count out traditional vehicles  Direct mail  Calling programs  E-solicitation  Crowdfunding as online giving page  Replacement for PURLs  Giving Days or Challenges
    • Perks & Incentives  Contributors are attracted to projects offering     tangible products and services. Sixty-five percent of respondents were not offering perks or incentives. Fair-market-value Management Experiential vs. Tangible
    • Recommendations  Define Your Campus Needs  Build an Army of Advocates  Educate Project Owners  Identify the Project Crowd  Define a Timeframe  Plan for Success  Utilize Metrics  Stay Flexible
    • Cautions  Crowdfunding should not replace traditional annual giving strategies.  Oversaturation of constituency.  The dangers of third-party sites:  Hard credit vs. soft credit vs. no credit  Loss of brand control  Proliferation of start-ups  Crowdfunding is not just for young people. “Crowdfunding is not a silver bullet . . .” (K. Williams, personal communication, 2014). (Greenberg, personal communication, 2014 and McDonald, personal communication, 2014)
    • Conclusions Crowdfunding in higher education can:  Help drive alumni participation rates  Broaden fundraising constituency bases  Serve as a lead generation and data capture tool  Educate students and young alumni about the impact of philanthropy  Provide a seamless experience for newly acquired donors as they transition to be long-term and/or major gift donors
    • For more information, please contact: Dayna Carpenter Director of Annual Giving, UMBC 410-455-3377 dayna@umbc.edu www.linkedin.com/in/daynacarpenter/ This presentation was submitted as partial completion of the requirements for the MS in Strategic Fundraising and Philanthropy degree program at Bay Path College.
    • References Aaker, J. & Smith, A. (2010). The Dragonfly Effect: Quick, Effective, and Powerful Ways To Use Social Media to Drive Social Change. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. Akers, S. (2012). The Secrets of Crowdfunding: A Step-by-step Guide to Getting the Most From Your Kickstarter Campaign. Sean Akers. Bartlett, T. (October 2012). A Kickstarter for Science. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved Thursday, November 28: http://chronicle.com/article/A-Kickstarter-for-Science/135058 Brabham, D. (2013). Crowdsourcing. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA. Brinckerhoff, P. (2004). Nonprofit Stewardship: A Better Way to Lead Your Mission-Based Organization. Fieldstone Alliance. New York, NY. Buchanan, P. (2000). Handbook of Institutional Advancement. Third Edition. Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Burnett, K. (2002). Relationship Fundraising: A Donor-Based Approach to the Business of Raising Money. Third Edition. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. Cohen, T. (February, 2013). Charitable Giving Report: How Nonprofit Fundraising Performed in 2012. Blackbaud. Charleston, SC. Danmayr, F. (2014). Archetypes of Crowdfunding Platforms: A Multidimensional Comparison. Springer Gabler. Steyr, Austria.
    • Dawkins, T. (December 2012/January 2013). Tap the Power of the Internet for Your Fundraising Campaigns. OurChildren. Eberhart, R. (2011). The Big Idea. Middlebury Magazine. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from http://sites.middlebury.edu/middmag/2011/06/28/the-big-idea/ Gerber, E. & Hui, J. (2013). Crowdfunding: Motivations and Deterrents for Participation. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://egerber.mech.northwestern.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/2014_ CrowdfundingMotivations_TOCHI_Accepted.pdf Gerber, E., Hui, J., & Kuo, P. (2012). Crowdfunding: Why People Are Motivated to Post and Fund Projects on Crowdfunding Platforms. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://distworkshop.files. wordpress.com/2012/01/dist2012_submission_11.pdf Gobble, M. (n.d.). Everyone Is a Venture Capitalist: The New Age of Crowdfunding. ResearchTechnology Management. Gossen, A. (2013). The Case for #Crowdfunding in #HigherEd #Advancement. Higher Ed Crowdfunding. Retrieved February 27, 2014 from http://higheredcrowdfunding.tumblr.com/ Hanselman, S. (2014). Crowdfunding in Advancement. Academic Impressions Webinar. Howe, J. (2008, 2009). Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business. Random House, Inc.
    • Joly, K. (July 2013). Higher education crowdfunding: After social media and MOOCs, watch out for crowdfunding. University Business. Kanter, B. & Fine, A. (2010). The Networked Nonprofit: Connecting with Social Media to Drive Change. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. San Fransico, CA. Kihlstedt, A. (2010). Capital Campaigns: Strategies That Work. Third Edition. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Sudbury, MA. Klaebe, H. (July 2012). How to work the crowd: A snapshot of barriers and motivations to crowdfunding. Artsupport Australia. Australia Council for the Arts. Mansfield, H. (2012). Social Media for Social Good: A How-to Guide for Nonprofits. The McGraw-Hill Companies. United States. McDonald, J. (2014) Fundraising Trends 2014: Grow Your Base of Monthly Givers. GiveCorps Blog – Educated Giving. Retrieved Wednesday, February 26, 2014 from blog.givecorps.com/fundraising-trends2014-grow-your-baseof-monthly-givers/hsFormKey Ossakow, D. (August 2011). Would Microphilanthropy Work in Athletics Development? Athletics Development Frontier: Innovations. Practices. Results. Retrieved February 1, 2014 from athleticsfrontier.com/archives/1929 Parry, M. (April 2009). Colleges Weigh ‘Yes We Can’ Approach to Fund Raising. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
    • Sandlund, J. (May, 2013). How Crowdfunding can Reignite Alumni Engagement. TheCrowdCafe. Retrieved February 23, 2014 from http://www.thecrowdcafe.com/alumni-crowdfunding/ Sandlund, J. (April, 2013). Why Universities Should Get Smart on Crowdfunding. TheCrowdCafe. Retrieved February 23, 2014 from http://www.thecrowdcafe.com/editorial/ ScaleFunder (2014). Helping Intelligent Donors Invest in Intelligent Ways. Stoner, M. (2013). Social Works: How #HigherEd Uses #SocialMedia to Raise Money, Build Awareness, Recruit Students, and Get Results. EDUniverse Media. St. Louis, MO. Surowiecki, J. (2004, 2005). The Wisdom of the Crowds. Random House, Inc. New York, NY. Switzer, C. (July 2013). Young Donors Are Turned Off by Out-of-Date, Uninformative Web Sites. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved July 22, 2013 from chronicle.com/article/Young-DonorsAre-Turned-Offby/140455/?cid=at&tm_source=at&utm_medium=en Tempel, E., Seiler, T., & Aldrich, E. (2011). Achieving Excellence in Fundraising. Third Edition. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. Thorpe, D. (2013). Crowdfunding for Social Good: Financing Your Mark on the World. Tugend, A. (February 2014). The Effect Crowdfunding Has on Venerable Nonprofits Raises Concern. The New York Times. Retrieved February 8, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/yourmoney/crowdfundings-effect-on-venerable-nonprofits-raises-concern.html?_rl
    • Vanderkam, L. (November 2010). Microphilanthropy if changing the face of charity. USA Today. Retrieved January 23, 2014 from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/ opinion/forum/2010-11-17 column17_ST_N.htm Wash, R. (n.d.). The Value of Completing Crowdfunding Projects. Michigan State University. Retrieved November 21, 2013 from http://rickwash.org/papers/donors-choose-icwsm.pdf Wiseman, R. (July 2011). Middlebury College Draws Young Donors With Microphilanthropy. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 15, 2014 from chronicle.com/article/MiddleburyCollege-DrawsYoung/128427