This document analyzes the communication strategy of two crowdfunding campaigns for The Coolest Cooler project on Kickstarter. The first campaign was unsuccessful in meeting its funding goal, while the second campaign broke crowdfunding records by raising over $13 million. By comparing the verbal, nonverbal, and paraverbal elements of the campaigns' videos and project pages, the author finds that the successful campaign more effectively used persuasive communication factors like building trust, appealing to emotions, and focusing on potential backers. The results suggest communication strategy is important for crowdfunding success.

1. Carmen Ortega Hernáez
Cristina Olarte Pascual
Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales
Grado en Administración y Dirección de Empresas
2014-2015
Título
Director/es
Facultad
Titulación
Departamento
TRABAJO FIN DE GRADO
Curso Académico
Communication in crowdfunding: a case study of
success
Autor/es

2. © El autor
© Universidad de La Rioja, Servicio de Publicaciones, 2015
publicaciones.unirioja.es
E-mail: publicaciones@unirioja.es
Communication in crowdfunding: a case study of success, trabajo fin de grado
de Carmen Ortega Hernáez, dirigido por Cristina Olarte Pascual (publicado por la
Universidad de La Rioja), se difunde bajo una Licencia
Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 Unported.
Permisos que vayan más allá de lo cubierto por esta licencia pueden solicitarse a los
titulares del copyright.

3. GRADO
FACUL
O EN ADM
Comm
C
LTAD DE C
TRABA
MINISTRA
munica
a case
Autor: Dª
Tutor: Dr
CURSO A
CIENCIAS
AJO FIN DE
ACIÓN Y
ation in
study o
ª Carmen O
ra. Cristina
ACADÉMI
EMPRESA
E GRADO
Y DIRECC
crowd
of succ
Ortega Herná
Olarte-Pasc
ICO 2014-
ARIALES
CIÓN DE
funding
ess
áez
cual
-2015
EMPRES
g:
SAS

4. 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to a number of people who have helped me in the
process of writing this paper.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my mentor, Professor Cristina Olarte-Pascual,
who has always supported me, not only on the academic regard but also on the personal
when I needed it.
I also thank Professor Yolanda Sierra for working with Cristina and me as a team at every
moment.
Finally I acknowledge the people who mean the world to me: my parents and my best
friend Jonas. I extend my thanks to some of my friends, especially to Adriana – thank you
for keeping us laughing until the end.
“Failure to meet your fundraising goal and the failure of
your creative project are two completely different things”
(Briggman, 2014).
“Capture their hearts and minds, then their wallets
will follow”. Harold Sumption (Burnett, 2012).

5. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT/ RESUMEN 5
A. INTRODUCTION 5
B.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 6
1. CROWDFUNDING 6
1.1. DEFINITION & HISTORY 6
1.2. MODELS 8
1.2.1. DONATIONS 9
1.2.2. REWARDS 9
1.2.3. LENDING (CROWDLENDING) 10
1.2.4. EQUITY (CROWDINVESTING) 10
1.3. MOTIVATIONS 11
1.3.1. FOR PROJECTS OWNERS 11
1.3.2. FOR PROJECTS BACKERS 12
2. COMMUNICATION 13
2.1. FACTORS OF PERSUASION 13
2.2. ELEMENTS OF COMMUNICATION 17
2.2.1. VERBAL MESSAGES 17
2.2.2. NONVERBAL MESSAGES 18
2.2.3. PARAVERBAL LANGUAGE 19
B.2 EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK 19
1. OBJECTIVES 19
2. METHODOLOGY 20
3. RESULTS 23
3.1. COMMUNICATION COMPARISON 23
3.1.1. SALES VIDEO 23
3.1.2. SALES PAGE 30
C. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 37
D. REFERENCES 43
ANNEXES 46
ANNEX 1: FAILED CAMPAIGN VIDEO TRANSCRIPT 46
ANNEX 2: SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN VIDEO TRANSCRIPT 47
ANNEX 3: KICKSTARTER PROJECT’S TOP PAGE APPEARANCE 48

6. 4
ABSTRACT
This final degree project explains what crowdfunding is, presents its historical evolution
and describes the four existent crowdfunding models. This paper defines the factors of
communication which, according to different authors, influence and persuade the receiver
in the decision making process. In the empirical part of the paper the two different
campaigns launched for funding the The Coolest Cooler project on Kickstarter are
compared to one another on the basis of the case study method. Campaign one did not
succeed, but campaign two beat the fundraising record of the crowdfunding industry
history. The comparison is done on the basis of the persuasive factors listed on the
theoretical framework. The aim of the comparative analysis is to test the relevance of the
communication strategy for crowdfunding campaigns. The paper concludes emphasizing
the importance of building the campaigns around the potential backers, standing out the
trust, appeal and emotional aspects.
Key words: crowdfunding, financing, communication, Kickstarter, The Coolest Cooler.
RESUMEN
Debido a la crisis económica y financiera muchos emprendedores se ven obligados a
recurrir a fuentes de financiación no tradicionales y aprovechar las oportunidades que
brinda Internet. El Crowdfunding se puede definir como una actividad online mediante la
cual se solicita la aportación de dinero para la realización de un proyecto a cambio de una
contraprestación económica, material, de reconocimiento social o de auto-estima. Con el
objetivo de estudiar la importancia que tiene la comunicación en la captación de fondos
se analiza el caso The Coolest Cooler en la plataforma virtual Kickstarter. Este caso
consta de dos campañas, una primera que no consigue la financiación suficiente y la
posterior que, alcanzando la cifra de $13,285,226, batió el récord de captación de fondos
a través de crowdfunding. Esta comparación se hace en base a los factores de persuasión
descritos en la teoría con el fin de probar la importancia de la estrategia de comunicación
para la captación de fondos en las plataformas virtuales de crowdfunding. Los resultados
muestran la importancia de construir las campañas de crowdfunding basado en
recompensas (rewards-based) en torno al potencial contribuyente destacando los aspectos
relativos a las emociones y la confianza.
Palabras clave: crowdfunding, financiación, comunicación, Kickstarter, The Coolest
Cooler.

7. 5
A. INTRODUCTION
The economic and financial crisis has made the financing challenge increasingly difficult
for current ambitious entrepreneurs. While traditional investors were not providing
financing to small but aspiring startups, a new form of financing was emerging from the
crowd’s side. The improvement of the world wide web added to this economic and
financial disaster generated the perfect breeding ground for the emergence of
crowdfunding (Schwienbacher & Lambert, 2010).
Crowdfunding is, as defined by Schwienbacher and Larralde (2010), “an open call,
essentially through the Internet, for the provision of financial resources either in form of
donation or in exchange for some form of reward and/or voting rights in order to support
initiatives for specific purposes”.
This new way of raising funds has found its way into the existent fundraising staus quo. It
is currently becoming a huge industry that makes possible bringing to life projects that
were too risky of crazy for the traditional ways.
This paper defines and analyzes crowdfunding as a fundraising method, presents its
history and describes the four existent models that currently exist.
This paper also presents a set of factors that according to the literarture influence and
persuade people’s actions. On the empirical part of this writing these factors are tested in
the context of the communication strategy of crowdfunding camapaigns.
The Coolest Cooler is the project analyzed on the empirical framework. This project
became the record-breaking Kicksarter campaign by getting a total plegded amount of
$13,285,226. But what makes this more interesting is that another campaign trying to
fund this project was launched before and it did not even met its fundind goal of
$125,000. As the same product was launched at both campaigns, the paper focuses on
how the communication strategy made the project move from unfunded to record-
breaking. The objective is to develop guidelines from the achieved results that will serve
to coming entrepreneurs and startups.

8. 1. C
1
F
S
T
“
fr
T
m
P
d
O
b
In
A
e
o
s
T
M
b
th
g
It
CROWDFU
1.1.DEFINIT
Figure 1: Ev
Source: Own e
The two-wo
“the practice
from a large
The earliest
method was
Pulitzer who
donation a sp
On the other
between the
nternet (Bla
As defined
essentially th
of donation
upport initi
The first onl
Marillion m
band. The c
he band in
goals (Sawe
t was in 200
B.1
UNDING
TION & HI
volution of
elaboration
ords term cr
e of funding
e number of
and one of
s the constr
o published
ponsoring r
r hand, the t
one-word t
asingame, 2
by Schwien
hrough the
or in excha
atives for sp
line crowfu
made use of
ampaign su
concert. Th
rs, 2014).
01 when the
1 TH
STORY
crowdfundi
owd funding
g a venture o
f people” (Pr
the most w
ruction of a
the project
reward (Kaz
term crowdf
term and the
2014).
nbacher and
Internet, fo
ange for som
pecific purp
unding camp
f the e-mail
ucceded rais
he power o
e first crow
HEORETICA
ing over tim
ng has been
or project b
rive, 2012).
well-known
a pedestal f
t on his own
zmark, 2013
funding is a
e two-word
d Larralde
or the provis
me form of
poses”.
paign took p
and online
sing about $
f Internet w
wdfunding pl
AL FRAME
me
around for
by raising m
.
and ambitio
for the Statu
n newspape
3).
a relatively n
one is that
(2010), cro
sion of finan
f reward an
place in 199
e forums to
$60,000 and
was proven
latform, Art
EWORK
centuries. I
many small a
ous projects
ue of Liber
r offering fo
new one. Th
the latter is
owdfunding
ncial resour
d/or voting
97 when the
o finance th
d the fans w
to unite pe
tistShare, w
It is, by defi
amounts of
s funded usi
rty. It was
for each one
he only diff
s conducted
g is “an ope
rces either i
g rights in o
he fans of th
he U.S tour
were able to
eople for co
was establish
6
finition,
money
ing this
Joseph
e-dollar
ference
on the
en call,
in form
order to
he band
of the
o enjoy
ommon
hed but

9. 7
it was not until 2006 when the term crowdfunding was first publicly recorded from
the words of Fundavlog's founder (Schroter, 2014).
Note that crowdfunding is always operated online but it can be conducted on a
platform or on the projects owner’s own initiative.
We have mentioned the World Wide Web as one of the triggers that helped
crowdfunding's development. It played the key role of facilitating access to the
‘crowd’ (Schwienbacher & Lambert, 2010). The WWW enables the inexpensive
distribution of information to the people as well as the interaction with them. As
identified by Lee, De Wester and Park (2008), there are three attributes of the Web
that contribute to the enhancement of entrepreneurs’ practice: openness,
collaboration, and participation.
The other important trigger that helped the development of the crowdfunding industry
was the economic and financial crisis. Within the framework of the entrepreneurs’
failing attempts to obtain loans from banks, support from venture capital funds or
from business angels the concept crowdsourcing emerged. “Crowdsourcing takes
place when a profit oriented firm outsources specific tasks essential for the making or
sale of its product to the general public (the crowd) in the form of an open call over
the Internet” (Kleeman, Voss, & Rieder, 2008).
In crowdfunding campaigns, individuals can voluntarily support the development of a
product/sevice or support a cause providing input in the form of financial support
instead of tasks. Both crowdsourcing and crowdfunding use online social
communities to provide resources to enterprises. There is much of a social element in
the development and growth of the crowdfunding industry.
The increasing curiosity generated by crowdfunding can be graphically reflected
through data from Google Trends (Figure 2). Google Trends is a public web tool of
Google Inc. and it is based on Google Search. The tool reflects how often a specific
term is searched in relation to the total search-volume. The term can be filtered by
region or city of the world and in diverse languages (Adams, 2014).
As the Figure 2 illustrates, the general interest towards crowdfunding has been
increasing sharply since 2010 and it is expected to keep doing so. The three countries
that lead the rank are The Netherlands, Spain and Austria; the top two curious cities
are Berlin and Barcelona (Google Trends, 2015). It must be noted that the US does
not appear in the ranking since the discussed term is more known there and does not
cause as much confusion and curiosity as it still does in Europe.

10. F
S
T
a
1
T
1
C
(B
d
T
F
S
Figure 2: G
Source: Googl
The evolutio
an interestin
1).
Table 1: E
1.2.MODEL
Currently, th
Barabas, 20
donors, back
They are dif
Figure 3: Cr
Source: Own e
eneral inter
e Trends 2015
on of the mo
ng picture o
Evolution o
LS
here are fou
012), each
kers or fund
fferent indus
rowdfundin
elaboration
rest on crow
5
oney raised
of the incre
f the mon
Source: Ra
ur different
of which
ders. They
stries brand
ng models
wdfunding o
d in crowdfu
asing impo
ney raised
amos & Stewa
models of
providing
all have di
ded under th
over time
unding platf
ortance of th
in crowdfu
art, 2014
crowdfundi
different be
fferent char
he same nam
forms worlw
his fundrais
unding plat
ing as ways
enefits to t
racteristics,
me (Hemer,
wide also pr
sing option
tforms wor
s for raising
the corresp
, goals and
2011).
8
rovides
(Table
rldwide
g funds
onding
actors.

11. F
F
S
Figure 4 rep
Figure 4: Im
Source: Own e
1.2.1. D
An indiv
owes the
altruistic
These re
a symbol
be financ
1.2.2. R
There ar
model: s
moment
 SPON
The
exch
the f
fund
back
 PRE‐
13%
15
presents a br
mportance b
elaboration ba
Donations
vidual prov
e funder the
c nature, bu
ewards are o
lic value for
cial.
Rewards
re three diff
sponsoring,
this model
NSORING
sponsorin
hange for th
funding ca
ders appea
ked.
‐SELLING
29%
43%
5%
reakdown by
by model of
sed on Masso
ides fundin
e proper rea
ut some kin
often inexpe
r the funded
ferent system
pre-selling
is the most
ng system
heir econom
ampaign su
r on the c
%
y model of
f platform ov
olution, 2013.
ng to a proj
alization of
nd of comp
ensive items
d project (In
ms included
g and simp
used out of
targets co
mic contrib
ucceds. The
credits of t
Donation‐bas
Reward‐base
Lending‐base
Equity‐based
platform.
ver the total
ect and the
the plan. B
pensation f
s advertisin
nvesdor, 20
d under the
ple rewardin
f the four ex
orporation
bution wou
e most com
the movie,
sed
ed
ed
d
l
e founder o
By definition
for the don
g the projec
14). Those r
rewards-ba
ng (Invesdo
xisting ones
ns and ind
ld receive p
mmon exa
video‐gam
of the projec
n, a donatio
nators is co
ct or presen
rewards can
ased crowdf
dor, 2014).
s.
dividuals t
public visib
ample is th
me or boo
9
ct only
on is of
mmon.
nts with
n never
funding
At the
that in
bility if
hat the
k they

12. 10
In the pre-selling method the individual ‘buys’ the product form the project's
owner before it has been produced. This method is beneficial for both sides.
On the one hand, the founders of the project get to now that there is an offset
market for the product. On the other hand, the contributors get the product
before and usually at a lower price than (the rest of) the market.
 PURE REWARDS
The pure reward-based crowdfunding model refers to the projects in which the
backers pledge their money for a reward from the campaign founder. The
owner thanks the funders with gifts that are almost always related to the
funded plan. The rewards differ depending on the amount of capital being
pledged - the higher the contribution, the better the reward - stimulating
backers to contribute with higher amounts of money. The pledge-reward
relation is organized in stages. As in the case of the donations, those rewards
can never be financial.
1.2.3. Lending (Crowdlending)
Lenders give a loan to the project owner, who will pay it back over time with a set
interest rate. This is the least common model out of the four.
1.2.4. Equity (Crowdinvesting)
This system allows companies to sell shares online to investors so they get a
financial return on their investment depending on the project's performance. It is
the only crowdfunding model that offers the backers – actual investors under the
equity-based model – to actively participate in the project, making them able to
vote for product's attributes or even working for the company (Schwienbacher &
Larralde, 2010).
The equity-based model, often defined as crowdinvesting, is a tool to raise money
that can only be used by businesses and not by individuals. It only became legal in
the United States by the pass of the JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) Act
on April 5, 2012 by the US Government (Prive, 2012). The Act's intention was to
foster funding for small businesses by permitting to the general public to get
company’s equity for their investments. The equity-based model is the most
administratively complex of this industry (Dellorso, 2014).

13. 1
B
re
o
1.3.MOTIV
Both sides o
easons to b
online fundr
1.3.1. F
Figure 5
Source: Ow
The mos
money (
financing
tradition
online ca
Getting
project
(Schwien
can be a
service b
The third
obtaining
On almo
projects’
itself wh
The last
reflect th
a benefic
2010). T
VATIONS
of the crowd
e part of th
raising mech
or project o
5: Project ow
wn elaboratio
st common
(Willems, 2
g for busin
al funding
an be advan
public atte
funder to
nbacher &
a powerful m
by making it
d most relev
g feedback
ost every pl
’ posting pa
ho decides if
two mentio
he importan
cial two-wa
The campai
dfunding eq
e Crowdfun
hanism are
owners
wners’ moti
n
n motivatio
2013). This
ness venture
institutions
negeous in s
ention is co
place a
Lambert, 2
marketing t
t reachable
vant factor
from poten
atform it is
age. If the p
f leaving op
oned factors
nce of being
ay informati
ign owners
quation, proj
nding platfo
separately d
ivations to f
on for a pr
s way of r
es that are
s or investo
some other w
onsidered th
project on
2010). Posti
tool to raise
by millions
according t
ntial custom
s posible fo
project is n
pinions is or
s, getting at
g able to tes
ion flow (Be
s gather in
ject creators
orms. Their
defined belo
fundraise vi
roject found
aising capi
considered
ors (Prive, 2
ways.
he second m
nline, whet
ing projects
e public aw
s of viewers
to Schwienb
mers about th
r the viewe
not posted o
r is not poss
ttention and
st the projec
elleflamme,
formation a
s and pledg
reasons to
ow.
ia crowdfun
der to crow
tal is a sub
d too risky
2012). But
most relevan
ter on a
s on crowdf
wareness abo
s.
bacher and L
he product o
ers to leave
on a platfor
sible.
d feedback
cts in a pub
, Lambert, &
about the p
gers, have di
participate
nding platfo
wdfund is
bstitute sou
y or crazy
posting a
nt motivatio
platform o
funding pla
out the prod
Lambert (2
or service o
comments
rm it is the
from the vi
blic setting.
& Schwienb
perception
11
ifferent
on this
orms
raising
urce of
for the
project
on for a
or not
atforms
duct or
010) is
offered.
on the
owner
iewers,
This is
bacher,
of the

14. product
potential
expectati
product o
1.3.2. F
Figure 6
Source: Ow
One of t
with the
interests
belief, in
backers
Pim Beti
platform
of a com
with the
Accordin
about so
book A S
motivate
motivati
-
-
p
-
th
Other es
project.
financed
or service b
l customers
ion, spreadi
or service.
or project b
6: Backers’
wn elaboratio
the essentia
eir money i
and goals.
nterest, or p
(Stengel, 20
ist, a crowd
ms, supports
mmunity, si
initiative (W
ng to Lam
ocial reputat
Snapshot in
e crowdfun
ons are the
Identificati
Satisfactio
preferences.
Gratificatio
he contribut
ssential fun
The return
d and its rew
by the mark
are willing
ing informa
backers
motivations
n
al motivatio
is the sense
The motiva
passion wit
014).
dfunding ex
the idea th
ince they ac
Willems, 20
bert & Sch
tion and enj
n Crowdfund
nders other
following:
ion feeling o
on from bei
on from the
tion to an im
nder's motiv
would diff
wards system
ket. They al
g to pay. At
ation and inc
s to pledge
ons that mo
e of belong
ation is the
th the proje
xpert and cr
hat individu
ctually are, a
013).
hwienbache
njoy taking p
ding, Heme
than the p
of the backe
ing and fee
e accompli
mportant so
vation is th
ffer dependi
m (Willems,
lso get info
the same ti
creasing con
projects on
ove individu
ging to a g
feeling of
ect’s creato
reator of on
als fund pro
and thus the
er (2010), c
part in the
er (2011) na
physical co
ers with the
eling part o
shment of t
cial mission
he return th
ing on the
, 2013).
rmation abo
ime, the cam
nsumer awa
crowdfund
uals to cont
group of pe
affinity driv
or and with
e of the old
ojects becau
ey have a pe
crowdfunde
success of
ames a num
ompensation
project's fu
of a commu
the backed
n.
hey will ge
type of pro
out how mu
mpaign is c
areness arou
ding platform
tribute to p
eople with
ven by a co
h the other
dest crowdf
use they fee
ersonal conn
ers are con
the project.
mber of facto
ns. Among
under and it
unity with
project an
et for backi
oject that is
12
uch the
reating
und the
ms
projects
shared
ommon
project
funding
el part
nection
ncerned
. In his
ors that
g those
s goal.
shared
d from
ing the
s being

15. 13
On his master's thesis research, Harms (2007) studied the incentives that moved
potential project donors to actually participate in the financing. He classified those
intentions to participate in a crowdfunding project into five value categories and
tested them. The value categories are the following: financial, functional, social,
epistemic and emotional. His conclusion was that gaining economic value was
one of the driving forces with the strongest significance.
The motivations of the funders have been studied from a geographic perspective
too (Agrawal, Catalini & Goldfarb, 2011). According to the study's results,
funders are not more concerned with projects created geographically closer to
them but they do show differences in their funding criteria. The distant funders’
motivation to contribute with a project will grow when its funding goal is not far
from being reached. For local funders, the funding goal percentage already being
reached does not affect their aim to fund a project.
2. COMMUNICATION
2.1. FACTORS OF PERSUASION
As supported by Etan Mollick in his article The dynamics of crowdfunding: An
exploratory study (2013), the most relevant factor that determines a project success
depends on the nature of projects themselves. The potential funders evaluate the
quality of the product/service, the project owner and team, and the likelihood of
success.
We consider now this affirmation supported by crowdfunding experts: “failure to
meet your fundraising goal and the failure of your creative project are two completely
different things” (Briggman, 2014).
So, leaving aside the essence of the projects themselves, communication is what
determines whether fundraising goals will be reached.
This paper’s section provides a theoretical basis on the elements of communication
that affect individuals on their engagement to fund crowdfunding projects –main
focus on rewards-based model.
“Capture their hearts and minds, then their wallets will follow”, Harold
Sumption (Burnett, 2012).
This quote is the basis of emotional marketing. Harold Sumption is the founder of the
International Fundraising Congress. He supports the idea that funders need an
emotionally constraining motivation to engage and it will be later when they will look
for a logical rationalization to underpin their emotional move (Burnett, 2012).

16. T
a
D
c
g
p
(D
F
h
w
w
F
C
c
p
to
S
T
o
fi
T
F
The emotion
and the hipp
Damasio sup
considered t
good also r
propensity o
Damasio, 2
Further anal
have a great
with the fac
work of diff
First, we dev
Christophe M
charge of ta
particular ac
o incite this
Self‐centere
The fundrai
owner, indiv
financed. Th
This is becau
Figure 7: F
ns are creat
pocamus are
pported, bo
to be though
regulates o
of the peopl
003).
lysis is req
ter influenc
ctors that w
ferent author
voted our a
Morin. Acc
aking action
ction (i.e. fu
s 'old brain'.
ed
sing campa
vidual or or
he focal poi
use the 'old
undraising
ted in our m
e in charge o
dy and min
hts that prod
our emotion
le giving fu
quired to un
ce on the po
ould raise t
rs for its de
attention to
ording to th
ns (2007).
unding your
aign appeal
rganization,
nt of the cro
brain' is sel
g factors
minds, in ce
of controlli
nd are irretr
duce respon
ns. Emotion
unds, leavin
nderstand w
otential don
the fundrais
evelopment.
the book N
hese authors
So, if one
r project) yo
l has to be
is just the
rowdfunding
lfish and on
ertain parts
ng our emo
rievably con
nses in our b
ns drive m
ng aside the
which the fa
nor's mind.
sing appeal
Neuromarke
s the 'old br
wants to e
ou have to c
about the
means used
g campaign
nly cares ab
of our brain
otional mem
nnected (20
bodies and
more than a
e factor of d
actors and
The follow
(Figure 7)
ting by Patr
rain' is the p
engage indi
consider the
potential d
d to achieve
drive thus
out itself.
ns: the amy
mories. As A
003). Emotio
feeling phy
anything el
disposable i
emotions a
wing is a ch
. I focused
rick Renvoi
part of the b
ividuals to
e following
donor. The
e the goal o
has to be b
14
ygdalas
Antonio
ons are
ysically
lse the
income
are that
hecklist
on the
ise and
brain in
take a
stimuli
project
f being
ackers.

17. 15
Source: Own elaboration based on Renvoise & Morin, 2007 and Cialdini, 1987.
Contrast
Neuroscientists state that novelty awakes the rewards centre of our brains (Dooley,
2012). Consumers are novelty-seekers and we find new products or services
attractive. According to Dr. Bianca Wittman, our attraction for new things comes
from the release of dopamine, the neurotransmitter that is released when an
innovative decision is taken (Wittmann, Daw, Seymour, & Raymond, 2008).
Tangibility
The old brain prefers tangible concepts over abstract ones. It prefers ideas that are
simple and concrete (Georges, Bayle-Tourtoulou, & Badoc, 2014). Studies have
concluded that there is a positive correlation with tangibility and generosity (Cryder
& Loewenstein , 2011). Potential backers are more likely to fund a project when they
are given concrete information about how their money will be used to make a
difference. Tangibility increases the perception that one’s involvement will make a
difference. Furthermore, tangibility deepens the emotional receptivity.
Beginning and ending
Our old brain puts more interest on what appears at beginnings and endings so it is on
those parts of the speech, video, or text where the key information should be stated.
In marketing it is essential to leave a mighty first impression for the message to be
approved (Corcoran, 2014). The first impression becomes the filter for how what is to
follow is going to be perceived.
It is interesting to mention here the results achieved by Kahneman and Redelmeier in
their study Memories of Colonoscopy: A randomized trial (2002). According to them,
in the majority of life’s aspects we tend to ingnore most concrete moments, disregard
its total duration and overvalue the final. The following graphs are the result of their
study. Patient B, disregarding the duration of the intervention, remembered it as less
painful as patient A did as the latter’s intervention ended with higher pain intensity.
This is relevant in the context of marketing and crowdfunding because consumers
will have the tendency to remember the impression left by the ending of a video or an
ad, as opposed to the impression the middle part left on them.
Figure 8: Memories of Colonoscopy pain intensity

18. S
V
V
b
W
T
c
E
It
e
g
w
S
P
S
P
o
d
L
In
p
d
th
Source: Everts
Visual estim
Visual stimu
brain respon
Words are in
The core me
connection w
Emotions
t has been
emotions an
get people t
with the cam
Secondly, w
Persuasion (
Social proof
People are l
other similar
do it as well
Liking
ndividuals
process pote
depends on
hrough a vi
s, 2012
muli: one im
ulation is ke
nds rapidly
n the new br
essage shou
with the pot
n proven b
nd then they
to take acti
mpaign.
we focus ou
(1987), wer
f
likely to tak
r individual
.
are more li
ential funde
the particul
deo. Physic
mage reveals
ey in getting
to visual cu
rain’s doma
uld be delive
tential backe
y research
y try to just
on (i.e. pro
ur attention
re he identif
ke their lea
ls are suppo
ikely to say
rs consider
lar person w
cal appearan
s more than
g people’s a
ues or phys
ain and are t
ered visuall
ers.
that indiv
tify them ra
ovide financ
n to Cialdin
fied several
ad from oth
orting a part
y yes to pe
which kind
who commu
nce and clot
n a thousan
attention an
siology, not
trivial in bu
ly to strengt
viduals mak
ationally (R
cing) their
ni’s book In
'weapons o
hers. If the
ticular camp
eople they
d of firm or
unicates the
thing are im
nd words.
nd engagem
t to words
uying/backin
then the em
ke decision
Renvoise &
emotions sh
nfluence: T
of influence'
potential b
paign, they
like. In the
individul a
message is
mportant fact
ment. Our pr
(Corcoran,
ng process.
motional and
ns based on
Morin, 200
hould be en
The Psychol
'.
backers kno
are more li
e decision m
asks for fund
s, especially
tors.
16
imitive
2014).
d brand
n their
07). To
ngaged
logy of
ow that
kely to
making
ding. It
y if it is

19. A
It
e
c
ja
S
P
o
e
2
C
m
F
Authority
t is import
experts on th
concrete lan
argon since
Scarcity and
People like
others would
else.
2.2.ELEME
Communica
messages an
Figure 9: T
Source: O
2.2.1. V
The wor
tant for the
he concerne
nguage, be s
it could lim
d exclusivity
to feel spe
d have a cer
NTS OF CO
ation is ma
nd paraverba
he element
wn elaborati
Verbal mess
rds we cho
e viewers/li
ed area and
specific and
mit the unde
y
ecial. They
rtain produc
OMMUNICA
ade up of
al messages
ts of comm
on based on W
sages
oose and o
isteners/read
knows wha
d provide de
erstanding.
like the fee
ct or benefi
ATION
three com
s (MVC, 20
munication
Windle & Wa
our use of
ders that th
at he/she is
etails but no
eling of ex
it or getting
mponents: v
013) (Windle
arren, 2014 a
the langua
he founders
talking abo
ot falling int
clusiveness
g that produc
verbal mes
e & Warren
nd MVC, 201
age are key
s come acr
out. It is key
nto using too
s it gives th
uct before an
ssages, non
n, 2014).
13.
ey in the k
17
ross as
y to use
o much
hat few
nybody
nverbal
kind of

20. 18
communicative ambience we are creating (Windle & Warren, 2014). The
connotations associated with the chosen words affect the mindset of the listener.
The message must be brief, concise and organized. The information must be
relevant. The speaker must choose the vocabulary of the speech depending on the
receptor. Jargon should be avoided; the message has to be easy to understand for
the listener. “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler” (Einstein).
2.2.2. Nonverbal messages
The nonverbal messages are the ones we send through our body language: facial
expression, gestures, body posture, and the spacial distance. When we are
communicating, our bodies are transmitting a message that is as powerful as the
words we are saying (MVC, 2013). As stated in the book Silent Messages (1971)
by Professor Albert Mehrabian, nonverbal communication accounts for 55% of
what others perceive and understand from our message. We always communicate
through our body language; we cannot avoid it. It is through nonverbal messages
that we communicate our emotions. Although we know now that these
percentages are not true in every situation, what Mehrabian’s study demonstrates
is that body language is an essential part of our interaction and communication
with others (MVC, 2013).
Facial expression
The face is the most expressive part of our bodies. It is the conveyor that
transports our emotional information to the outside world. The eyes are especially
revealing; they are the windows to the soul. Through the face we often give away
our emotions before we say how we feel (Windle & Warren, 2014). In business
conversations it is essential to keep our facial expressions positive; a natural smile
helps the other speaker to relax. Eye contact it is a good way to show that you are
listening and interested in what they are saying. Smiles, frowns, a raised eyebrow
o to chew one’s lips are examples of facial expression on the speaker that mean
different feeling and thoughts (MVC, 2013).
Postures and gestures
The posture of our body can create a feeling of rejection or openness. Negative
body language causes a negative impact and constrains progress. The way of
standing, sitting or the position of the legs, arms, feet and hands talk about the
speaker’s personality and state of mind (MVC, 2013).

21. 19
2.2.3. Paraverbal language: It is how we say something, not what we say.
Paraverbal language is how we say something, not what we say and it is
transmitted through the tone, pitch and pacing of our voices (MVC, 2013).
According to Professor Mehrabian (1971) it about 38% of what others perceive
and understand from the message. Paraverbal language is so important because
the way things are said can change their meaning.
The Pitch
Pitch can be defined as the key of the voice; it is the vibration’s rate of the vocal
folds (MVC, 2013) (Reiman, 2013). As this rate changes, the sound of the voice
varies; the more vibrations the higer the voice will sound. To keep the listener
interested it is important to vary the pitch of the voice.
The Speed
The speed at which you speak affects the ability to communicate. It is important
to communicate the message at a moderate pace because it would be easier to
understand for the listener and it helps him/her to focus on the information.
The Tone
Tone refers to the combination of different pitches to produce a frame of mind.
Speed can also produce an effect on your tone.
B.2 EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK
1. OBJECTIVES
The following comparative analysis aims to reaffirm the power of communication in
business, especially when seeking for financing.
The study aims to check which factors of the communication strategy of a rewards- based
crowdfunding campaign would move it from failed to successful.
It is expected that the conclusions reached can serve as guidelines for communication
strategies of upcoming fundraising attempts, particulartly for rewards-based
crowdfunding campaigns and the, maybe necessary, re-launches.

22. 20
2. METHODOLOGY
We adopted a qualitative approach, since it is the suggested to examine a circumstance
about which little is known. The qualitative methodoloy, versus probability sampling,
eases the deliberated selection of those cases that are considered as crucial in order to
evaluate a theory (Carazo, 2006).
The methodoly adopted is the case study method, one of the tyoes of the qualitative
approach. The case study method emphasizes not only on the construction of new
theories but also incorporates existent theories, which reveals a mixture of induction and
deduction. The contemporary case study method is conceibed as a reserach strategy with
the aim of understanding the current dynamics in specific contexts (Carazo, 2006).
The matter of generalizing from the study of a particular case study is not a statistical
generalization but an analytical one: it uses the results of a case study or several ones to
illustrate or generalize a theory. The credibility of the conclusions obtained from a case
study relies on the quality of the conducted investigation and on the objectivity of the
researcher on investigation’s elaboration (Carazo, 2006).
The empirical part of this report focuses on making a comparative analysis of the
communication of two crowdfunding campaigns. For making this comparison we have
considered two campaigns on the platform Kickstarter from the same project: an initially
unfunded campaign and its improved mega-successful re-launch. We are talking about
The Coolest Cooler, a project hunting for funds on Kickstarter. After the failure of his
first attempt, Ryan Grepper, the product creator, did not surrender but launched the
highest funded Kickstarter so far, at $13,285,226. (See Annex 3 for as Kickstarter project
page overview)
For each of the campaigns the sales video and the sales page are are separately analyzed.
 The sales video analysis includes a study of the scripts and of the film content.
This film content analizes comparatively each of the product features.
 On the sales page analysis section the structure followed for the incorporation
of each part of the sales page elements is analyzed. The sales page contents is
discussed, especially the differences on the rewards and the insertion of FAQs
on the campaign two.
All the images that appear throughout this paper have been retrieved from Kickstarter.
The URLs of both two campaigns are provided in Table 2.
Both campaigns launched for the The Coolest Cooler project are classified on the basis of
the criteria exposed on section 1 of the theoretical framework section on Table 10.

23. Figu
Sourc
Mr. G
coole
Cool
Whe
ende
polic
Half
coole
at the
for.
ure 10: The
ce: Own elabo
Grepper nee
er prototype
lest.
n campaign
d up just g
cy Ryan Gre
f a year late
er communi
e end of the
e Coolest cla
oration
eded money
e, and it w
n one was l
getting an 8
eeper did no
er (8/Jul/20
ication strat
e funding p
assification
y for a large
was not a co
aunched (2
1.75% of th
ot get a penn
14), our en
tegy. His ne
period of 54
n in base of
er-scale ma
onventional
6/Nov/2013
hat amount
ny from ple
ntrepreneur
ewly set fun
4 days, he g
the theore
anufacturing
l cooler, wh
3) it set a fu
. Due to th
edges.
re-launched
nding goal w
got the 26,5
tical frame
g and marke
hich is why
unding goal
e ‘all-or-no
d his defeat
was $50,000
70% of wh
ework
et launching
y he named
l of $125,0
othing’ Kick
ted project
0. To his su
hat he was l
21
g of his
d it the
00, but
kstarter
with a
urprise,
ooking

24. Tabl
F
Ple
(al
UN
This
coole
comm
analy
Cool
Grep
safet
stora
The
winte
its la
a coo
le 2: Techn
TECHNIC
INFORMA
Name
Launching
Funding de
Project dur
Funding g
Pledged m
edged mone
the funding
Money obt
ll-or-nothing
Result
NITS OF AN
Elements st
paper focu
ers are no
munication
ysis, we me
lest has a m
pper’s word
ty matters. I
age for plate
seasonality
er (Northern
aunch during
oler during t
nical inform
CAL
ATION
e
g date
adline
ration
goal
money
y % over
g goal
tained
g policy)
t
NALYSIS
tudied
uses on the c
ot exactly
compariso
ention them
modern vin
ds (Grepper
In addition
es and a kni
is a relevan
n Hemisphe
g summer. U
the time of
mation of the
The Coo
Blender, M
26/ No
26/ De
$
$
(
U
Sales video
https://www.kick
epper/the-coo
music-and-so
Video scri
Sales pa
contents an
communica
alike, their
on execution
m here for t
ntage look
r, 2014). It
to the origi
fe, wider w
nt factor on
ere). The su
Undoubtedl
the year it c
e two campa
olest: Cooler
Music and So
More
ovember/ 20
ecember/ 201
31 days
$125,000
$102,188
81.75%
(<100%)
$0
Unfunded
o 1 and sales
kstarter.com/proj
olest-cooler-with-
o-much?ref=nav_
ript, video co
age organizat
nd offered re
ation strateg
r differenc
n. Altough
the readers’
for a mor
does not i
inal features
wheels, and a
n this analy
uccess of th
ly, the reade
could be enj
aigns and un
with
o Much
13
13
page 1
ects/ryangr
blender-
_search
S
http
er
ontent.
tion,
ewards.
V
p
gy of both c
ces are not
h disregardi
’ knowledg
re targeted
include the
s, the new v
a USB charg
ysis. Campa
he second c
ers would b
joyed.
nits for its a
COOLES
21st Centu
Actua
8/ Ju
30/ Au
5
$5
$13
26
(>
$13
F
Sales video 2
ps://www.kickstar
r/coolest-cooler-2
actually?
ideo script, v
page organiza
offere
campaigns.
t being co
ing their di
ge: the seco
marketing
optional g
version also
ger.
ign one wa
campaign is
be more incl
analysis
ST COOLER
ury Cooler th
ally Cooler
uly/ 2014
ugust/ 2014
52 days
50,000
3,285,226
6,570%
>100%)
3,285,226
Funded
2 and sales p
rter.com/projects
21st-century-cool
?ref=nav_search
video conten
ation, conten
ed rewards.
Even thoug
onsidered f
ifferences f
ond version
approach,
grill option
o included b
as launched
s greatly rel
lined to pled
22
R:
hat's
page 2
s/ryangrepp
ler-thats-
nt. Sales
nts and
gh both
for the
for the
of the
as per
due to
built-in
during
lated to
dge for

25. 23
While being aware of the power of networking for the success of crowdfunding plans,
this report is not analyzing off-site information. This study is based on data taken
exclusively from Kickstarter. Nevertheless, some interesting facts about the social
networks used by The Coolest team are mentioned in this paper.
3. RESULTS
3.1.COMMUNICATION COMPARISON
This comparison deals with the fundraising factors (Figure 7) affected by every
communication amendment in the second campaign, in order to more clearly show
the link between the theoretical and empirical parts of this writing.
3.1.1. Sales video
Firstly, it is important to mention specifics about the video: length and quality.
Video one is an unprofessionally produced video with a duration of three minutes
and thirtysix seconds. Video two was professionally produced and it is three
minutes and twentyone seconds long. The fifteen-seconds reduction of the video
can be considered as not connected to the intentions of this paper. Contrarily, the
professional latests video production changed the viewers’ perception of the
project and it is here considered as key for the huge campaign success.
The improvement of the video’s quality was related to the later success of the
campaign. In the following subdivision we have analyzed the video script and
content.
3.1.1.1. Script (verbal message)
Ryan Grepper, the creator of the Coolest was the speaker on the sales video
for both launched campaigns. The complete transcription of his speeches for
each video can be found on Annexes 1 and 2.
Video one begins highlighting the only thing that regular coolers do, and the
only thing people would expect them to do: keep the drinks cold. Contrarily,
video two is telling us why normal coolers are not as suitable for their function
as they could: boring, unresisting and annoying to carry.
When describing regular coolers they have moved from saying that they do
just what they are supposed to do, to say why they are annoying for the user.
They are letting the viewer see that there is room for improvement.

26. 24
Furthermore, they should be built in a way that when you are going out to
have fun, they are not becoming a pain for the user.
Then, the features description started with the built-in blender. The blender
description is pretty much identical on both sales videos. They improved the
content by the addition in campaign number two of the benefits you can obtain
from it: “You’re already carrying around a cooler full of ice and tasty
beverages, why not blend them up and become a summer time hero anytime,
anywhere”. The Coolest team was then focusing on selling the benefits you
can get from having a blender than on the feature itself.
The introduction of the removable Bluetooth speaker follows. The number
two continued maintaining the fun-oriented tone of the speech: “And what is a
party without music?” It also alludes to the comfort of being able to use the
speaker from 30 feet away. One does not want to leave the conversation with
friends to go to the cooler to fix the music. It is, again, about fun, good
company and comfort. On the other side, number one says that regular coolers
do not have an option for integrated speakers.
Then the successful campaign video goes with the presentation of the
waterproof USB charger, which did not exist in the original cooler. By saying:
“maybe you have an iPhone and wanna use it after two in the afternoon”, they
got closer to the viewer by taking an everyday-problem we all have (and that
gets even worse when outdoors), low battery, and making fun of it while
giving a solution.
The built-into-the-lid lights are next. The successful video keeps the festive
ambiance up: “The party doesn’t stop just because the sun goes down and you
shouldn’t have to freeze your fingers searching endlessly for your favorite
drink.”
The last comparable attribute is the bottle-opener. It is introduced in a very
different way in both videos. It changed from “And is it too much to ask that a
cooler comes with a bottle-opener?” to “And, how many hours of your life
have you lost looking for a bottle-opener?” For the re-launched campaign is
not just focusing on the feature itself anymore, but underlining why it is useful
for the listener: saving time through convenience.
To conclude, the transcriptions of Grepper asking the viewers to put money
into his projects are compared.
‐ In campaign one he said: “The biggest problem with the cooler right
now is that I’ve got the only prototype. That is when you come in, the
Kickstarter community. See, if we can reach our goal up here, you can

27. ‐
3.1.1
 F
Sales
the r
shots
the b
Choo
the p
repre
enjoy
Cool
frien
conte
Imag
were
the s
Imag
have one
with you
In the se
expensiv
all the c
today an
you ove
campaig
first peop
1.2. The f
Film conten
s video one
re-launched
s, the places
background.
osing the ri
product is
esent real l
ying the Co
lers are com
nds. In shor
ext of leisur
ge 1 contain
e chosen to
uccessful an
ge 1: Backg
O
e too. We a
rs”.
econd video
ve tooling to
components
nd get all th
er five hun
gn with just
ple in the w
film
t
e was not a
video was
s where it w
.
ight backgro
perceived
live scenar
oolest.
mmonly ass
rt, these fo
re activities
ns screensh
show the d
nd failed vi
ground com
ONE
all can. Thin
o we heared
o pay for all
at a volum
he gear we a
ndred dolla
a hundred
world to hav
professiona
professiona
was recorde
ound for th
and assess
rios where
sociated wi
ood and be
.
hots taken f
differences i
ideo campai
mparison
nk of all tho
: “But to mo
l the Cooles
me discount
are packing
ars. Well, b
and eighty
ve a cooler t
al productio
ally made, a
ed and even
he sales vid
sed by the
the spectat
ith good we
everage con
from both v
in the scena
igns.
ose cool pla
ove to the n
st parts and
t. If you are
g in the Coo
by backing
dollars you
that’s actua
on. Contrari
as can be se
the clothin
deo has a bi
viewers.
tor would
eather, holi
ntainers are
videos. The
ario/backgro
TWO
aces you co
next stage re
d the capital
re about to
olest it wou
g this Kick
u can be one
ally cool.”
rily, the film
een by the p
ng of the pe
ig impact o
The backg
visualize h
idays, famil
e thought o
e included
ound select
25
ould go
equires
l to buy
go out
uld cost
kstarter
e of the
ming of
product
ople in
on how
grounds
himself
ly, and
of in a
images
tion for

28. In the
peopl
The im
by a
blend
playin
The r
the co
positi
with t
The f
stages
As to
catchi
viewe
with s
him a
fun.
Imag
The f
back
your s
Secon
chanc
In vid
it, sta
elegan
tech t
e original ca
le are seated
mage on th
lake. In the
der. In the
ng in the wa
re-launched
ooler can b
ive experien
their people
following p
s worth talk
o the video
ing image o
ers excited w
something t
alone sitting
ge 2: Video
O
first feeling
is crucial.
sales video
ndly, the pro
ce to create
deo one the
arting the n
nt, smooth
touch of the
ampaign, th
d on a blank
e right is co
e foregroun
backgroun
ater.
video repre
be enjoyed.
nces they w
e.
paragraphs
king about.
o introduct
of a group o
with an app
they would
g in a park
introducti
ONE
g a viewer g
This impre
and page or
oduct intro
a first impr
Coolest is
noisy blend
panning up
e profession
he video wa
ket, talking
ompletely d
nd people a
nd, we see
esents a mo
The found
would enjoy
contain a
tion, shown
of friends ha
pealing scen
like to be p
next to his
on compar
gets when w
ession is go
r click back
oduction is
ression of th
introduced
der that com
p and then o
nally made n
s shot in the
and wearing
different. Th
re preparin
e people w
ore appealin
ders are loo
y thanks to
chronologi
n in Image
aving fun ar
nario where
part of. Whe
creation, w
rison
watching a
oing to dete
k to the Kick
highly imp
he product o
by Grepper
mes with i
out to the fr
new video is
e backgarde
g thick cloth
he chosen s
g a cocktai
wearing swi
ng festive en
oking to sel
the product
ical order a
2, video tw
round the C
they can p
en we play v
which does n
TWO
video of a
rmine if th
kstarter men
ortant: foun
on the viewe
r, who is se
t. Video tw
ont of the C
s visible her
en of a hous
hes.
scenario is a
il in the Co
imming-sui
nvironment
ll the view
t: joyful mo
analysis of
wo started
Coolest. He
picture them
video one it
not seem as
project the
hey keep wa
nu.
nders have ju
ers’ minds.
eated alone
wo starts w
Coolest. Th
re. See Imag
26
se. The
a beach
oolest’s
its and
t where
ers the
oments
f video
with a
got the
mselves,
t is just
s much
ey may
atching
ust one
next to
with an
e high-
ge 3.

29. Imag
After
one. T
the pr
film q
On b
attribu
highli
Video
two s
provid
Imag
Image
speak
the ac
impro
outdo
Anoth
presen
bottle
works
ge 3: Produ
O
the produc
The benefit
roduct shoo
quality.
oth videos
ute via voic
ighting: the
o one prese
howes user
de.
ge 4: Blueto
O
es containe
ker introduc
ctual speak
oved video
oors with fri
her example
nting benef
e opener. In
s as did on v
uct introduc
ONE
ct presentati
t-focused in
ots of the a
they show
ce over. Wh
feature itse
nts some of
rs enjoying
ooth speake
ONE
ed in Imag
ction of both
kers and vid
shows the f
iends can br
e also captu
fits over pro
n video two,
video one, b
ction comp
ion, all the
ntention of v
attributes in
the produc
hat made the
elf or the be
f the featur
the possibil
er introduc
ge 4 are sc
h two differ
deo two ha
fun that bei
ring.
ures how fo
oduct featur
, they not o
but also a si
parison
product fe
video two s
n both video
ct in use w
e difference
enefits it giv
es as just p
lities those
ction comp
creenshots
rent videos
as kids dan
ing able to
for the proje
res themsel
only showed
ituation rela
TWO
atures are i
stands out w
os, leaving a
while Grepp
here was w
ves the user.
product attri
bring and t
arison
TWO
taken durin
. Video one
cing around
play your m
ect relaunch
ves: the int
d the opener
ated with ne
introduced
when we co
aside its im
per describe
what the vid
.
ibutes while
the value th
ing the Blu
e shows a v
d the coole
music when
h they focu
tro of the at
er itself and
eeding one.
27
one by
ompare
mproved
es each
deo was
e video
hat they
uetooth
view of
er. The
n going
used on
ttached
how it

30. Imag
The i
betwe
perce
Imag
On b
drink
adva
Vide
scena
On th
comm
back
In co
prov
launc
The
with
video
ge 5: Bottle
O
mages capt
een the sce
ption of the
ge 6: Scena
O
both videos
king a smoo
antage; it is
eo two prov
ario: a sunn
he crucial m
munication
ker only bec
ontrast, in c
iding the C
ch.
final video
just a black
o two.
e opener int
ONE
tured for Im
enario and
e characteris
rio suitabil
ONE
s they show
othy right o
uncommon
vides a shoo
ny beach day
moment of a
differences
ame part of
campaign n
Coolest to t
o screens p
k screen. W
troduction
mage 5 aim
the introdu
stic’s utility
lity compar
w how the
on the track
n that one ta
ot of the ble
y.
asking for p
s as well. In
f the project
number two
their suppo
present rem
We observe,
compariso
to reflect h
uced featur
y.
rison
blender co
k on video
akes a coole
ender on a m
pledgers fo
n campaign
t when mon
o Grepper a
orters exclus
markable dis
in contrast,
on
TWO
how importa
e is. It aff
TWO
ould be enj
one cannot
er to go for
more appea
or the projec
one the vie
ney for fund
asking for m
sively and
ssimilitudes
, an enagagi
ant the conn
fects the vi
joyed. The
ot be a conv
r a run in th
aling and co
ct there wer
ewer and po
ding was nee
money was
before its
s. Video on
ing final sc
28
nection
iewers’
jogger
vincing
he park.
ommon
e some
otential
eded.
s about
market
ne ends
reen in

31. Imag
The
ask f
team
at the
The
prov
camp
Imag
 S
The b
Cons
facto
The
instru
inter
This
the v
settin
ge 7: Final
O
Coolest tea
for help to
m is asking f
e viewers’ d
request for
es. The fir
paign’s vide
ge 8: Proje
ON
Sound
background
sequently, t
or in the late
song is C
umental ve
fere the eas
melody co
video to ev
ng to be enj
video scre
ONE
m is asking
spread the
for shares a
disposal.
r project sh
rst campaig
eo added up
ects’ Facebo
NE
d music use
the music u
er success o
Celeste by
ersion of it
sy understan
mplements
voque a sum
oyed.
en compar
g the viewer
eir word an
aiming to m
haring actua
gn’s video
p to 389,547
ook shares
d for the vi
utilized for
of the produ
Ezra Vine
t. This back
nding of the
and compl
mmery and
rison
rs to share th
d not for a
ake possibl
ally worked
was shared
7 shares.
compariso
TWO
deos of bot
the sales v
ct.
e. For the
kground so
e video spea
etes the pic
d relaxed at
TWO
heir promot
a monetary
e for them
d as the evi
d 831 time
on
h campaign
ideo has no
videos tha
ound on the
aker.
ctures and sc
tmosphere,
tional video
contributio
to put the C
idence in Im
es. The re-
ns is the sam
ot been a re
ay have us
he video do
cenarios sh
the Cooles
29
o. They
on. The
Coolest
mage 8
-launch
me one.
elevant
sed the
oes not
own in
st ideal

32. 30
3.1.2. SALES PAGE
The most significant difference between the failing and the winning campaign,
besides the sales video, was the scheme followed on their sales page. Note that the
URLs for accesing the sales pages of both campaigns are provided in Table 2. But
before starting a comparison between them it is important to mention some details
about the quality of the texts.
None of the campaigns contained any grammatical nor ortographic mistakes. This
is a relevant factor to consider since it shows the preparedness of the publishers
and their effort put into the campaign. Project owners may lose credibility in the
viewer’s eyes due to the existence of errors in their publication.
We can find punctuation examples that are not grammatically correct but that we
have considered as valid for their emphatical function. We are referring to cases
like the following: ?!, ;)…
In addition there are some differences in the writing style between those two
campaigns as well. In general we can say that for campaign two the funders have
easened the lecture by synthesizing tedious paragraphs. Also, they have presented
the project in a way that the potential backers would feel part of the project and
not as simple money givers. These differences would be presented in detail in the
coming sales page organisation comparison.
Table 3 shows the structure followed on the sales page of both campaigns. The
sections written in red highlight when the structure followed on the two
campaigns was different. For the analyzing the sales page content the structure of
sales page two is followed.
Only the information that originally appeared on the sales page is considered here
– updates are not studied.
Table 3: Sales page structure of the campaigns comparison
SALES PAGE STRUCTURE
ONE TWO
1. Introductory paragraph 1. Introductory paragraph
2. Product description 2. Product description
3. Features description 3. Features bullet list
4. The story: evolution & planning 4. Rewards
5. Rewards 5. Features description
6. Features bullet list 6. The story: evolution & planning
7. Risks & challenges 7. Risks & challenges
8. FAQ=0 8. FAQ=25

33. 31
Source: Own elaboration
We can begin comparing the titles given to both campaigns. We did not include
the element title on the previous table since it is a constituent that has to be always
on top of the sales page by website’ default.
Nevertheless, we are analyzing it by reason of its importance for the campaign
success. The heading together with the picture appearing on the main page of the
platform is their letter of introduction to their potential backers.
ONE: The Coolest: Cooler with Blender, Music and So Much More
TWO: COOLEST COOLER: 21st Century Cooler that's Actually Cooler
The one given to the second campaign contains the new name assigned to the
improved relaunched product. Its name is a word play and it is written in capital
letters; this is an attention catcher for the platform viewers. The heading of the
successful campaign, unlike the failing one, makes reference to the coolness of the
product instead to the features it contains (blender, music and more…). For the
relaunched campaign they decided to focus on benefits before features.
We find the first big difference in their introductory paragraphs.
ONE: Why can’t my cooler blend DRINKS, play MUSIC, carry GEAR, and
GRILL food?! Here's the perfect tool for all your tailgate & outdoor fun!
TWO: The COOLEST is a portable party disguised as a cooler, bringing
blended drinks, music and fun to any outdoor occasion.
The introductory paragraph is followed by a brief description of the product in
both campaigns.
The failed campaign description gives the reader the feeling of a big annoying
product that you would have to carry around. This impression is given by the long
enumeration of features.
Contrarily, the winning campaign description gives the potential backers just the
opposite impression. The description starts with a catching subheading: A 21st
Century Cooler? It's about time! And, after making fun of old coolers, this
essential statement follows: The COOLEST cooler is 60 quarts of AWESOME
packed with so much fun you'll look for excuses to get outside more often. In just a
sentence they are emphazising that the product is upgraded with cool features
even thought its size is not excessive. Key terms of that statement are Coolest
(double meaning), awesome and fun; packed references its numerous
characteristics wrapped in its comfortable size.

34. 32
In the product definition of the successful campaign the project owners mentioned
the product’s most appreciated three features for the crowd, fun-regards. But this
time more than just mentioning their existence, as they did on the failed
launching, they told the readers the benefits those features can provide them.
ONE: The 'Coolest' is the world’s first portable party cooler with a built-in
ice-crushing blender, Bluetooth speakers to stream your music, in-cooler
lighting, and adjustable tie-downs to help carry all your stuff.
TWO: Maybe you want to use the built-in ice-crushing blender to whip up
some margaritas or smoothies on your next boat trip or tailgate?
Maybe you just want to always have music on hand with the waterproof
bluetooth speaker or want to recharge your electronics with the built
in USB charger?
There were some big changes regarding the product features bullet list. For the
re-launch they reconsidered not only when to include this list, but also its
appearance.
As Table 3 presents, campaign one immediately after the product description each
of its features were tediously described. A bullet list presenting the characteristics
of the product was provided almost at the bottom of the sales page.
By contrast, for campaign two it was right after the product description when an
easy-to-read bullet list was included. Then, after the presentation of the list of
rewards, each of those features was described in about a paragraph.
This means that the relaunch provided the readers with an easy-to-digest general
outlook of the product attributes at the beggining of the sales page, right after its
desciption. Potential backers could quickly understand what they were getting
even skipping the sales video. At the original campaign one needed to scroll
almost all the way down to get a simple-to-understand scheme of those traits.
The new list of features was also easier to understand; it included small and
simple representaive illustrations and its content just got right to the point (Image
9).
The rewards offered varied on the two projects. For contrasting both campaigns
we are going to consider the information written in the kickstarter pledge and the
one on the right side of that web page separately. They drive us to different
conclusions.
First we are contrasting the in-text rewards info. Table 3 shows that the

35. introduct
the page
Campaig
after the
Campaig
hit with t
the prod
keep them
Image 9
 18 vo
capa
 Rech
playe
hour
from
 High
 Virtu
reces
 Built
 Fully
in 36
 60 qu
large
 Rein
The pote
contribut
in the su
without t
As ment
and enga
the offer
the right
tion of the
.
gn one show
features de
gn two show
the prizes s
duct descrip
m reading t
9: Product f
ON
olt battery pow
able of 60+ bat
hargeable, rem
er capable of o
rs per charge, w
m up to 50 feet
h strength, lock
ually unbreaka
ssed and wate
t in bottle-top
y customizabl
6 colors choice
uart, hard side
er than my pro
nforced, easy r
ential backe
tion after u
uccess of an
the existenc
ioned on th
agement. Fo
red rewards
(Table 10)
rewards in
wed the rew
scriptions, p
wed the ince
crolling jus
tion and th
the publicati
features lis
NE
wered, full siz
tches per char
movable Bluet
operating for
while streamin
away
king bungee t
able LED ligh
rproof in the l
opener
e color skins,
es
ed, rolling coo
ototype)
rolling wheels
ers want to
understandin
initiative th
ce of compe
he theory, vi
or both laun
on their sa
.
each camp
wards almos
product evo
entives for
st a little bit
he presentati
ion.
st comparis
ze blender,
rge
tooth music
over 8
ng music
tie-down
hting
lid
available
oler (20%
s
know the c
ng the prod
hey like but
ensation.
isual stimul
nches the Co
ales page pre
paign was in
st at the end
olution and
pledging ea
down. Rea
ion of its fe
son
compensatio
duct. Potent
t in most ca
lation is key
oolest team
eventing the
ncluded at d
d of the text
project plan
arly on the s
aders can fin
features, and
TW
on offered
ial backers
ses they wo
y in getting
decided to
e user from
different po
t. They are
nning.
sales page;
nd them righ
d this will h
WO
in return fo
enjoy takin
ould not con
people’s at
include ima
m having to
33
oints of
placed
we get
ht after
help to
or their
ng part
ntribute
ttention
ages of
look to

36. Image 110: Offered
O
rewards c
ONE
omparisonn
TWO
34

37. 35
Image 10 reflects the appearance of both campaigns rewards presentation. The
first attention catcher is the simplicity and straightforward interpretation of
campaign 2. They made the rewards look like coupons with a white background,
actual pictures of the incentives, big numbers and short texts. This second
campaign provided a rewards picture that readers could understand at a glance.
The provision of actual pictures of the rewards inspired readers to pledge. The
backers could see the exact compensation they would get and not just a, perhaps
misleading, drawing. This is another way that the Coolest team increased their
perception of reliability in the readers’ eyes
We now compare the rewards’ information that figures on the space provided at
the right side of the page (See Annex 3). Not only the rewards have changed, but
also the communication style used to make them more appealing for the potential
supporters.
The highest pledge level for which a reward was offered was reduced from
$7,500+ (campaign one) to $2,000+ (campaign two). Also, the offered
compensations were more physical than on the first attempt: no inventor or
marketing training was offered but many more coolers, even a ten-units package.
The rewards were more related to the backed product.
The detailed description of every cooler’s feature was also modified for the
campaign relaunch. As we have already mentioned, some changes on the
Coolest’s features were made, but they are not being considered for the purposes
of this paper.
The biggest improvement was not on the texts that describe the attributes but on
the associated illustrative pictures. This is ‘an image is worth a thousand words’
moment. They provided explanatory images and GIFs showing the actual
functioning of those features. As we mentioned in the rewards section, humans are
very visual and better images can change our whole perception of things.
For campaign two the story of the project was cut down to a third of the length
of campaign 1. For the relaunch he is skipping unnecessary filler content on the
plan description and easens its understanding. This increases the founders’
credibility and leads potential backers to believe in the accuracy of estimated
delivery date of the rewards, among other things.
Even though the monthly-based scheme is almost identical in both campaigns,
other parts of the story summary improved – especially on their tone. The re-
launch gave a more defined and optimistic project development standpoint.

38. 36
On campaign one Grepper seemed not to have tied all the loose ends on his
development and manufacturing plan for sentences like “We are close but we still
need your help to optimize our design for manufacturability with help from our
preferred and highly-renowned industrial design firm”.
For campaign two Grepper created the impression of having more established
procedures; he already had partnered with an experienced company and seems to
have a ready-for-implementation plan: “We want you to have your COOLEST as
soon as possible.”
In this section he also let the reader know that he has experience developing and
bringing products to the market. Unlike in the campaign one, in the second he
names one project he successfully brought to the market, the Jello-shot catapult.
The provision of a reference project that the potential backers can check increases
the funder trust.
Campaign 1 came across as valuing the inventor’s aspirations as higher than the
consumer satisfaction. It stated: “This is where you come in. If we can reach our
investment goal of $125,000, then we can bring the ‘Coolest’…” or “We are close
but we still need your help to pay for blow-molding and injection molding tooling,
a very expensive one-time cost.”
The risk and challenges section was barely modified.
The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section on campaign two assembles the
most frequent questions collected from campaign one. There are 25 solved
relevant questions about every issue related with the project.

39. 37
C. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
In these times of strong competition in business it may seem impossible for a small
entrepreneur to get the capital required to set up his dreamed startup or carry out his
project. The funding challenge might get even harder for those who live in those
countries that have not emerged from economic and financial crisis yet.
Those startups with no luck looking for bank loans or for support from business angels or
venture capital funds might have found crowdfunding as their only possibility for making
their projects a reality. This new way of financing makes it possible to realize innovative
projects that seemed too risky for the traditional investors finance.
There is an increasing interest in this fundraising alternative from the crowd’s side, as
reflected by Google Trends data among other indicators (Figure 2). There is also an
increase in the number of crowdfunding online platforms available for its four different
models – donations, rewards, lending and equity.
So now that entrepreneurs are aware of this funding possibility at their disposal, this
question may arise in their minds: How can I make the most of this fundraising
opportunity? This paper answers this question focusing just on the communication
strategies – meaning how to communicate the project to the crowd in the most engaging
way.
To answer this question this paper analyzed a very particular project: The Coolest Cooler.
This project was seeking funds on the most used rewards-based crowdfunding platform in
the world, Kickstarter. This project particularity lies in the fact that two different
crowdfunding campaigns were launched by its creator to finance its attainment: the first
one did not succeed – did not make it to at least its funding goal – and the second one
made it to record-holder on the crowdfunding industry by obtaining $13,285,226.
The communication strategy of these two different campaigns – the unsuccessful and the
record-breaking one – were insightfully compared. The differences found between them
have then been classified on the basis of the ten key factors of persuasion discussed in the
theory.
Table 4 displays remarkable findings regarding each factor on campaigns one and two
and the improvement made towards what, according to theory, persuasive communication
should be like. Every of the ten factors has been classified under a broader category:
Emotions (pink), Appeal (green) or Trust (blue). And there are two factors that do not
appear on the table – social proof and liking, since no results could be achieved from the
data analyzed in this paper.

40. 38
Table 4: Summary of conclusions
FACTORS OF
FUNDRAISING
CAMPAIGN ONE CAMPAIGN TWO IMPROVEMENTS
Video content and transcript
* Asking for $:
“This is where you come in. If
we can reach our investment
goal of $125,000, then we can
bring the ‘Coolest’…”
* Final screen: In black
(Image 7)
* Asking for $:
“We want you to have your
COOLEST as soon as
possible.”
* Final screen (Image 7)
YOUR Coolest
* Asking for $: From
funding Grepper’s goal to
deliver the product to the
backers asap.
* Final screen:
Share > back project: so
YOU (pledger) can get
YOUR Coolest asap.
Sales page
* Sales page structure (see
Table 3)
* Rewards:
“…can find a reward level
that helps us meet our goal…”
* Sales page structure (see
Table 3)
* Rewards:
“…for just a hundred and
eighty dollars you can be one
of the first people in the world
with a cooler that’s actually
cool.”
* Sales page structure:
Info structured according
to potential backer
interests: main info-
rewards-detailed info
* Rewards: Backing not
to meet Grepper’s goal
but to finance a project
created for and because
of the potential backers
Video content and transcript
* Background: Grepper
talking to the camera,
surrounded by few people
*Features: descriptive (“…this
18 volts battery powered
blender”)
* Asking for $ (see I. SELF-
CENTERED)
*Final screen: (see I. SELF-
CENTERED)
* Background: Family &
friends enjoying while
Grepper talking via voice
over. Smiles.
*Features: how they benefit
the user :using emotive
content (…”become a summer
time hero anytime,
anywhere.”)
* Asking for $: (see I. SELF-
CENTERED)
*Final screen: (see I. SELF-
CENTERED)
* Background: good
company at fun settings
*Features: Benefits
enjoyed on fun settings
with good company >
characteristics
* Asking for $: (see I.
SELF-CENTERED)
*Final screen: (see I.
SELF-CENTERED)
Video content and transcript
* Asking for $: “…I’ve got the
only prototype. […] if we can
reach our goal up here, you
can have one too. We all can”.
* Asking for $: “…by backing
this Kickstarter campaign for
just a hundred and eighty
dollars you can be one of the
first people in the world with a
cooler that’s actually cool.”
* Asking for money:
Offer the pledger to be
one of the firsts ones to
enjoy the product and
cheaper than price market
(exclusive).
I. SELF‐CENTERED
EMOTIONS
VI. EMOTIONS
X. SCARCITY &
EXCLUSIVITY

41. 39
Sales page
* Rewards: Most offered on a
limited number.
* Rewards: Most offered on a
limited number.
*Rewards: SAME.
Limited amount
(scarce)
Preselling: be the first
Coolest owners and at a
cheaper price
(exclusive)
Video content and transcript
*Video intro: immutable
useless cooler design lead to
The Coolest creation
*Features: For each one they
say the needs normal coolers
don’t cover and The Coolest
does.
* Video intro: immutable
cooler design lead to The
Coolest creation
*Features: For each one they
say the needs normal coolers
don’t cover and The Coolest
does.
* Video intro; SAME:
The Coolest is a radical
change in the industry
*Features; SAME: stress
the needs The Coolest
covers that traditional
coolers don’t
Sales page
* Product description:
Enumerates many Coolest’s
features
*Product description: Why
normal coolers aren’t cool.
Coolest’s most valued features
and how they bring the fun
*Product description:
Mentions normal coolers’
defects before describing
The Coolest.
Video content and transcript
* Video intro: Grepper is
alone in his garden with The
Coolest
* Product intro: Grepper alone
in a garden activates the
Coolest’s noise blender
(Image 3)
* Final screen: In black
(Image 7)
* Video intro: Bbq with
friends and the Coolest
* Product intro: Elegant and
smooth panning up and out
The Coolest and Grepper via
voice over (Image 3)
*Final screen: Engaging
screen asks for video share>
project funding
* Video intro: appealing
scenario with good
company.
* Product intro: Get a
good first impression.
Simple and elegant
shoots.
* Final screen: Engages
to share the campaign.
Successful: see Image 8
Sales page
* Title: introduces some of the
product features
* Title: word game * Title: Attention
catcher word game
Video content and transcript
* Background: Park, cold,
winter clothes
* Product intro: Grepper alone
on a garden. Noisy blender.
*Features: shows the attribute
* Background: lake beach,
sunny, summer clothes, bbq
* Product intro: Elegant a
nd smooth panning up and out
the Coolest
* Features: shows the
* Background: summery
scenarios. Cooler shots >
Grepper shots
* Product intro: Aesthetic
and simple presentation.
* Features: show them
II. CONTRAST
APPEAL
IV. BEGINNING
& ENDING

42. 40
and its functioning. attribute, its functioning and it
being enjoyed at an
appropriate setting.
being used at a scenario
where useful and/or
desirable: benefits >
features.
Sales page
* Features’ bullet list: Some
long descriptions, even though
they were previously
described. (See Image 9)
* Rewards: Represented by
drawings. Long texts. Small
numbers (pledge amount).
Colorful backgrounds hinder
reading.
*Features description: text+
pictures
*Features’ bullet list: small
drawing of each feature with
concrete description. (See
Image 9)
* Rewards: Actual pictures of
the rewards. Not much text.
Big numbers. White
background.
* Features description: text +
pictures + GIFs
* Features’ bullet list:
Easy to understand
enumeration.
* Rewards: Actual
pictures make it more
trustable. Bigger number
and less text for an easy
at-a-glance
understanding.
* Features description:
more representative
pictures + GIFs.
Sales page
* Story: Monthly plan in case
of campaign success. Seems
unready: “We are close but we
still need your help to […].”
*Story: Monthly plan in case
of campaign success. Seems
ready for implementation.
* Story: The plan is
presented as ready to
implement. The on-time
deliver of the rewards
seems more feasible.
Video content and transcript
&
Sales page
* Asking for $ & Story:
Talks about his previous
experience: “I create products
for a living…”
Partnership with a veteran
company but the design still to
be optimized with them: “We
are close but we still need
your help to […].”
* Asking for $ & Story:
Talks about his previous
experience and mentions a
product he successfully
marketed:“I invent lots of
things, but other than my
Jello-shot catapult very few
have brought so much fun to
my life. ;)”
Partnership with a veteran
company: their strategy seems
planned: “We want you to
have your COOLEST as soon
as possible. Here’s our plan to
achieve that: […].”
* Asking for $ & Story:
Previous experience more
trustable by mentioning
one of his successful
projects.
Plan with partners is
ready to be implemented:
on-time delivery of
rewards.
Source: Own elaboration
The classification of the factors of persuasion under three broader categories – Emotions,
Appeal and Trust – makes it easier to expound the recommendations that emerge from
the above analysis. The general recommendations that are offered below are primarily
V. VISUAL
ESTIMULI IX. AUTHORITY
TRUST
III. TANGIBILITY

43. 41
addressed to entrepreneurs who want to use a rewards-based crowdfunding platform to
finance their projects or startups.
1. EMOTIONS
Entrepreneurs need to focus their campaign on the value they provide. Value means how
the product/service they offer will improve the quality of the life of its consumer.
When Grepper relaunched his campaign with a focus on the value the Coolest provides,
he was eventually successful. The more an entrepreneur can market the core benefits of a
product in his campaign instead of just a list of features, the easier it will be to reach
funding goals. These core benefits relate to emotional rather than physical needs of the
consumer. Grepper changed his campaign from a description of product features to a
campaign of emotions connected to the Coolest. Consumers were able to relate to these
emotional scenarios and were more willing to financially contribute.
When looking for financing through crowdfunding, the focus should lie on what can be
added or taken away to improve the quality of someone else’s life, rather than one’s own.
It has much to do with making the backers feel special for offering them exclusive
products/services.
2. APPEAL
Project owners should engage their potential backers by presenting them an innovative
product/service that is going to benefit their needs. They should emphasize those
advantages and that nothing else before was as satisfying as their product/service.
The scenarios chosen for the video must represent an idyllic place where their product
can be enjoyed. The people who appear in the video, their mood and appearance should
be planned to represent what that particular product is going to bring to the pledger’s life.
When Grepper relaunched his campaign the video was filmed on a summery day at the
beach barbequing with a lot of friends and not at a park during winter.
There is only one chance to make a good first impression. The title of the project, the
introduction of the video and the introduction of the product are crucial for the viewer to
feel attracted to the project at the platform’s main page and keep checking the rest of the
content.
3. TRUST
The entrepreneur, for the potential backers to trust him and his project a detailed plan
about its execution must be provided. In the rewards-based crowdfunding industry the on-
time delivery of the rewards to the backers it is often an issue, so the plan, including the
delivery dates, must be presented.

44. 42
The project owner should let the potential backers know about his previous experience in
business, especially on the field related to the project in question. The viewers must also
know if there is a team behind the project (who they are and what they do for the project),
or if the entrepreneur is partnering with or outsourcing from other companies. The
allusions to the experience must be concrete, providing the names or access to successful
projects previously executed.
For the elaboration of this analytical paper I faced the following constraints: first, I have
considered the two coolers offered in both campaigns exactly alike when they are not.
Also, this paper did not perform an off-the page study. The data considered on these
pages had been all taken from the Kickstarter’s sales page of both campaigns. Part of the
communication strategy carried out by the Coolest team was off Kickstarter; this directly
leads to the recommendations for further research.
Future study should focus on the scope and importance that off-the-platform variables
have for the success of crowdfunding campaigns. It might be especially interesting to
analyze the role and reach of the social media. This future research suggestion might
complete our analysis by providing conclusion and recommendations about both factors
social proof and liking.

45. 43
D. REFERENCES
Agrawal , A. K., Catalini , C., & Goldfarb , A. (2011). The Geography of
Crowdfunding. Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Barabas, R. (2012). Crowdfunding: Trends and Developments Impacting Entertainment
Entrepreneurs. NYSBA Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal , 37-40.
Belleflamme , P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2010). Crowdfunding,: An
Industrial Organization Perspective . Pariser Konferenz: Digital Business Models:
Understanding Strategies.
Blasingame, J. (1 de August de 2014). Crowd Funding Is Not New, But
Crowdfunding Is. Recuperado el 15 de October de 2014, de Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimblasingame/2014/08/01/crowd-funding-is-not-new-
but-crowdfunding-is/
Briggman, S. (2014). Ultimate Tips for Relaunching a Kickstarter Campaign.
Recuperado el 10 de November de 2014, de Crowd Crux:
http://www.crowdcrux.com/ultimate-tips-for-relaunching-a-kickstarter-campaign/
Burnett, K. (2 de June de 2012). The emotional brain. Recuperado el 10 de
November de 2014, de Showcase Of Fundraising Innovation and Inspiration:
http://sofii.org/article/the-emotional-brain
Carazo, P. C. (2006). El método de estudio de caso Estrategia metodológica de
la investigación científica. Revista científica Pensamiento y Gestión .
Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Chicago.
Corcoran, D. (2014). NeuroMarketing - Top 7 Insights to Unlocking Your Customer's
Brain for Instant Sales. Recuperado el 11 de November de 2014, de Business Know-
How: http://www.businessknowhow.com/marketing/neuromarketing.htm
Consumers with Neuromarketing.
Crowdfund Insider. (2013). Recuperado el 30 de October de 2014, de
Crowdfund Insider: http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/
Cryder, C., & Loewenstein , G. (2011). The Critical Link Between Tangibility and
Generosity. Carnegie Mellon University.
Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain .
Dellorso, M. (25 de June de 2014). The Promise -- And Challenges -- Of Equity
Crowdfunding. Recuperado el 1 de November de 2014, de Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2014/06/25/the-promise-and-challenges-of-
equity-crowdfunding/
Dooley, R. (2012). Brainfluence: 100 Ways to Persuade and Convince
Einstein, A. (s.f.).
Everts, T. (5 de January de 2012). Web performance today: Colonoscopies, cold
water and pain: How our memory works and how this relates to web performance.
Recuperado el 1 de November de 2014, de Web performance today:
http://www.webperformancetoday.com/2012/01/05/colonoscopies-cold-water-and-
pain-how-our-memory-works-and-how-this-relates-to-web-performance/)
Georges, P. M., Bayle-Tourtoulou, A. S., & Badoc, M. (2014). Neuromarketing in

46. 44
Action: How to Talk and Sell to the Brain.
Google Trends. (1 de February de 2015). Trends: Explore. Recuperado el 1 de
February de 2015, de Google: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=crowdfunding
Grepper, R. (8 de July de 2014). Kickstarter. COOLEST COOLER: 21st Century
Cooler that's Actually Cooler: FAQ. Recuperado el 29 de October de 2014, de
Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/coolest-cooler-21st-
century-cooler-thats-actually?ref=nav_search
Grepper, r. (8 de July de 2014). Kickstarter: COOLEST COOLER: 21st Century
Cooler that's Actually Cooler. Recuperado el 10 de October de 2014, de Kickstarter:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/coolest-cooler-21st-century-cooler-
thats-actually?ref=nav_search
Grepper, R. (26 de November de 2013). Kickstarter: The Coolest: Cooler with
Blender, Music and So Much More. Recuperado el 10 de October de 2014, de
Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/the-coolest-cooler-
with-blender-music-and-so-much?ref=nav_search
Harms, M. (2007). What Drives Motivation to Participate Financially in a
Crowdfunding Community? . Thesis Master in Marketing , Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam.
Hemer, J. (2011). A snapshot on crowdfunding. Recuperado el 1 de November de
2014, de
http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isien/p/publikationen/arbpap_unternehmen_region.php
Invesdor. (24 de February de 2014). Donation, reward, lending and equity:
putting order into crowdfunding. Recuperado el 1 de Novermber de 2014, de
Invesdor: https://www.invesdor.com/finland/en/blog/150
Kazmark, J. (18 de July de 2013). Kickstarter Blog: Kickstarter Before
Kickstarter. Recuperado el 15 de October de 2014, de Kickstarter:
https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-before-kickstarter
Kleeman, F., Voss, G. G., & Rieder, K. (2008). Un(der)paid Innovators: The
Commercial Utilization of Consumer Work through Crowdsourcing, Science,
Technology & Innovation Studies.
Lee, D. H., DeWester, D., & Park, S. (2008). Web 2.0 and Oppurtunities for Small
Businesses, Service Businesses.
Massolution. (2013). 2013CF- The Crowdfunding Industry Report.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Belmont: Wadworth Publishing
Company.
Mollick, E. (13 de August de 2013). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An
exploratory study . Journal of Business Venturing .
MVC. (2013). Communication Strategies. Training Manual, Moreno Valley
College.
Prive, T. (27 de November de 2012). What Is Crowdfunding And How Does It
Benefit The Economy. Recuperado el 15 de October de 2014, de Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2012/11/27/what-is-crowdfunding-and-how-
does-it-benefit-the-economy/
Prive, T. (6 de November de 2012). Inside The JOBS Act: Equity Crowdfunding.

47. 45
Recuperado el 1 de November de 2014, de Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2012/11/06/inside-the-jobs-act-equity-
crowdfunding-2/
Prive, T. (12 de October de 2012). Top 10 Benefits Of Crowdfunding. Recuperado el 2 de
November de 2014, de Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2012/10/12/top-
10-benefits-of-crowdfunding-2/
Ramos, J., & Stewart, J. (2014). Crowdfunding and the Role of Managers in
Ensuring the Sustainability of Crowdfunding Platforms. European Commission.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014.
Redelmeier, D. A., Katz, J., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Memories of colonoscopy: a
randomized trial.
Reiman, T. (2013). The Human Voice - Pitch. Recuperado el 10 de November de 2014,de
Body Language University:
http://www.bodylanguageuniversity.com/public/203.cfm
Renvoise, P., & Morin, C. (2007). Neuromarketing.
Sawers, P. (9 de January de 2014). The past, present and future of crowdfunding.
Recuperado el 16 de October de 2014, de The Next Web:
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/01/09/past-present-future-crowdfunding/
Schroter, W. (13 de May de 2014). The Politics of Crowdfunding. Recuperado el
16 de October de 2014, de Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/wilschroter/2014/05/13/the-politics-of-crowdfunding/
Schwienbacher, A., & Lambert, T. (2010). An Empirical Analysis of
Crowdfunding.
Schwienbacher , A., & Larralde, B. (2010). Crowdfunding of Small
Entrepreneurial Ventures. En A. Schwienbacher, & B. Larralde, Handbook of
Entrepreneurial Finance.
Schwienbacher , A., & Larralde, B. (2010). Handbook of Entrepreneurial
Finance. En A. Schwienbacher, & B. Larralde, Crowdfunding of small
entrepreneurial ventures.
Stengel, G. (28 de August de 2014). Crowdfunding: Raise Money And Build Your
Fan Base. Recuperado el 2 de November de 2014, de Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/geristengel/2014/08/27/crowdfunding-raise-money-and-
build-your-fan-base/
Willems, W. (2013). What characteristics of crowdfunding platforms influence
the success rate? Master thesis Cultural Economics & Entrepreneurship , Erasmus
Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Windle, R., & Warren, S. (2014). CADRE. Section4: Communication Skills.
Recuperado el 10 de Novermber de 2014, de Direction Service:
http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/section4.cfm
Wittmann, B. C., Daw, N., Seymour , B., & Raymond , D. J. (2008). Striatal Activity
Underlies Novelty-Based Choice in Humans. Cell Press .

48. 46
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Failed campaign video transcript
This insulated box has been called cooler for over sixty years. But what’s it really cooler
than? We demand innovation from every other category but all this box does is two
things: keeps the drinks cold – doesn’t let the Mayonnaise kill anyone.
When I get time to get outdoors with my family and friends I wanna make sure
everything is as much fun as possible. That’s why I decided the cooler wasn’t cool
enough so I created the Coolest.
The Coolest is a complete refresh of what a portable cooler can be. The first big
improvement is this 18 volts battery powered blender. You don’t realize the number of
places you could really go for a blended drink or smoothie until you have one built in the
lid of your cooler.
And did you know that less than no percent of coolers come with a bluetooth speaker
built right in? Well, the Coolest changes all that. This handy, rechargeable, loud speaker
uses the latest bluetooth technology to connect any smartphone and stream wireless
music for over 8 hours per charge…. At this size, I would have thought the sound would
be tiny, but speaker technology has also come a long way and big sound can come from
small packages.
Now, it is hard enough to make the time, to plan an outing, so I wanted to make sure that
the Coolest eliminated all those annoying little shortfalls that I have noticed with other
coolers over the years.
I have tried various other ways of getting my gear to my destination in one trip but it has
always been a challenge. And I love that you can get a cooler with wheels but I hate that
it refuses to carry anything else. It is like having a friend with a pick-up who won’t help
you move. That’s why I have designed the Coolest with an adjustable locking bungee so
you can get all of your gear to and from the car to your site in one trip.
And how about those late nights when you’re elbow deep in ice-water hopelessly
searching for one last whatever. Well, the Coolest has you covered with this simple
flashlight built into the lid.
And is it too much to ask that a cooler come with a bottle-opener? My grandpa’s cooler
did, so does the Coolest.
The biggest problem with the Coolest right now is that I’ve got the only prototype. That’s
where you come in, Kickstarter community. See, if we can reach our goal up here, you
can have one too. We all can. Think of all the Coolest places you could use yours.
Hi! I am Ryan Grepper, full-time inventor, product developer and advocate for inventor
education. I have licensed over a half dozen products and I have also successfully brought
to market two products that I manufactured, sourced and designed on my own. With the
Coolest I’ve already done the heavy lifting. I have lined up suppliers and back-up
suppliers for every component but every new product comes with its own challenges and
that’s where I’m gonna need your help.
Manufacturing a large product like this requires expensive tooling to create the molds for
the cooler body and the cooler lid and they require a level of expert knowledge to be done
correctly. To address this, I have contracted with an experienced engineering firm who
can take the Coolest design and create the most durable best insolated and highest quality
Coolest possible.
Now I wouldn’t be her asking for your support and trust if I wasn’t prepared to deliver.
You see, I also educate and train other inventors on how to get their products to market.

49. 47
So you might say my professional reputation is on the line. In fact, I am documenting my
entire Kickstarter process so I can share with others what I am learning so they can
Kickstart their own projects. But none of this is possible without your support. Take a
look over here and see if you can find a reward level that helps us meet our goal, so we
can make the Coolest idea, the Coolest product.
Annex 2: Successful campaign video transcript
That is the sound of a cooler coming down of the shelf. It’s the sound of imminent fun.
So, why haven’t cooler designs changed in almost fifty years? Boring coolers are boring,
break easily and are a pain to get to and from your destination. I wanted a cooler that was
really well built yet had so much fun build into it that I would look for excuses to get out
and enjoy it. So, I created the Coolest. The Coolest is a complete redesign of what a
cooler can be. First, you got this 18V rechargeable blender. You don’t realize the number
of places you could really go for a blended cocktail or smoothie until you got a blender
built right into the lid. You’re already carrying around a cooler full of ice and tasty
beverages, why not blend them up and become a summer time hero anytime, anywhere.
And what’s a party without music? The Coolest comes with a removable bluetooth
speaker that connects to any smartphone to wirelessly stream music from up to thirty feet
away. It’s amazing where speaker technology has come in the last few years. You can
skip songs and adjust the volume right from your phone, and this little box can really put
out some sound.
And, since you have this 18V battery for the blender, why not get the most out of it?
Maybe your camera battery is low, or maybe you have an iPhone and wanna use it after
two in the afternoon. Recharge your gear wherever you are with this this waterproof usb
charger.
The party doesn’t stop just because the sun goes down and you shouldn’t have to freeze
your fingers searching endlessly for your favorite drink. The Coolest has waterproof LED
lights embedded in the lid so you can easily find what you are looking for with the push
of a button.
One of the biggest hassles of outdoor fun is hauling your gear back and forth from the car
and I’ve experimented with various ways to solve the problem.
I love coolers with wheels but I hate that they refuse to help carry anything else. The
Coolest has you covered with locking tie-down bungees so you can carry all your stuff in
just one trip.
And what about getting organized to go out in the first place? The Coolest helps out
almost like a picnic basket, to make sure you always have a few key essentials with built-
in storage for reusable plates/ cutting boards and this awesome rust-proof ceramic knife.
Plus, the removable divider gives you a whole new level of flexible packing options. You
can pull the drain plug on one side and your Coolest can stay dry and cool just like your
refrigerator. Say good-bye to soggy sandwiches.
Regular cooler tires are flimsy and sink right into the sand. We designed the Coolest
wheels to be twice as wide to ride twice as easily.
And, how many hours of your life have you lost looking for a bottle-opener? My
grandpas’ cooler had one, so does the Coolest.
I create products for a living and to manufacture the Coolest I’ve lined up a world-class
sourcing company with years of experience making top-shelf products and they are
standing by to coordinate all the stages of production and logistics. Just to make sure that
not only you get your Coolest on time but is the highest quality Coolest we can possibly
make.

50. Short
blurb
Projec
catego
(out o
13)
Sale
vide
Sales
page
(starts
As y
the n
buy o
If yo
over
and e
actua
Anne
ct
ory
of
es
eo
s)
ou can see w
next stage re
our compon
ou are to go
five hundre
eighty dolla
ally cool.
ex 3: Kicks
we have ou
equires expe
nents at a vo
out today a
ed dollars. W
ars you can b
starter pro
r design fin
ensive toolin
olume disco
and get all th
Well, by bac
be one of th
ject’s top p
nalized and r
ng to pay fo
ount.
he gear we p
cking this K
he first peop
page appe
ready for th
or all the Co
packed in th
Kickstarter c
ple in the w
earance
he big leagu
oolest parts
he Coolest i
campaign fo
orld with a
ue. But to m
and the cap
it would cos
or just a hun
cooler that’
48
ove to
pital to
st you
ndred
’s
Pro
title
Num
of
bac
Tot
ple
mo
Fun
goa
Pro
len
tim
Pro
cre
info
Offe
rew
from
to h
ple
oject
e
mber
ckers
tal
dged
ney
nding
al
oject
gth:
me left
oject
ator
o
fered
wards:
m lower
higher
dges

51. GRADO
La
FACUL
O EN ADM
a impor
el e
C
LTAD DE C
R
TRABA
MINISTRA
rtancia
cro
estudio
Autora: D
Tutora: Dr
CURSO A
CIENCIAS
RESUME
AJO FIN DE
ACIÓN Y
de la c
owdfund
de un
Dª Carmen O
ra. Cristina
ACADÉMI
EMPRESA
EN
E GRADO
Y DIRECC
comuni
ding:
caso de
Ortega Hern
Olarte-Pasc
ICO 2014-
ARIALES
CIÓN DE
cación
e éxito
náez
cual
-2015
EMPRES
en el
SAS

52. 2
En estos tiempos de crisis económica en los que la competencia en el mundo de los
negocios se ha multiplicado, el encontrar financiación para llevar a cabo proyectos y crear
empresas puede verse como un imposible para muchos emprendedores. Gracias al
desarrollo de Internet, esos emprendedores sin suerte en su búsqueda de capital han
encontrado en el crowdfunding su único camino para financiar la realización de sus
proyectos.
El crowdfunding se puede definir como una actividad online mediante la cual se solicita
la aportación de dinero para la realización de un proyecto a cambio de una
contraprestación económica, material, de reconocimiento social o de auto-estima
(Estelles, 2013).
El interés por este método de financiación ha crecido en los últimos años (Google Trends,
2015). Las cifras, además, demuestran que su peso cada vez es mayor habiendo pasado de
recaudar 0,53 billones de dólares en el año 2009 a recaudar 6,1 en 2013(Ramos &
Stewart, 2014).
Existen cuatro modelos de crowdfunding para obtener financiación: donaciones,
recompensas, préstamos e inversiones (Barabas, 2012). Estos modelos son tan distintos
entre sí que algunos los consideran como industrias distintas catalogadas bajo un mismo
nombre (Hemer, 2011). A continuación se mencionan los rasgos más representativos de
cada modelo y el porcentaje que representan sobre el total del uso del crowdfunding
(Massolution, 2013):
 Donaciones (29%): provisión de financiación de manera altruista.
 Recompensas (43%):
o Las recompensas simples son aquellos artículos materiales que se consiguen
por apoyar el proyecto.
o Patrocinios a cambio de visibilidad pública (por ejemplo, aparecer en los
créditos de la película que se ha ayudado a financiar).
o Pre-venta: provisión de financiación para costear la posterior producción.
 Préstamos (13%), a devolver en un momento del tiempo determinado a cierto tipo de
interés.
 Inversión/financiación participativa (15%): participaciones cuya rentabilidad
dependerá del rendimiento del proyecto (Schwienbacher & Larralde, 2010).
Cada una de las dos partes participantes en el proceso de crowdfunding tiene distintos
incentivos para intervenir. Por un lado, los creadores de los proyectos buscan uno o
varios de los siguientes resultados: financiación, visibilidad pública y/o obtención de
feedback (Willems, 2013; Schwienbacher & Lambert, 2010). Por otro lado aquellos que
contribuyen económicamente lo hacen por el retorno prometido a cambio y/o por el
sentimiento de pertenencia a una comunidad de individuos con intereses y pasiones
comunes (Stengel, 2014; Willems, 2013).