The Bottom Line

Crowdfunding in libraries, archives and museums

Debra A. Riley-Huff Kevin Herrera Susan Ivey Tina Harry

Article information:

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Debra A. Riley-Huff Kevin Herrera Susan Ivey Tina Harry , (2016),"Crowdfunding in libraries, archives
and museums", The Bottom Line, Vol. 29 Iss 2 pp. 67 - 85
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BL-03-2016-0014
Downloaded on: 06 September 2016, At: 21:17 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 47 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 90 times since 2016*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2016),"Cultivating an organizational effort for development", The Bottom Line, Vol. 29 Iss 2 pp.
97-113 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BL-02-2016-0010
(2016),"Creating a culture of philanthropy", The Bottom Line, Vol. 29 Iss 2 pp. 114-122 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/BL-02-2016-0012
(2016),"#Donate: the role of social media in academic library fundraising", The Bottom Line, Vol. 29
Iss 2 pp. 60-66 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BL-02-2016-0013

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:333301 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0888-045X.htm

Crowdfunding in libraries,
archives and museums

Crowdfunding

Debra A. Riley-Huff, Kevin Herrera, Susan Ivey and Tina Harry

University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA

67

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine the fundraising strategy known as crowdfunding because it
applies to galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM) and to share a crowdfunding case study
experience.
Design/methodology/approach A rich literature review provides the basis for understanding the
central issues related to crowdfunding. Survey data provides information about the perception and
experiences of other GLAM organizations with crowdfunding, and a case study shares an experience
with the fundraising method.
Findings Some GLAM organizations are attempting crowdfunding projects with varied levels of
success, whereas others remain unsure but curious. The case study shares one academic librarys direct
experience with crowdfunding.
Research limitations/implications There is little research currently available related to library
use of crowdfunding.
Practical implications This paper provides a resource and research starting point for GLAM
organizations interested in the crowdfunding model.
Originality/value In a comprehensive manner, this article provides much needed research on the
current state of crowdfunding as it pertains to GLAM organizations.
Keywords Fundraising, Social capital, Crowdfunding, Museum, Library, Archive
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Development activities, also known as fundraising, have long been an important part of
the way cultural heritage organizations sustain themselves, in both the short and the
long term. Galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM organizations) have
traditionally courted individual, family and corporate donors through newsletters,
direct mail and phone campaigns as one part of a development strategy. Developing
close relationships with potential donors through mutual interests is one of the
well-known paths to successful fundraising. Recently, a fair number of GLAM
organizations have also ventured into the crowdfunding arena as a way of acquiring
funding for special projects. Crowdfunding, a relatively new phenomenon, is defined as
online, open, public and purposeful fundraising for a specific project and most often for
a specific capital goal (Ghose, 2012) (Wikipedia, 2016). The crowdfunding project is
normally hosted on a website designed specifically for crowdfunding initiatives, such as
Kickstarter, one of the most highly used and recognized crowdfunding platforms
(Taylor, 2013; Kickstarter, 2016).
This article intends to take a close and comprehensive look at the ways GLAM
organizations are participating in crowdfunding initiatives. Because so little research
has yet been done, the research in this paper attempts to triangulate the crowdfunding

The Bottom Line

Vol. 29 No. 2, 2016
pp. 67-85
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0888-045X
DOI 10.1108/BL-03-2016-0014

BL
29,2

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

68

phenomenon in the GLAM domain by providing a rich literature review, an exploratory

survey and a case study. We will examine interest and experience, logistical issues,
social concerns, success and failure, as well as attitudes toward this intriguing new way
of raising funds.
Literature review
Given the nascent nature of crowdfunding, there has been little scholarly research on
this fundraising trend. An in-depth search revealed that literature on the subject of
crowdfunding by GLAM organizations appears to be limited to a small number of
journal articles, theses, dissertations, in-depth and brief popular press reports and
website postings. While certainly limited, the cumulative review of the literature
exposes several themes, concerns and recommendations for those interested in
crowdfunding. The core issues focus on acceptance, trust and credibility, social capital
and community, platform, project and donor types, success and failure and time
commitments.
Acceptance, trust and credibility
Online crowdfunding is thought to have come about as a:
[] direct societal response to the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and to the consequences of
tighter business loan regulations and diminished funding from both federal and state agencies
and private and corporate foundations (Antonenko et al., 2014).

One of the earliest ideas for a crowdfunding platform came from the then waiter and
electronic musician, Perry Chen. Frustrated with the financial difficulties that stymie
valuable culturally creative processes, Chen envisioned an online platform that would
allow the general public to financially support specific creative, knowledge sharing
projects, based on their own personal interests. Two friends joined Chen in his vision,
and, in 2009, their crowdfunding platform Kickstarter came online (Rahman, 2015).
Because Kickstarter is dedicated to projects that are highly compatible with GLAM
organizations because of their focus on creativity and knowledge sharing, the evolution
of Kickstarter and its role in gaining early trust and acceptance for crowdfunding
initiatives is worth exploring.
While becoming profitable within the first year of its existence, Kickstarter became
not only a financial success unto itself but it has also incubated the realization of
thousands of creative projects in a way that was unthinkable in the very recent past. The
early success of Kickstarter as a self-described force for good has quickly contributed
to a level of comfort in giving though crowdfunding (Kendall, 2014). Kickstarter turned
traditional funding models upside down by letting those interested in a project
determine its worthiness for moving forward. Kickstarter offers a simplistic model that
is both intuitive and transparent, and it encourages participation from the general
public. Essentially Kickstarter provides an easy-to-use platform for qualified projects, in
return for a percentage of the fundraising goal. It is evident that Kickstarters success
criteria, adds a level of trust to a project projects must meet their funding goal within
90 days; otherwise, the initiative is dissolved and pledges of any backers are cancelled.
Museums, in particular, entered the crowdfunding arena early on by utilizing
Kickstarter because of the creative focus of the platform. Museums are primarily using
Kickstarter to help fund exhibits, renovations and new spaces. In a 2010 New York
Times article, several museum directors noted the change of focus with crowdfunding

initiatives moving from single large donations to smaller donations from a larger donor
base. These directors also noted their surprise at the success. The Executive Director of
a small museum in upstate New York, Seth Goldman, stated:
If we had gone the traditional route of sending mailings and cold calling people, we would
probably still be scrounging to raise the money we need. This made the entire process more
efficient (Villano, 2010).

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

In the same article, Perry Chen also pointed to what may be an even more important
benefit of crowdfunding the possible potential for building community through the
projects marketing, connecting and real participation.
Social capital and community
The community-based nature of libraries and archives can make them particularly well
suited to crowdfunding initiatives. Long standing community-based organizations will
have a distinct advantage in the areas of trust and credibility. The literature, however,
shows that understanding how to properly parlay that advantage into a crowdfunding
initiative can make the difference between success and failure. Making an honest initial
assessment of your projects value to your target community, the likely ability to
generate interest and the capabilities of your donors is essential (Dougherty, 2014).
Giving is a complicated psychological and social process. In examining
crowdfunding models within the context of their use by GLAM organizations, two
important factors are connection to community and internal social capital.
When undertaking a crowdfunding initiative, it is imperative that the organization is
able to connect to the target donor community with a compelling story and message that
clearly communicates the projects importance and the outcomes intended.
Authenticity, sincerity, and showing a distinct ability to achieve your goal is critical to
creating a solid community connection at the outset of the crowdfunding project and use
of video to tell a story is associated with more success (Kim, 2014). In telling your story
and shaping your vision, it is important to realize that not all donors are interested in the
direct personal benefit of a project. A great deal of community-driven philanthropy
regards giving as a path for personal transformation through prosocial behavior
(Llamas and Thomsen, 2016). As noted, crowdfunding projects are not only fundraising
events but also outreach and marketing tools for building community.
Within any organization exists social capital, which is essentially the collective
strength of the social networks (both internal and external) to which the organization
has access and the quality of the organizations relationship to those networks (Harvard
Kennedy School, 2016). Internal social capital is of utmost importance during the early
active phase of a crowdfunding campaign. Providers of internal social capital are
generally friends, family, coworkers, social media connections and other close
organizations, including those organizations that have used the same crowdfunding
platform. Numerous studies have shown that crowdfunding projects that have good
backing through donations or pledges early in the campaign are highly likely to succeed
(Colombo et al., 2015). The organizations social capital is thus realized as financial
capital: people and organizations closest within the initiatives network become the
early backers of the project.

Crowdfunding

69

BL
29,2

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

70

Donors, projects and platforms

Early studies of the motivational characteristics of crowdfunders reveal clear profile
patterns coupled with inconsistent behavior over time. Profiles and archetypes, such as
the Altruistic (Lin et al., 2014; Galak et al., 2011); Reward Driven (Kuppuswamy and
Bayus, 2015); and Trend Follower (Lin op. cit., 2014) suggest that crowdfunders are not
a homogenous or predictable group. Those GLAM organizations interested in pursuing
a crowdfunding initiative would be wise to carefully consider the characteristics,
interests and needs of the communities they serve. Given that crowdfunding is an online
venture, understanding and fostering relationships with millennial generation donors is
likely to be an important strategy because many millennials spend a good part of their
life online. One recent research study into millennial generation giving noted several
trends tangential to crowdfunding, including:
millennials prefer to connect through technology;
they share in micro ways;
they facilitate peer influence;
they volunteer along a continuum of support; and
they give to have an impact (Dune, 2013).
Studies have also shown that millennials prefer to give to causes they are passionate
about rather than just giving to an organization (Achieve Guidance, 2013).
Understanding what interests and motivates donors goes hand-in-hand with
choosing appropriate projects for crowdfunding campaigns. Following the model that
Kickstarter initially implemented, the crowdfunding projects undertaken by GLAM
organizations are nearly always for tangible things, such as films, exhibits, book
collections, music shows or renovation projects. Several public and academic libraries
have used Kickstarter to successfully fund projects, such as a librarian interview
podcast, a transgender studies interdisciplinary journal, community outreach projects,
childrens library rooms and digital library projects for the developing world to name
just a few (Leman, 2013). Projects suitable for crowdfunding should be easy to
understand and result in a tangible new product that serves or otherwise interests the
donor base.
While Kickstarter has brought wide recognition and trust to crowdfunding, its
success has spawned the proliferation of many new types of crowdfunding platforms.
Choosing a crowdfunding platform will depend upon several factors, including project
type, funding goals, institutional tolerance, platform policies, fee structures and prior
crowdfunding experience. The literature points to some obvious patterns and some new
development in crowdfunding platforms and their uses. Museums and galleries are
showing a preference for Kickstarter and Indiegogo (Indiegogo, 2016) by returning to
those platforms even after some success on lesser known platforms (Cronin, 2014).
Indiegogos funding model allows the hosted projects to keep all funds raised regardless
of the goal, which is in contrast to Kickstarters all or nothing policy. Indiegogo will
also host international projects.
For GLAM organizations considering platform options, there is a fair amount of
information available as popular press articles and briefs, which primarily focus on use
case situations. The Smithsonian Institutions crowdfunding initiatives serve as
examples of successful crowdfunding in museums. The Reboot the Suit project, which

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

promises to fully restore and display Neil Armstrongs moon walk space suit, was
wildly successful (Novak, 2015).
Public Libraries have successfully used both Kickstarter and Indiegogo to fund a
variety of projects (Cotrell, 2014). Academic libraries interested in pursuing a
crowdfunding project may have constraints imposed or opportunities available through
their institutions foundation or development office (Wieck et al., 2013). While some
universities have partnered with Kickstarter or Indiegogo, many universities now use
either a proprietary niche crowdfunding platform or their own locally developed
platform. Some platforms, such as AlumniFunder (2016) or ScaleFunder (2016),
specialize in higher education. Institutions may choose to apply local branding to an
existing platform. For example, the University of Colorado Boulder brands their
deployment of the Community Funded platform as Boulder Crowdfunding
(University of Colorado Boulder, 2016; Joly, 2013). These niche platforms often come
with support features and access to the expertise of the institutions development office.
Archives and libraries with digitization projects, depending on their home institution,
may have access to the widest variety of platforms, including public popular and niche
platforms. Reveal Digital, founded in 2011, offers a crowdfunding cost recovery model
that allows libraries to contribute funds to digitization projects for collections to which
they are interested in having access (Reveal Digital, 2016.). When the funding goal has
been reached, and after a specified embargo period, the collection would then become
open access (Rathemacher, 2015).
Success and failure
Crowdfunding initiatives are complicated projects with numerous possible points of
failure, as well as multiple definitions of success. The currently available research and
literature offer a few insights as to what may lead a project to failure or success. Good
planning, outreach and marketing are clearly necessary for success, but good project
choice is also one of the key known factors that will lead to a successful campaign. A
good project decision will carefully consider how well the project fits within the
organizational mission, the resources available to manage the initiative, the timing of
the project, probable donor interest and a reasonable fundraising goal. The decision to
initiate a crowdfunding campaign is not one to take lightly. In most cases, successful
crowdfunding campaigns require extensive planning and time to gather and create
promotional resources. The active part of the campaign requires almost constant
vigilance. One study showed that the amount of time and resources necessary to run a
crowdfunding campaign was one of the main deterrents to adoption of this type of
fundraising (Gerber and Hui, 2013).
Data shows the best performing crowdfunding projects tend to be those that focus on
creative, participatory or consumable endeavors such as games, technology, film and
video and art and design (Economist.com, 2013). Additionally, projects that offer the
donor some sort of related reward or gift at the various donor levels have been
associated with higher success rates. Small gifts appropriate for GLAM organization
projects could be stickers, patches, buttons, t-shirts or entry into a drawing for a larger
gift (Cadogan, 2014). Organizations should use caution with tangible rewards though
because they can easily eat into time and funds. Organizations offering rewards with
their crowdfunding projects should make certain that tangible rewards add up to only a
small fraction of the associated donation.

Crowdfunding

71

BL
29,2

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

72

A repeated theme in the literature is that crowdfunding project success is clearly

linked to early backing by supporters who are directly connected to the
organization. This includes not only the financial goal success but also the
marketing value of the project as a community building function. This is the win
win of crowdfunding the project reaches or nearly reaches a financial goal, and,
therefore, the crowdfunding project is deemed a success. The community also finds
success in itself as a community accomplishment and in the use of the final product.
Interesting success and failure case studies are also available for independent library,
archive and manuscript projects, such as LibraryBox, a digital file distribution tool for
educational institutions and libraries. LibraryBox started as a successful Kickstarter
campaign and is now backed by a grant from the Knight Foundation (Enis, 2013;
LibraryBox, 2016). The T160K Timbuktu manuscript preservation project is another
example of a partially successful and still growing project. Originally hosted on
Indiegogo, the project now resides on its own crowdfunding platform (Enis, 2015;
T160K, 2016).
Unglue.it serves as an example of an independent project that struggled. Unglue.it
was a platform with the noble ambition of encouraging authors and publisher to make
their e-books freely available under a Creative Commons License after reaching a
specific funding goal. The project was ultimately successful and is now a source of open
access e-books after struggling with their payment processor Amazon.com. Amazon
officials cited problems keeping pace and said they needed to reevaluate the payment
processing of crowdfunding projects. This action forced Unglue.it to shut down until
they found a new payment processor (Enis, 2012a; Unglue.it, 2016).
Finally, the Game of Books presents an interesting illustration of trust violation.
Hosted on Kickstarter by BookLamp, the developers of the Book Genome project, Game
of Books was intended to be a digital role-playing game with rewards for young adults
participating in literary journeys (Enis, 2012b). A web search to determine the success
of the project found Game of Books was successful in meeting its goal of $100,000, but it
failed to provide backers with timely updates and promised rewards. What followed
was a trail of curious but increasingly frustrated comments left by backers who were
beginning to fear they had been duped (Stanton, 2014). To its credit, BookLamp
refunded the backers money. However, it was later revealed that BookLamp was in the
process of providing a technology solution that some backers felt was similar to one
offered by Harlequin (Authorlink, 2014). Soon after, BookLamp was purchased by
Apple for between $10 to 15m (AppleInsider Staff, 2014). Comments left on the projects
Kickstarter indicate that game-backers felt let down, and one comment suggested that
the backers might have simply provided a large 15-month interest free loan to
BookLamp (Stanton, 2014).
Research methodology
Given the lack of collective research available on the use of crowdfunding by GLAM
organizations, the authors sought to acquire data from the GLAM community that
would help us answer some basic questions about crowdfunding within that domain.
The questions included basic demographic information about who had or had not tried
crowdfunding: their success rates, how their attitudes and perceptions of crowdfunding
influenced their decision to engage in a crowdfunding campaign and how those
perceptions may have influenced the outcome.

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

The survey method was chosen as a means of collecting the target data. The format
included single answer questions, multiple choice questions and open text response
fields for a variety of questions. The open text questions were used to gather candid
qualitative data about the perception and reasons for engaging in crowdfunding. The
authors chose this method in order to gain as much candid information as possible about
the respondents impressions of crowdfunding. The open text responses were encoded
along threads of commonality. The survey was posted to 26 various e-mail discussion
groups, including 16 library lists (combined academic and public), 3 museum lists, 2
special library lists, 2 archive and digital library lists and 1 library administration list.
Recipients were invited to share the survey link with appropriate contacts. The survey
was available for three weeks, from November 3, 2015 to November 24, 2015.

Crowdfunding

73

Findings
Demographics
During the survey period, respondents started 382 surveys, completing 213 for a 56 per cent
completion rate. Several types of GLAM organizations responded. Of the 264 respondents
answering the institution type question, the majority of those came from libraries. While
there was a wide range of operating budgets, over half of the respondents answering this
question reported operating budgets of $5m or less. The majority of respondents, 70 per cent,
reported that their institutions have fundraising entities (Tables I and II).
Opinions of and experience with crowdfunding
While crowdfunding continues to gain popularity as a method of funding artistic and
product prototyping initiatives, it has yet to become a mainstream method of funding for
Institution type

No.

% of respondents

Gallery
Library
Archive
Museum
Historic site/building

2
205
10
43
4

1
78
4
16
2
Table I.
Types of respondents

Note: n 264

Operating budget

No.

% of Respondents

Less than $500,000

$500,001-$1,000,000
$1,000,001-$5,000,000
$5,000,001-$10,000,000
$10,000,001-$15,000,000
Greater than $15,000,000
Prefer not to answer

40
25
45
21
14
34
13

21
13
23
11
7
18
7

Note: n 192

Table II.
Operating budgets

BL
29,2

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

74

GLAM organizations. In this survey, 84 per cent of respondents reported that their
institutions had never attempted a crowdfunding campaign. Cross-referencing this with
institution type reveals that among respondents to this survey, archives and historic
sites/buildings were more likely to have tried crowdfunding than galleries, libraries or
museums. Within the small sample of galleries, respondents reported no institutional
crowdfunding attempts. Although libraries were the most well represented institution
type in this survey, it is interesting to note that only 14 per cent of libraries that
responded have attempted crowdfunding initiatives. Over 60 per cent of the survey
respondents thought that crowdfunding is an effective means of fundraising. Only 16
per cent felt that crowdfunding is ineffective and 20 per cent felt that it was neither
effective nor ineffective (Table III and Figure 1). Respondents whose institutions had
attempted a crowdfunding initiative were asked whether the institutions most recent
campaign met its goal. In all, 20 respondents reported that the initiative had met its goal,
whereas 12 reported that the goal was not met. A follow-up question asked about
respondents perceptions of their institutions most recent crowdfunding initiative. Once
again, most of the respondents thought that crowdfunding was effective.
Cross-referencing these two questions gave insights into respondents opinions of
crowdfunding related to their institutions success or failure with this method of
fundraising. Respondents whose institutions met their goals viewed crowdfunding
more favorably than those whose institutions did not meet their goals, and they had a
higher opinion of the effectiveness of this type of fundraising. Respondents whose
institutions did not meet crowdfunding goals had correspondingly lower opinions of its
effectiveness. However, even though some institutions did not meet the planned goals,

Type

Table III.
Organization types
that have tried
crowdfunding

#Respondents

% that has attempted crowdfunding

2
190
10
41
4

0
14
30
22
50

Gallery
Library
Archive
Museum
Historic site/building
Note: n 247

250
200
141

150
100
50

Figure 1.
Perception of
crowdfunding as a
means of fundraising

9
Very Ineecve

Note: n = 260

32

Somewhat
Ineecve

53
25
Neither
Eecve nor
Ineecve

Somewhat
Eecve

Very Eecve

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

their respondents still thought that crowdfunding was somewhat effective or very
effective (Table IV and Figure 2).
Donors and goals
Two survey questions asked respondents to provide information about the monetary goal of
their most recent crowdfunding campaign. From that data, 19 unique organizational
campaigns were identified. Within this set, 63 per cent (n 12) met or exceeded their goal.
Five campaigns reported crowdfunding goals of $70,000 or higher, and, of those five, only
one project met its goal. However, another project with a large goal of $170,000 managed to
raise the substantial sum of $155,000. When asked about the types of donations received in
their crowdfunding campaigns, the majority of respondents reported receiving mostly small
donations of less than $100 (Tables V and VI).
In the event that a project does not reach its goal, some crowdfunding platforms
allow all funds raised to be kept, whereas other platforms, also known as all or
nothing, did not; 14 respondents to this survey indicated that their institutions
were allowed to keep all funds raised, and two reported that the pledges would be
returned if their goals were not met. The survey also posed a question about what
happened with funds if they exceeded their fundraising goal; 15 respondents
indicated that they were allowed to keep excess funds, whereas two were not. For
those who indicated they were allowed to keep excess funds, a follow-up question
asked who made the decision about how to spend funds that were raised over the
initial goal amount. Interestingly, when asked what happened to projects that did
not meet their goals, most respondents indicated that the project was still funded in
some other way. The survey also asked respondents to identify the types of donors

How effective is crowdfunding

Institutions that met goal

Institutions that did not meet goal

Very effective
Somewhat effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Somewhat ineffective
Very ineffective

10
10
0
0
0

1
2
3
5
1

Note: (n 32)

Crowdfunding

75

Table IV.
Perception of
crowdfunding
correlated with an
organizations most
recent crowdfunding
goal success

35
30
25
20
14

15

10
5
0

5
2
Very Ineecve

Note: n = 37

Somewhat
Ineecve

13

3
Neither Eecve
nor Ineecve

Somewhat
Eecve

Very Eecve

Figure 2.
Perception of
institutions most
recent crowdfunding
event

BL
29,2

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

76

Table V.
Most recent
crowdfunding
campaign goals and
amount raised

Organization type
Library
Library
Historic site
Library
Historic site
Museum
Museum
Library
Library
Museum
Library
Museum
Museum
Library
Library
Library
Museum
Museum
Library

Goal

Amount raised

Difference

$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$3,800.00
$8,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
$70,000.00
$100,000.00
$130,000.00
$170,000.00
$1,000,000.00

$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$700.00
$1,500.00
$3,000.00
$3,800.00
$9,366.00
$12,350.00
$15,895.00
$14,000.00
$15,000.00
$4,500.00
$10,000.00
$24,061.00
$37,000.00
$400.00
$130,001.00
$155,000.00
$85,000.00

$0.00
$0.00
($1,300.00)
($1,000.00)
$500.00
$0.00
$1,366.00
$2,350.00
$5,895.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
($5,500.00)
$0.00
$4,061.00
($33,000.00)
($99,600.00)
$1.00
($15,000.00)
($915,000.00)

Note: The italic data indicate a negative value

Donation size
Table VI.
Types of donations
received

Mostly small donations (under $100)

Mostly medium-sized donations ($100-$500)
Mostly large donations (over $500)
Even mix of large, medium and small donations

n 21

(%)

10
4
1
6

48
19
5
29

that contributed to their most recent crowdfunding event. The largest number of
donors came from the inner circle of the crowdfunding team: the organizations
employees, known supporter base groups, users and visitors. This supports the
current crowdfunding research that most supporters come from an inner social
circle of affiliates. Several projects also received funding from corporate sponsors
(Tables VII-IX).
Promoting and managing the campaign
Outreach to prospective donors is an integral part of managing a crowdfunding
campaign. A complete outreach strategy should include both traditional and social
media methods. The survey asked the respondents to report on all of the outreach
methods they used, as well as measured or perceived success following a particular
outreach push. Among the 28 responses to the question, e-mail was the most popular
vehicle for promotion, with Facebook following as a close second. Respondents who
selected Other as a choice noted direct mail, YouTube, television and Instagram as
avenues for promotion. Other promotion targets include trustees and organizational

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

annual meeting attendees. Regarding success, several respondents reported a

noticeable increase in donations after a specific type of media push. Media types that
lead the way in triggering donations included Facebook, e-mail and newspaper
coverage. The Other category responses included a Rotary Club outreach
presentation, direct contact, special donor incentives, YouTube videos, personal e-mails
and promotion at an annual meeting.
One survey question focused on the crowdfunding platform used by the respondents
institutions. In addition to the platform options listed in the survey question,
respondents also noted Crowdrise, Razoo and Tilt as platforms used by their
organization (Crowdrise, 2016; Razoo, 2016; (Tilt, 2016). Several organizations used their
own crowdfunding platforms. Of those using crowdfunding platforms, 15 respondents
(58 per cent) reported that their platform charged usage fees, whereas 11 (42 per cent) did
not (Tables X-XII).

Crowdfunding

77

Time spent and return on investment

As the literature noted, crowdfunding projects are time and resource intensive (Gerber
and Hui, 2013). The survey asked those respondents who had completed a
crowdfunding campaign to estimate the hours they spent administering the project,
Administrators
Project team
Staff
Official fundraising entity
User base
Other

11
6
2
3
0
1

Note: n 15

Project outcome

(%)

Cancelled
Funded immediately from another source
Funded later from another source

1
4
6

9
36
55

Note: n 11

Donor type

Affiliated departments
Alumni
Corporate sponsors
Institution employees
Organized supporter base (clubs, friends, members, societies, etc.)
Users/visitors

3
9
5
13
13
14

Note: n 23

Table VII.
Who makes decisions
about excess funds?

Table VIII.
Project did not meet
goal

Table IX.
Donor types

BL
29,2

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

78

Table X.
Crowdfunding
project promotion
methods

Table XI.
Promotion methods
that positively
triggered donations

Table XII.
Crowdfunding
platforms used

including planning the campaign, creating promotional materials and managing the
active campaign. The survey responses showed great variation in the amount of
personnel time devoted to the crowdfunding initiatives. In this survey, 41 respondents
indicated that their organization had attempted a crowdfunding campaign; however,
only 18 respondents contributed data about their organizations time investment,
possibly indicating a simple lack of knowledge about those details.
The authors had hoped to calculate a return on time investment for each of the
respondents, but the data yielded such widely varied results that it was difficult, if not
impossible, to determine if the survey was able to capture accurate data about time
invested. For example, planning and gathering information for the project at the heart of
the crowdfunding campaign is closely intertwined with the campaign itself because the
Type of promotion

(%)

Facebook
Twitter
E-mail
Newspaper
Radio
Institutions website
Dedicated project website
Other

26
21
27
8
1
23
16
6

93
75
96
29
4
82
57
21

Promotion type

(%)

Facebook
Twitter
E-mail
Newspaper
Radio
Institutions website
Dedicated project website
Other

8
3
11
4
0
3
2
9

42
16
58
21
0
16
11
47

Note: n 28

Note: n 19

Platform

(%)

GoFundMe
Indiegogo
Kickstarter
ScaleFunder
Other

2
4
8
4
17

6
13
26
13
55

Note: n 34

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

project must be adequately communicated to the donors. However, that type of planning
would also take place regardless of the funding method. Additionally, the three distinct
components of crowdfunding campaigns initial planning, preparation of promotion
materials and managing the active campaign tend to overlap greatly. This makes it
difficult to produce an overall accurate assessment of time and resource investment.
Table XIII shows reported hour estimates spent on the different aspects of the
crowdfunding campaigns. Note the elevated time spent on the administration of the
active campaign.
In summary, the number of survey respondents from GLAM organizations that
started the survey indicates that there is a healthy interest in crowdfunding initiatives.
Although a much smaller number of organizations indicated that they actually had
direct experience with crowdfunding, the data they provided does give an early look at
some project scopes and outcomes. In the open comment area, many respondents who
have no direct experience with crowdfunding expressed an enthusiastic interest in the
fundraising method, whereas many others expressed a sense of intrigue mixed with
leeriness. Several respondents also shared doubts that their organization would ever
embark on a crowdfunding initiative, offering a wide range of reasons that they
described as lack of vision, prohibitions by governing boards, insufficient staffing,
notions that it is tacky and the impression that it is an ineffective fundraising method.

Crowdfunding

79

Case study experience

Background
In the fall of 2014, a University Foundation Development Officer at a large public
university approached the University Library and asked the library to consider the
possibility of doing a crowdfunding campaign. The University had recently acquired
ScaleFunder, a crowdfunding platform for higher education (ScaleFunder, 2016). In an
attempt to garner interest in ScaleFunder, the Foundation was offering to cover the
Initial
planning

Promotional materials
and advertising

Managing the active

campaign

Goal

Amount raised

1
5
1
8
20
15
20
25
50
60
50
60
100
50
100

1
3
5
12
10
15
40
80
100
40
120
100
150
150
500

$1,000
$2,000
$2,500
$10,000
$10,000
$2,000
$8,000
$10,000
$130,000
$10,000
$10,000
$20,000
$70,000
$1,000,000
$3,800

$1,000
$700
$3,000
$12,350
$400
$2,000
$9,366
$15,000
$130,001
$10,000
$14,000
$24,061
$37,000
$85,000
$3,800

2
5
15
5
5
15
40
60
50
100
50
80
70
150
15
Note: n 16

Table XIII.
Time spent on
aspects of the
crowdfunding
campaign in hours
with goals and
amounts raised

BL
29,2

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

80

platform usage fees for the first few test groups. The University Libraries
administration saw an opportunity to gain some funding and agreed to investigate the
possibility.
Library Administration formed an initial task force of seven faculty and staff
from the library to attend an informational session and product demonstration, as
well as to consider appropriate projects that might work well for a crowdfunding
campaign. After attending the sessions and having further discussion, with some
trepidation the library administration and the task group agreed to attempt a
campaign. Like many academic libraries, various departments and committees
within the organization had an ongoing wish list of projects and resources they
would like to have funded. After considering a few projects, the group chose to try
to fund a video recording and editing studio on the ScaleFunder platform. The task
force received further training and support materials from the University
Foundation and ScaleFunder. It should be noted that no one on the library team,
with the exception of the Dean, who acted primarily as an authority and advisor, had
any fundraising experience outside of grant applications.
Project planning
Crowdfunding campaigns have three distinct phases, including the planning phase,
the active phase and the post project phase. During the planning phase, the project
team gathered information about the logistics, materials and costs involved in
completing the project. Because physical changes to the facility would need to take
place, a substantial part of the projects total cost would be required to complete the
facility changes. The University Administration agreed to cover most of the cost of
the facility changes. The task force, with the help of the Foundation, set the goal for
the project at $20,000, which would cover the cost of the initial studio hardware,
lighting, projection, software, wiring and inevitable emergency equipment
replacement.
Almost immediately, the team noticed a partial shift from their normal
day-to-day work to being directly involved in fundraising. The new responsibility
put them well outside of their comfort zones. As noted in the literature review, an
important part of early planning is lining up donors who are close to or within the
organization. The team leader was to contact other important stakeholders within
the University to make them aware of the upcoming campaign, asking them to
spread the word and to build support. All team members made a list of friends,
family and possible donors for the project. This was very uncomfortable for many
on the team, because either they did not have those type of contacts or they felt it was
inappropriate to ask their personal contacts for money for this purpose.
Team members felt it was important to inform and include as many library staff
as possible in the crowdfunding project. Each member of the team led a smaller
sub-team that would be responsible for tasks such as creating audio and video
outreach content, writing text for outreach e-mail, keeping track of and
communicating with donors, listing and providing pictures of technology, planning
room construction and creating implementation policies. The task force wanted to
be able to use the ScaleFunder platform to communicate the video studio project in
a complete way.

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

The active crowdfunding campaign

The initial planning stage lasted for six weeks, immediately followed by the active stage
of the campaign. The literature review points to the importance of having initial early
funding pledged to start the campaign off well. The task force had been informed that
the University Foundation and the library administration would work together to
identify one or two early key donors but that actually never materialized. Numerous
small donations came early from family, friends and colleagues. Fortunately, very early
in the campaign, the University Athletics Department generously agreed to match every
donation up to a total of $10,000. The Athletics Department had been the inaugural user
of the Universitys new ScaleFunder platform, recently experiencing wild success with
a short, spontaneous campaign that aimed to recoup losses when fans tore down goal
posts after an important win. Raising over $100,000 from gleeful fans within in three
days, the Athletics Department became the recipient of what is known as herding, an
observed phenomenon in highly visible and credible crowdfunding campaigns, where
backers blindly follow the lead of other high profile backers or are otherwise primarily
motivated by a projects surging momentum (Kuppuswamy and Bayus, 2015; Mollick,
2014).
During the six-week active phase, the task force was continually sending out e-mail
updates, creating videos and posting new content to the crowdfunding platform. About
midway into the active campaign, an announcement about a controversial change in
University leadership became the focus of attention on campus and the campaign
stalled. This caused the task force to extend the campaign by ten days, and concerns
were raised within the team about whether or not the campaign would reach its goal.
About two weeks before the end of the campaign, the University newspaper printed an
informative, supportive article about the project. Library Administration also reached
out to a well-known alumni national news anchor, who immediately made a key
donation. That key donation, coupled with the news article and a significant corporate
match donation, revitalized the campaign and put it several thousand dollars over its
goal by the time the active phase ended.
After phase and lessons learned
Within four months after the close of the active campaign, the video studio was
completed and it is now in use by the campus community. The task force reflected on
their first experience with crowdfunding and noted some significant aspects of the
experience that may be of use to others. Because of the librarys high visibility on
campus, the task force anticipated that a large number of students would donate to the
campaign. Although many students expressed interest and a desire to see the studio
built, a very small number of students actually donated to the campaign. The task force
also observed the platform community support network phenomena at work in several
ways. Being an early campus adopter of the new crowdfunding platform meant that the
library had to lead the way, which required significant outreach efforts. Later
campaigns on the platform seem to be reaping the benefit of the acceptance, trust, and
credibility that has grown around the matured site. Donors to the library video studio
project have also gone on to fund more recent University crowdfunding projects on the
platform.
Though the time spent on the project was significant, the campaign did have the
added advantage of raising the librarys visibility and demonstrated to students and

Crowdfunding

81

BL
29,2

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

82

faculty that the library was willing to respond to a specifically expressed campus need.
The student reaction to the new video creation resource has been very positive, and they
often tweet out thank you with links to video projects created in the studio. As
mentioned in the literature review, this increase in visibility and connection to
community was an unquantifiable but highly desirable outcome reported by many
organizations that had completed crowdfunding campaigns (Villano, 2010).
Additionally, library task force members reported that they enjoyed working with
people that they did not normally work with often, as well as being involved in a project
that connected them to the larger campus community and was so different from their
normal day-to-day experience.
Bringing it all together
While literature on the use of crowdfunding by GLAM organizations is scarce, much
of the literature available on crowdfunding in general is useful and applicable. The
responses to this studys research survey results reveal a strong interest, or at the
very least, a curiosity about crowdfunding for GLAM organizations. The small
number of survey respondents reporting actual GLAM domain experience with the
practice of crowdfunding may in part explain the lack of available research
literature. The practical information provided in the shared case study supports
many of the themes noted in the literature, such as the importance of social capitol,
good project fit and evaluating staff time commitments. It also gives organizations
a close-up view into the process. Experience sharing helps to address the trepidation
associated with crowdfunding projects because it was expressed through the
studys research survey.
Conclusion
While not without its drawbacks, crowdfunding can have an important place in any
GLAM organizations fundraising strategy. Successful campaigns are built around
reasonable goals, worthwhile projects of interest to the target community, good
planning, strong outreach efforts and constant communication with the community. In
the course of administering the survey, the authors were personally contacted several
times for more information about the research, indicating a real interest in
crowdfunding. More research into the total time spent on GLAM crowdfunding
campaigns, their project types, and their subsequent return on investment should occur.
Additionally, more long-term research on the organizational and community impact of
GLAM organization crowdfunding campaigns would make for a good addition to the
literature.
References
Achieve Guidance (2013), Millennial impact report-2013, available at: http://casefoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/MillennialImpactReport-2013.pdf (accessed 18 January 2016).
AlumniFunder (2016), AlumniFunder Website, available at: www.alumnifunder.com
(accessed 24 January 2016).
Antonenko, P., Lee, B. and Kleinheksel, A. (2014), Trends in the crowdfunding of educational
technology startups, TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,
Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 36-41.

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

AppleInsider Staff (2014), Apple acquires startup BookLamp for between $10M to $15M in bid to
bolster iBooks discovery, AppleInsider, available at: http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/
07/25/apple-acquires-startup-booklamp-for-between-10m-to-15m- (accessed 25 January
2016).
Authorlink (2014), Harlequin launches Romance Publisher Site and App- 2014, available at:
http://authorlink.com/news/harlequin-launches-romance-publisher-site-and-app-2014/
(accessed 25 January 2016).
Cadogan, D. (2014), Funding for research? Look to the crowd, College & Research Libraries News,
Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 268-271.
Colombo, M.G., Franzoni, C. and Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015), Internal social capital and the
attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 75-100.
Cotrell, M. (2014), Libraries find success in crowdfunding, American Libraries Magazine,
available at: http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2014/05/12/libraries-find-success-incrowdfunding/ (accessed 24 January 2016).
Cronin, C. (2014), Adventures in crowdfunding: a museums perspective, Public History
Commons, available at: http://publichistorycommons.org/adventures-in-crowdfunding/
(accessed 24 January 2016).
Crowdfunding (2016), Wikipedia, Wiki, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
titleCrowdfunding&oldid705460692 (accessed 25 February 2016).
Crowdrise (2016), Online fundraising start a fundraiser for personal causes & charity,
available at: www.crowdrise.com/online-fundraising (accessed 25 February 2016).
Dougherty, M. (2014), Eight questions to consider before launching your museums
crowdfunding campaign, Western Museums Association, available at: www.westmuse.
org/articles/autry-crowdfunding (accessed 1 November 2015).
Dune, K. (2013), Crowdfunding: why museums should cultivate the millennial online donor, MA
thesis, University of the Arts.
Economist.com (2013), Winning over the crowd, The Economist, 17 January, available at:
www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/01/daily-chart-12 (accessed 24 January
2016).
Enis, M. (2012a), Amazon forces Unglue.it to suspend crowdfunding, Library Journal, Vol. 137
No. 14, p. 20.
Enis, M. (2012b), Discovery game for libraries kick-started, Library Journal, Vol. 137 No. 20,
p. 19.
Enis, M. (2013), Technology: LibraryBox 2.0 project gets kickstarted, Library Journal, Vol. 138
No. 13, p. 18.
Enis, M. (2015), Industry: T160k to help catalog Timbuktu manuscripts, Library Journal,
Vol. 140 No. 3, p. 19.
Galak, J., Small, D. and Stephen, A.T. (2011), Microfinance decision making: a field study of
prosocial lending, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48, pp. S130-S137.
Gerber, E.M. and Hui, J. (2013), Crowdfunding: motivations and deterrents for participation,
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 20 No. 6, p. 34.
Ghose, A. (2012), Definition of crowdfunding, Financial Times Lexicon, available at: http://
lexicon.ft.com/Term?termcrowdfunding (accessed 8 May 2016).
Harvard Kennedy School (2016), About social capital, available at: www.hks.harvard.edu/
programs/saguaro/about-social-capital (accessed 18 January 2016).

Crowdfunding

83

BL
29,2

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

84

Indiegogo (2016), Indiegogo website, available at: www.indiegogo.com (accessed 24 January

2016).
Joly, K. (2013), Higher education crowdfunding, University Business, Vol. 16 No. 7, p. 48.
Kendall, P. (2014), Kickstarter: can crowdfunding save culture?, The Telegraph, 21 May,
available at: www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10817134/Kickstarter-can-crowdfundingsave-culture.html (accessed 5 January 2016).
Kickstarter (2016), Kickstarter website, available at: www.kickstarter.com (accessed 4 January
2016).
Kim, Y.J. (2014), Social motivation and credibility in crowdfunding, PhD thesis, University of
Southern California.
Kuppuswamy, V. and Bayus, B.L. (2015), Crowdfunding creative ideas: the dynamics of project
backers in Kickstarter, Social Science Research Network, available at: http://papers.ssrn.
com/abstract2234765 (accessed 18 January 2016).
Leman, H. (2013), Crowd-funding: whats in it for us as librarians?, Computers in Libraries,
Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 8-31.
LibraryBox (2016), LibraryBox website, available at: http://librarybox.us/ (accessed 24 January
2016).
Lin, Y., Boh, W.F. and Goh, K.H. (2014), How different are crowdfunders? Examining archetypes
of crowdfunders and their choice of projects, Academy of Management Annual Meeting
Proceedings, pp. 824-829.
Llamas, R. and Thomsen, T.U. (2016), The luxury of igniting change by giving: transforming
yourself while transforming others lives, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 1,
pp. 166-176.
Mollick, E. (2014), The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Novak, M. (2015), The Smithsonian is finally getting crowdfunding right, Paleofuture, available
at: http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/the-smithsonian-is-finally-getting-crowdfunding-right1719262562 (accessed 17 January 2016).
Rahman, H. (2015), Crowdfunding for the socially good mission by Perry Chen, Eyerys, available at:
www.eyerys.com/articles/people/crowdfunding-socially-good-mission-perry-chen (accessed 17
January 2016).
Rathemacher, A.J. (2015), Crowdfunding access to archives, Library Journal, Vol. 140 No. 2,
p. 43.
Razoo (2016), Nonprofits raise money for your cause with Razoos social and commerce
tools Razoo, available at: www.razoo.com/p/nonprofits (accessed 25 February 2016).
Reveal Digital (2016), Reveal digital website, available at: www.revealdigital.com (accessed
24 January 2016).
ScaleFunder (2016), ScaleFunder website, available at: www.scalefunder.com (accessed
24 January 2016).
Stanton, A. (2014), The game of books: reward your imagination, Kickstarter, available at:
www.kickstarter.com/projects/aaronstanton/the-game-of-books-a-discovery-gamefor-libraries-a (accessed 25 January 2016).
T160K (2016), T160K website, available at: https://t160k.org/ (accessed 24 January 2016).
Taylor, K. (2013), 6 Top crowdfunding websites: which one is right for your project?, Forbes,
available at: www.forbes.com/sites/katetaylor/2013/08/06/6-top-crowdfunding-websiteswhich-one-is-right-for-your-project (accessed 8 May 2016).

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 21:17 06 September 2016 (PT)

Tilt (2016), Tilt website, available at: www.tilt.com (accessed 25 February 2016).
Unglue.it (2016), Unglue.it website, available at: https://unglue.it/ (accessed 25 January 2016).
University of Colorado Boulder (2016), Boulder crowdfunding, available at: www.colorado.edu/
crowdfunding (accessed 24 January 2016).
Villano, M. (2010), In tough times, turning to the web to raise funds, The New York Times,
14 March, available at: www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/arts/artsspecial/18CROWD.html
(accessed 17 January 2016).
Wieck, E., Bretschneider, U. and Leimeister, J.M. (2013), Funding from the crowd: an internet- based
crowdfunding platform to support business set-ups from universities, International Journal of
Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 1340007-1-1340007-12.
Corresponding author
Debra A. Riley-Huff can be contacted at: rileyhuf@olemiss.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Crowdfunding

85