The impact of sold-out early birds on option selection in reward-based crowdfunding

Abstract To incentivize early contributions in reward-based crowdfunding, project creators frequently offer reward options in limited numbers, of which the “early bird” is one of the most prominent. Early birds offer the same rewards as an alternative option, but are reduced in price. Although studies suggest that scarcity can influence backers' decisions, research lacks knowledge of whether early bird options impact backers' decision-making once these options are sold out but still visible to potential contributors. Drawing on the phantom effect theory, this multi-method study investigates (1) how phantom alternatives impact backers' selections of available options, and (2) how the phantom effect interacts with different levels of discount and social proof. Our results from an online experiment with 512 participants and a longitudinal observational study based on 676 crowdfunding projects reveal that phantom options make backers choose the equivalent but undiscounted reward option more often. This effect is stronger with a moderate amount of discount for the early bird option rather than a high one. Moreover, social proof (i.e., number of backers who have chosen the early bird option) interacts with the discount amount in that higher levels of social proof weaken the relationship between the amount of discount and the phantom effect. These results show that, contrary to the traditional offline retail perspective, where sold-outs usually hurt sales, sold-out early birds may help in increasing funding revenues in reward-based crowdfunding, if employed strategically. Thus, we provide counterintuitive learnings for research as well as fundraisers looking for capital through reward-based crowdfunding.

[1]  D. Lichtenstein,et al.  Assessing the Domain Specificity of Deal Proneness: A Field Study , 1995 .

[2]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Constructive Consumer Choice Processes , 1998 .

[3]  Vallabh Sambamurthy,et al.  Competing in Crowded Markets: Multimarket Contact and the Nature of Competition in the Enterprise Systems Software Industry , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  B. Bayus,et al.  Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers in Kickstarter , 2015 .

[5]  R. Cialdini Influence: Science and Practice , 1984 .

[6]  Alexander Benlian,et al.  The emergence and effects of fake social information: Evidence from crowdfunding , 2016, Decis. Support Syst..

[7]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Scale Validation in Communication Research , 2005 .

[8]  P. Verhoef,et al.  Out-of-Stock: Reactions, Antecedents, Management Solutions, and a Future Perspective , 2010 .

[9]  Jeffrey R. Parker,et al.  When Shelf-based Scarcity Impacts Consumer Preferences , 2011 .

[10]  Els Gijsbrechts,et al.  The impact of retailer stockouts on whether, how much, and what to buy , 2003 .

[11]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Panel Data and Unobservable Individual Effects , 1981 .

[12]  Moez Limayem,et al.  Data Collection in the Digital Age: Innovative Alterantives to Student Samples , 2014, MIS Q..

[13]  Juanjuan Zhang,et al.  The Sound of Silence: Observational Learning in the U.S. Kidney Market , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[14]  Timothy C. Brock,et al.  10 – Implications of Commodity Theory for Value Change1 , 1968 .

[15]  R. E. Burnkrant,et al.  Informational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior , 1975 .

[16]  L. Cronbach Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[17]  Joseph Goodman,et al.  Crowdsourcing Consumer Research , 2017 .

[18]  Daniel Corsten,et al.  Desperately seeking shelf availability: an examination of the extent, the causes, and the efforts to address retail out‐of‐stocks , 2003 .

[19]  Lusi Yang,et al.  Scarcity Strategy in Crowdfunding: An Empirical Exploration , 2017, ICIS.

[20]  J. Inman,et al.  Framing the Deal: The Role of Restrictions in Accentuating Deal Value , 1997 .

[21]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U‐ and inverted U‐shaped relationships in strategy research , 2016 .

[22]  R. Pieters,et al.  When demand accelerates demand: Trailing the bandwagon , 2009 .

[23]  D. Joenssen,et al.  Limitless Crowdfunding? The Effect of Scarcity Management , 2016 .

[24]  Michael Lewis,et al.  Stockouts in Online Retailing , 2011 .

[25]  H. Rao,et al.  Fool's Gold: Social Proof in the Initiation and Abandonment of Coverage by Wall Street Analysts , 2001 .

[26]  H. Robben,et al.  Scarcity and preference: an experiment on unavailability and product evaluation , 1994 .

[27]  Jan vom Brocke,et al.  Get It before It's Gone? How Limited Rewards Influence Backers' Choices in Reward-Based Crowdfunding , 2017, International Conference on Interaction Sciences.

[28]  Thomas Kramer,et al.  The effect of incidental out-of-stock options on preferences , 2009 .

[29]  Gregory S. Carpenter,et al.  The Role of Market Efficiency Intuitions in Consumer Choice: A Case of Compensatory Inferences , 2001 .

[30]  P. Franses,et al.  The impact of brand equity and the hedonic level of products on consumer stock-out reactions , 2005 .

[31]  A. Hayes Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[32]  Alexander Benlian,et al.  Of early birds and phantoms: how sold-out discounts impact entrepreneurial success in reward-based crowdfunding , 2018, Review of Managerial Science.

[33]  J. Zaichkowsky Measuring the Involvement Construct , 1985 .

[34]  Kelly Tepper Tian,et al.  Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation , 2001 .

[35]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet , 2011 .

[36]  Chen‐Su Fu,et al.  The effects of product scarcity and consumers' need for uniqueness on purchase intention , 2012 .

[37]  David F. Larcker,et al.  Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics: , 1981 .

[38]  P. Farquhar,et al.  A Brief History of Research on Phantom Alternatives: Evidence for Seven Empirical Generalizations About Phantoms , 1992 .

[39]  A. Herrmann,et al.  Product and Service Bundling Decisions and their Effects on Purchase Intention , 1997 .

[40]  Rebecca Walker Reczek,et al.  Seeing Ourselves in Others: Reviewer Ambiguity, Egocentric Anchoring, and Persuasion , 2011 .

[41]  Ethan Mollick The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study , 2014 .

[42]  Jan vom Brocke,et al.  The Decoy Effect in Reward-Based Crowdfunding: Preliminary Results from an Online Experiment , 2016, ICIS.

[43]  Eric T. Anderson,et al.  Measuring and Mitigating the Costs of Stockouts , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[44]  Mayuram S. Krishnan,et al.  The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and the Willingness to be Profiled Online for Personalization , 2006, MIS Q..

[45]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels , 2008 .

[46]  Qing Yue,et al.  Investors’ Inertia Behavior and Their Repeated Decision-Making in Online Reward-Based Crowdfunding Market , 2018, Decis. Support Syst..

[47]  Raymond Y. K. Lau,et al.  The determinants of crowdfunding success: A semantic text analytics approach , 2016, Decis. Support Syst..

[48]  Mahmut Parlar,et al.  Online retailers' promotional pricing, free-shipping threshold, and inventory decisions: A simulation-based analysis , 2013, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[49]  Tung X. Bui,et al.  Value proposition and social proof in online deals: an exploratory study of Groupon.com , 2012, ICEC '12.

[50]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Guidelines for Conducting Mixed-methods Research: An Extension and Illustration , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[51]  Yunhui Huang,et al.  The Out-of-Stock (OOS) Effect on Choice Shares of Available Options , 2016 .

[52]  K. Lancaster A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[53]  Maurice E. Schweitzer,et al.  The Imbibing Idiot Bias: Consuming Alcohol Can Be Hazardous to Your (Perceived) Intelligence , 2012 .

[54]  William O. Bearden,et al.  Attention to Social Comparison Information: An Individual Difference Factor Affecting Consumer Conformity , 1990 .

[55]  J. Lind,et al.  With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U-Shaped Relationship , 2007 .

[56]  S. Tan,et al.  “While stocks last!” Impact of framing on consumers' perception of sales promotions , 2004 .