Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding, as we know it today, is a very recent activity that was born almost accidentally in the end of the 90’s decade. Due to the advent of the internet and the social networks, entrepreneurs are now able to promote their projects to a very large community. Whether it is composed by family, friends, acquaintances or simply people that are interested in the same topic or share the passion, the community is able to fund new ventures by individually investing modest amounts of money. In return, the entrepreneur can offer symbolic rewards, shares or other financial returns. New crowdfunding platforms are born almost every day all over the world, offering a new way of raising capital for their projects or a new way to invest their money in innovative ventures. Although crowdfunding is still finding its place in the financial services, successful cases such as Kickstarter demonstrate the power of the crowd in boosting creativity and productivity, financing thousands of projects by raising millions of dollars from thousands of investors. Due to regulatory restrictions, the most prominent model for now is reward-based crowdfunding, where the investors are prized with symbolic returns or privileged access to the products or services offered by the entrepreneurs. Other models such as peer-to-peer lending are also surging, allowing borrowers access to capital at a lower cost compared to so-called traditional financial institutions, and offering lenders a higher rate of return. But when it comes to offering shares to investors, i.e. using equity-based crowdfunding, entrepreneurs face regulatory obstacles in almost every country, where legislation was passed decades ago with the objective of promoting financially-capable ventures and protecting investors. Access to capital has become more difficult after the global economic recession of 2008, and for most countries it will not get easier in the near future, leaving start-ups and small enterprises with few options to start or expand their operations. In this study we attempt to answer the following research questions: how has equity-based crowdfunding evolved since its creation? Where and how has equity-based crowdfunding been implemented so far? What are the constraints and opportunities for implementing equity-crowdfunding in the world, and more particularly in Portugal? Finally, we will discuss the risks of crowdfunding and reflect on the future of this industry.

Community indentification in peer-t-peer collaborative consumption services

Even though collaborative consumption (CC) is gaining economic importance, research in CC is still in its infancy. Consumers’ reasons for participating have already been investigated but little research on consequences of participation has been conducted. This article examines whether interactions between customers in peer-to-peer CC services influence the willingness to coproduce service outcomes. Drawing on social exchange theory, it is proposed that this effect is mediated by consumers’ identification with the brand community. Furthermore, continuance intention in CC is introduced as a second stage moderator. In a cross-sectional study, customers of peer-to-peer accommodation sharing are surveyed. While customer-to-customer interactions were found to have a positive effect on brand community identification, brand community identification did not positively affect co-production intention. Surprisingly, the effect of brand community identification on co-production intention was negative. Moreover, continuance intention of customers did not moderate this relationship. Bearing in mind current challenges for researchers and companies, theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

Bits, Atoms, and Information Sharing: new opportunities for participation

The particular characteristics and affordances of technologies play a significant role in human experience by defining the realm of possibilities available to individuals and societies. Some technological configurations, such as the Internet, facilitate peer-to-peer communication and participatory behaviors. Others, like television broadcasting, tend to encourage centralization of creative processes and unidirectional communication. In other instances still, the affordances of technologies can be further constrained by social practices. That is the case, for example, of radio which, although technically allowing peer-to-peer communication, has effectively been converted into a broadcast medium through the legislation of the airwaves. How technologies acquire particular properties, meanings and uses, and who is involved in those decisions are the broader questions explored here. Although a long line of thought maintains that technologies evolve according to the logic of scientific rationality, recent studies demonstrated that technologies are, in fact, primarily shaped by social forces in specific historical contexts. In this view, adopted here, there is no one best way to design a technological artifact or system; the selection between alternative designs—which determine the affordances of each technology—is made by social actors according to their particular values, assumptions and goals. Thus, the arrangement of technical elements in any technological artifact is configured to conform to the views and interests of those involved in its development. Understanding how technologies assume particular shapes, who is involved in these decisions and how, in turn, they propitiate particular behaviors and modes of organization but not others, requires understanding the contexts in which they are developed. It is argued here that, throughout the last century, two distinct approaches to the development and dissemination of technologies have coexisted. In each of these models, based on fundamentally different ethoi, technologies are developed through different processes and by different participants—and therefore tend to assume different shapes and offer different possibilities. In the first of these approaches, the dominant model in Western societies, technologies are typically developed by firms, manufactured in large factories, and subsequently disseminated to the rest of the population for consumption. In this centralized model, the role of users is limited to selecting from the alternatives presented by professional producers. Thus, according to this approach, the technologies that are now so deeply woven into human experience, are primarily shaped by a relatively small number of producers. In recent years, however, a group of three interconnected interest groups—the makers, hackerspaces, and open source hardware communities—have increasingly challenged this dominant model by enacting an alternative approach in which technologies are both individually transformed and collectively shaped. Through a in-depth analysis of these phenomena, their practices and ethos, it is argued here that the distributed approach practiced by these communities offers a practical path towards a democratization of the technosphere by: 1) demystifying technologies, 2) providing the public with the tools and knowledge necessary to understand and shape technologies, and 3) encouraging citizen participation in the development of technologies.