Consumer Protection on Kickstarter

Mark. Sci. Pub Date : 2020-01-17 DOI:10.1287/mksc.2019.1203
Daniel Blaseg, C. Schulze, B. Skiera
{"title":"Consumer Protection on Kickstarter","authors":"Daniel Blaseg, C. Schulze, B. Skiera","doi":"10.1287/mksc.2019.1203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates consumer protection on Kickstarter—a popular and sizeable, yet largely unregulated reward-based crowdfunding platform. Specifically, the article focuses on Kickstarter campaigns’ use of price advertising claims (PACs) and their failure to honor the promised discounts. Analyses show that between 2009 and 2016, more than 500,000 consumers who backed a wide variety of game or technology campaigns lost on average $45.72 because of broken PAC promises. Whereas 75% of PAC campaigns did not provide the promised discounts, in almost 50% of all cases backers who were promised a discount paid more, not less, than the retail price. In contrast, backers of campaigns that did not promise a discount received larger effective discounts. Analyzing an extensive data set comprising 34,745 Kickstarter campaigns, complete backing histories of more than 400,000 backers, and more than 4 million consumer comments, complaints, and reviews, we show that broken PAC promises pose a substantial problem to consumers, that the problem is persistent across more than 6 years, and that it has not been resolved through self-regulation by market participants thus far.","PeriodicalId":423558,"journal":{"name":"Mark. Sci.","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mark. Sci.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

This article investigates consumer protection on Kickstarter—a popular and sizeable, yet largely unregulated reward-based crowdfunding platform. Specifically, the article focuses on Kickstarter campaigns’ use of price advertising claims (PACs) and their failure to honor the promised discounts. Analyses show that between 2009 and 2016, more than 500,000 consumers who backed a wide variety of game or technology campaigns lost on average $45.72 because of broken PAC promises. Whereas 75% of PAC campaigns did not provide the promised discounts, in almost 50% of all cases backers who were promised a discount paid more, not less, than the retail price. In contrast, backers of campaigns that did not promise a discount received larger effective discounts. Analyzing an extensive data set comprising 34,745 Kickstarter campaigns, complete backing histories of more than 400,000 backers, and more than 4 million consumer comments, complaints, and reviews, we show that broken PAC promises pose a substantial problem to consumers, that the problem is persistent across more than 6 years, and that it has not been resolved through self-regulation by market participants thus far.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Kickstarter上的消费者保护
本文将调查kickstarter上的消费者保护问题——这是一个受欢迎且规模庞大,但基本上不受监管的奖励型众筹平台。具体来说,这篇文章关注的是Kickstarter活动对价格广告声明(PACs)的使用,以及他们未能兑现承诺的折扣。分析显示,在2009年至2016年期间,超过50万支持各种游戏或技术活动的消费者平均损失45.72美元,因为PAC没有兑现承诺。尽管75%的政治行动委员会活动没有提供承诺的折扣,但几乎有50%的情况下,承诺折扣的支持者支付的钱比零售价格要多,而不是少。相比之下,没有承诺折扣的活动支持者获得了更大的实际折扣。我们分析了包括34,745个Kickstarter活动、40多万支持者的完整支持历史以及400多万消费者评论、投诉和评论在内的广泛数据集,结果表明,违反PAC承诺对消费者构成了一个重大问题,这个问题持续了6年多,迄今为止还没有通过市场参与者的自我监管得到解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Discriminatory Trade Promotions in Consumer Search Markets Rejoinder: Spilling More Beans on Political Consumerism: It's More of the Same Tune Editorial: Marketing's Role in the Evolving Discipline of Product Management Comment on "Frontiers: Spilling the Beans on Political Consumerism: Do Social Media Boycotts and Buycotts Translate to Real Sales Impact?" Frontiers: Polarized America: From Political Polarization to Preference Polarization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1