Crowdfunding webcomics: the role of incentives and reciprocity in monetising free content

The recent phenomenon of internet-based crowdfunding has enabled the creators of new products and media to share and finance their work via networks of fans and similarly-minded people instead of having to rely on established corporate intermediaries and traditional business models. This thesis examines how the creators of free content, specifically webcomics, are able to monetise their work and find financial success through crowdfunding and what factors, social and psychological, support this process. Consistent with crowdfunding being both a large-scale social process yet based on the interactions of individuals (albeit en mass), this topic was explored at both micro- and macro-level combining methods from individual interviews through to mass scraping of data and large-scale questionnaires. The first empirical chapter (comprising of two survey and interview-based studies) investigated how members of the webcomics community made use of the Internet and social media to read and post content, interact with other readers and artists, and how they monetise these efforts. Creators and readers were found to use a large range of websites for webcomic-related activities; social media and the ability for creators and readers to get to know each other online is hugely important, often as important as the content of the work itself. Creators reported having diversified ‘portfolio careers’, and avoided relying on a single source of income as any one might fail at any time. The use of social media was found to be vital to all stages of the monetisation process; primarily because creators must build a dedicated community that is willing to spend money on them. Crowdfunding was found to be one of the biggest routes to monetisation, particularly as it lessens the risk of creating merchandise, combines selling items with a strong focus on interaction, and allows the main creative output to remain free. The second empirical chapter reports a large-scale scraping-based study of webcomics crowdfunding campaigns across the two major platforms most commonly used by creators, namely Kickstarter and Patreon. The two platforms were shown to exhibit distinctive characteristics. Kickstarter follows the traditional rewards-based model whilst Patreon is subscription-based, a model which is rising in place of paywalls which have traditionally failed. Both Patreon and Kickstarter provide varied benefits but also some dissatisfactions were found. Kickstarter does not equal a steady income and Patreon rarely provides full-time income levels. Even when Kickstarter projects are hugely successful, they rarely do more than pay for the fulfilment of a particular project specifically, which does not tend to cover living expenses or provide a wage. While Patreon does allow creators to receive a recurring income, this rarely exceeded $1,000 a month. The final empirical chapter reports the findings of a study of psychological attitudes amongst crowdfunding backers and considers this in the light of psychological theories of giving and reciprocity. The study investigated why backers are motivated to give to webcomics campaigns, and their underlying attitudes towards giving, including factors that may convince them to give more. The main reason for backers to choose to support a crowdfunding campaign was found to be because they are existing fans of the specific webcomic or more generally, the campaign’s creator. The other main motivation given was the intention to more generally support the surrounding community. These two motives were strongly manifest amongst backers on both platforms, but they lead to different behaviours as Kickstarter backers tend to consider rewards more important than community. Kickstarter is more self-regarding and directly reciprocal, Patreon more other-regarding and generally reciprocal. Patreon backers are not more or less altruistic but they are more motivated to give by all reasons other than rewards, which they do not consider important. Both selfish and other-regarding reasons are involved on both platforms, and neither seem to crowd-out the other. In conclusion, people tend to pay for free content because i) they are fans and they want to own an item related to that fandom, or ii) they are fans and they want to be supportive and allow that fandom to continue. Overall, subscription-based crowdfunding was implicated as being the most suitable for creators who work on the internet, giving away free or intangible content, such as podcasts, webcomics, or livestreaming, whilst creators who work offline with tangible products that may appeal to a wider audience may find more success with rewards-based funding

Crowdfunding webcomics: the role of incentives and reciprocity in monetising free content

The recent phenomenon of internet-based crowdfunding has enabled the creators of new products and media to share and finance their work via networks of fans and similarly-minded people instead of having to rely on established corporate intermediaries and traditional business models. This thesis examines how the creators of free content, specifically webcomics, are able to monetise their work and find financial success through crowdfunding and what factors, social and psychological, support this process. Consistent with crowdfunding being both a large-scale social process yet based on the interactions of individuals (albeit en mass), this topic was explored at both micro- and macro-level combining methods from individual interviews through to mass scraping of data and large-scale questionnaires. The first empirical chapter (comprising of two survey and interview-based studies) investigated how members of the webcomics community made use of the Internet and social media to read and post content, interact with other readers and artists, and how they monetise these efforts. Creators and readers were found to use a large range of websites for webcomic-related activities; social media and the ability for creators and readers to get to know each other online is hugely important, often as important as the content of the work itself. Creators reported having diversified ‘portfolio careers’, and avoided relying on a single source of income as any one might fail at any time. The use of social media was found to be vital to all stages of the monetisation process; primarily because creators must build a dedicated community that is willing to spend money on them. Crowdfunding was found to be one of the biggest routes to monetisation, particularly as it lessens the risk of creating merchandise, combines selling items with a strong focus on interaction, and allows the main creative output to remain free. The second empirical chapter reports a large-scale scraping-based study of webcomics crowdfunding campaigns across the two major platforms most commonly used by creators, namely Kickstarter and Patreon. The two platforms were shown to exhibit distinctive characteristics. Kickstarter follows the traditional rewards-based model whilst Patreon is subscription-based, a model which is rising in place of paywalls which have traditionally failed. Both Patreon and Kickstarter provide varied benefits but also some dissatisfactions were found. Kickstarter does not equal a steady income and Patreon rarely provides full-time income levels. Even when Kickstarter projects are hugely successful, they rarely do more than pay for the fulfilment of a particular project specifically, which does not tend to cover living expenses or provide a wage. While Patreon does allow creators to receive a recurring income, this rarely exceeded $1,000 a month. The final empirical chapter reports the findings of a study of psychological attitudes amongst crowdfunding backers and considers this in the light of psychological theories of giving and reciprocity. The study investigated why backers are motivated to give to webcomics campaigns, and their underlying attitudes towards giving, including factors that may convince them to give more. The main reason for backers to choose to support a crowdfunding campaign was found to be because they are existing fans of the specific webcomic or more generally, the campaign’s creator. The other main motivation given was the intention to more generally support the surrounding community. These two motives were strongly manifest amongst backers on both platforms, but they lead to different behaviours as Kickstarter backers tend to consider rewards more important than community. Kickstarter is more self-regarding and directly reciprocal, Patreon more other-regarding and generally reciprocal. Patreon backers are not more or less altruistic but they are more motivated to give by all reasons other than rewards, which they do not consider important. Both selfish and other-regarding reasons are involved on both platforms, and neither seem to crowd-out the other. In conclusion, people tend to pay for free content because i) they are fans and they want to own an item related to that fandom, or ii) they are fans and they want to be supportive and allow that fandom to continue. Overall, subscription-based crowdfunding was implicated as being the most suitable for creators who work on the internet, giving away free or intangible content, such as podcasts, webcomics, or livestreaming, whilst creators who work offline with tangible products that may appeal to a wider audience may find more success with rewards-based funding

MarsCAPE: Mars Communicated through an Augmented, Physical Environment

In the last decade, vast amounts of planetary science data has been made available publicly often focused on Mars. Such data is typically disseminated via the web and made available through screen-based visualisations. However, this approach can make it difficult to convey the broader context of a feature of interest or the spatial arrangement of surface phenomena. To better support learning and engagement, we present and evaluate MarsCAPE: Mars Communicated through an Augmented, Physical Environment. MarsCAPE consists of physical models of the surface of Mars, augmented by projected information and visualizations. To assess its learning and engagement value, a structured workshop and formal evaluation were conducted. Participants reported a significant increase in knowledge, found the models engaging, and exhibited natural learning without prompting. Systems such as MarsCAPE have potential to provide an interesting, educational way for the public to access planetary data that goes beyond the capabilities of on-screen visualizations

Citizens’ Juries: When Older Adults Deliberate on the Benefits and Risks of Smart Health and Smart Homes

open access articleBackground: Technology-enabled healthcare or smart health has provided a wealth of products and services to enable older people to monitor and manage their own health conditions at home, thereby maintaining independence, whilst also reducing healthcare costs. However, despite the growing ubiquity of smart health, innovations are often technically driven, and the older user does not often have input into design. The purpose of the current study was to facilitate a debate about the positive and negative perceptions and attitudes towards digital health technologies. Methods: We conducted citizens’ juries to enable a deliberative inquiry into the benefits and risks of smart health technologies and systems. Transcriptions of group discussions were interpreted from a perspective of life-worlds versus systems-worlds. Results: Twenty-three participants of diverse demographics contributed to the debate. Views of older people were felt to be frequently ignored by organisations implementing systems and technologies. Participants demonstrated diverse levels of digital literacy and a range of concerns about misuse of technology. Conclusion: Our interpretation contrasted the life-world of experiences, hopes, and fears with the systems-world of surveillance, e ciencies, and risks. This interpretation o ers new perspectives on involving older people in co-design and governance of smart health and smart homes

A comparison of presentation methods for conducting youth juries

The 5Rights Youth Juries are an educational intervention to promote digital literacy by engaging participants (i.e. jurors) in a deliberative discussion around their digital rights. The main objective of these jury-styled focus groups is to encourage children and young people to identify online concerns and solutions with a view to developing recommendations for government policy-makers and industry chiefs. The methodology included a series of dramatized scenarios that encourage jurors to deliberate about their digital rights. This paper compares two formats for these scenarios: live actors and professionally recorded and edited videos of the same actors. Results failed to show any major differences between formats indicating the cost-effectiveness of the video-recorded format and the possibility for others to run the 5Rights Youth Juries with the support of an online open educational resource

Young people's policy recommendations on algorithm fairness

This paper explores the policy recommendations made by young people regarding algorithm fairness. It describes a piece of ongoing research developed to bring children and young people to the front line of the debate regarding children's digital rights. We employed the Youth Juries methodology which was designed to facilitate learning through discussions. The juries capture the deliberation process on a specific digital right, the right to know how algorithms govern and influence the Web and its users. Preliminary results show that young people demand to know more about algorithms, they want more transparency, more options, and more control about the way algorithms use their personal data

Understanding User Perceptions of Trustworthiness in E-recruitment Systems

Algorithmic systems are increasingly deployed to make decisions that people used to make. Perceptions of these systems can significantly influence their adoption, yet, broadly speaking, users’ understanding of the internal working of these systems is limited. To explore users’ perceptions of algorithmic systems, we developed a prototype e-recruitment system called Algorithm Playground where we offer the users a look behind the scenes of such systems, and provide “how” and “why” explanations on how job applicants are ranked by their algorithms. Using an online study with 110 participants, we measured perceived fairness, transparency and trustworthiness of e-recruitment systems. Our results show that user understanding of the data and reasoning behind candidates’ rankings and selection evoked some positive attitudes as participants rated our platform to be fairer, more reliable, transparent and trustworthy than the e-recruitment systems they have used in the past