How Crowds and Experts Kickstart the Arts

 
 
Ramana Nanda and Ethan Mollick look into how experts and crowds—the National Endowment for the Arts and Kickstarter—make choices about backing proposed theater shows.
 
 
by Christian Camerota

Philosophers have talked by turns about both the "wisdom" and "madness" of crowds. But when it comes to assessing and funding the arts, just how wise are crowds—and how does their wisdom compare to that of art experts?

HBS Associate Professor Ramana Nanda sought to answer those questions in a recent study, which compared funding decisions of startup theater productions made by art-loving masses on crowdfunding website Kickstarter with evaluations by experts in the field.

“Most of the disagreements were on projects that the crowd liked but that the judges would potentially have given less money to or not have funded at all”

Crowdfunding platforms represent a major shift in the way art projects seek support and find success. Since its founding in 2009, Kickstarter has raised more than $1.5 billion for over 80,000 art projects, opening doors and lifting curtains for many projects that couldn't or wouldn't otherwise have gotten off the ground and onto the stage. In fact, Kickstarter now raises more money for artistic projects each year than the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), an independent federal agency established in 1966, which also funds artistic endeavors, albeit through very different means.

Where the NEA has a nearly 50-year history of art market-making, with vetted mechanisms for ensuring artistic quality and value, Kickstarter offers almost the opposite—it makes funding more into a matter of marketing savvy and mouse clicks. Hence Nanda's curiosity about the artistic merit therein.

The crowd identified breakout theater hits the experts sometimes ignored,
but also backed a box office bomb. ©iStock.com/jganser

"Crowdfunding has enabled a democratization of access [to funding]," Nanda says in his office at the Rock Center for Entrepreneurship at Harvard Business School. "That could be both potentially positive and negative. There is a lot of critically acclaimed artwork that could be systematically overlooked by crowds. On the other hand, you could imagine that experts aren't always good at keeping in touch with where consumers want to go."

When Experts And Crowds Collide

To better understand the gaps and overlaps between crowds and experts, Nanda and co-author Ethan Mollick, of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, began their study with a full set of applications for theater projects from Kickstarter and stripped them of their outcome information. They then distributed a set of three project successes and three failures to a group of individuals that had previously judged for organizations like the NEA and other funding bodies.

"The idea was quite simple: to render the projects the way the crowd saw them on Kickstarter, without outcome information, and have the judges look at them and judge them on things like artistic merit, feasibility, furthering cultural dialogue, and some sense of commercial viability," Nanda says.

There were two broad sets of results. The first was a "positive and statistically significant" correlation between the scores judges assigned and the outcomes of the crowd, suggesting that on average the two groups saw projects similarly based on the above criteria. The second set of findings was on divergent projects, which Nanda and Mollick were especially interested in. What did the crowd like that the experts did not and vice-versa?

"First, it's important to consider that there's a bit of an art to raising money from the crowd," Nanda says. "Sometimes the judges liked projects for which the artists hadn't quite figured that part out. That said, most of the disagreements were on projects that the crowd liked but that the judges would potentially have given less money to or not have funded at all. Those particular crowd favorites showed more variance. They were more likely to be breakout hits, but also included one flop that judges might potentially have been able to stop."

The crowd aggregation allowed the funding of many projects that were slightly outside the purview of what judges focused on, suggesting that Kickstarter's democratization enables a greater breadth of artistic production, says Nanda. At the same time, the study recognized that Kickstarter supporters weren't always applying the same kind of discipline and rigor in their analysis of projects. They simply liked a project and supported it, or didn't.

"Overall, the general sense is that the projects that found success on Kickstarter were by no means crazy," Nanda says. "Quite the opposite. The average size of the project in our sample was similar to the average size of a project funded by the NEA. And yet, you can imagine that the kinds of projects people put on Kickstarter and the kind they submit to the NEA are quite different in composition and style, which is why we can't definitively say whether crowdfunding is a substitute to grant-making bodies such as the NEA."

Receiving Funding Is An Art Itself

There are a number of extensions of the study Nanda says would be especially interesting and revealing if pursued. Those include looking at projects that applied to both Kickstarter and the NEA, where the discrepancies in funding would better show what succeeds where and why.

But the overall lesson for artists and entrepreneurs remains a valuable one—their commitment to funding, whether cleverly accomplished through crowdfunding or more technically done through grant writing, often requires as much dedication as the artistic process itself.

"Democratizing access for art funding is a good thing," Nanda says. "In that sense, crowdfunding is best seen as a complement to governmental support. There's no question that many projects being funded on Kickstarter would have been too small or too unconventional for many foundations, and we found they were still of critical quality and substance.

"In that sense, we found that we can't reject the wisdom of crowds."

This article first appeared on the Harvard Business School website under the title, How Crowdfunding Kickstarts the Arts.

About the Author

Christian Camerota is assistant director of communications at Harvard Business School.

Post A Comment

    • Kapil Kumar Sopory
    • Company Secretary, SMEC(India) Private Limited
    Crowd funding can be a useful source of finance. However, the combined genius of crowds to properly judge the quality and value of the product is something on which one cannot fully rely. Reason being that crowds have a tendency to blindly follow - just like animals - each other and can be dominated to follow the views of anyone who moves forward to assume a leadership-type role. Also that individuals in the crowds do not use their faculties objectively to unhesitatingly opine what they feel - they could differ from the mass decision but generally follow the majority voice willy nilly.
    The study is interesting and has provided good food for thought.
    • Steve Adams
    • Citizen, USA
    You completely ignored the part about forcibly taking money from the people to fund the projects chosen by some politically connected elite. The NEA should be spun off, if people want to donate to projects the 'experts' choose that's fine. If not they should be able to donate to projects they like - including using the money for their own vacation. Theft is a poor basis for a society.
    • Zufi Deo
    • Founder, www.bizstuff.co
    Thanks for the article. I think it has some good background information on how Crowd Funding is a paradigm shift.

    I also think if you crossed applied data from the financial markets on cascades and herd behaviour you may be able to answer some the questions regarding the data analysis and user behaviour.

    Look forward to more research on this area.