648500

research-article2016
SOQ0010.1177/1476127016648500Strategic OrganizationManning and Bejarano

Special Issue: Organizing Crowds and Innovation

Strategic Organization

Convincing the crowd:

2017, Vol. 15(2) 194­–219
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Entrepreneurial storytelling sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1476127016648500
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016648500
in crowdfunding campaigns journals.sagepub.com/home/soq

Stephan Manning and Thomas A Bejarano

University of Massachusetts Boston, USA

Abstract
This study examines the structure of entrepreneurial stories in pursuit of mobilizing resources from crowds.
Based on a comparative analysis of Kickstarter crowdfunding campaigns, we examine in particular how, across
different project types, project histories and potential futures are framed and interlinked in narratives to
appeal to funders. We find that projects are narrated in different styles—as “ongoing journeys” or “results-in-
progress”—to convey project value. The former style narrates projects as longer-term endeavors powered
by creative initial ideas and a bold vision, inviting audiences to “join the journey”; the latter narrates projects
more narrowly as a progression of accomplishments, engaging the audience instrumentally to support next
steps. We find that styles are used and combined in different ways, reflecting the tangibility of project
outcomes, the sophistication of technology, and the social orientation of projects. Also, successful differ
from unsuccessful campaigns in using narratives more coherently. Findings inform research on narrative
processes in entrepreneurship and innovation, and research on the mobilization of crowds.

Keywords
crowdfunding, entrepreneurship, narrative, resource mobilization, storytelling

Introduction
In recent years, studies in innovation and entrepreneurship research have shown increasing interest
in narratives, which help contextualize and give meaning to entrepreneurial and innovative pro-
jects (Bartel and Garud, 2009; Garud and Giuliani, 2013; Garud et al., 2014a; Navis and Glynn,
2011). Projects are typically regarded as rather complex, time-limited, and novel endeavors (Lundin
and Söderholm, 1995; Manning, 2008; Obstfeld, 2012), which can range from the development of
new products and services to starting new ventures. One key question is what role entrepreneurial
stories play in mobilizing support from stakeholders for new projects (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994;
Garud et al., 2014b; Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Martens et al., 2007; O’Connor, 2004; Zimmerman
and Zeitz, 2002). Arguably, in today’s business environment, storytelling becomes ever more

Corresponding author:
Thomas A Bejarano, College of Management, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA
02125, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Manning and Bejarano 195

important as new projects are constantly exposed to reactions from diverse audiences on both tra-
ditional and Internet-based media platforms.
In general, narratives inform how entrepreneurs reach out to stakeholders, enact structures and
resources to drive entrepreneurial action, thereby constructing and connecting past, present, and
potential future activities and accomplishments (Garud et al., 2014a). In other words, narrative
construction in “the present [is] forged by recollections of the past and anticipations of the future”
(Garud and Giuliani, 2013: 1059). As new projects often lack necessary resources (Aldrich and
Fiol, 1994; Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001), research suggests that entrepreneurial stories assist in
acquiring needed resources through conveying value and setting expectations (Aldrich and Fiol,
1994; Garud et al., 2014b; Martens et al., 2007). Expectations may be set primarily by projective
stories, which are characterized by a particular plot (Czarniawska, 2004), which lead to a certain
end point (Simms, 2003), and which link projects to larger contexts and discourses (Gartner, 2007;
Martens et al., 2007). Yet, the appeal of such stories may also be affected by expectations that
relate, among other things, to the nature of project goals.
To this date, however, we lack an understanding of how narratives are actually constructed to
appeal to various audiences, and how they reflect project goals. Notably, several authors have ana-
lyzed narratives, for example, in terms of their structure and durability (see, for example, Bartel
and Garud, 2009; Boje, 1991, 2001). Yet, in particular their temporal structure, that is, the way they
address and connect past project development and future plans, remains to be better understood.
This question is crucial as project environments may change rapidly (Grabher, 2002, 2004), and as
the ability of project initiators to convincingly (re-) connect past events and accomplishments with
future aspirations is critical to mobilize resources for particular projects (Manning and Sydow,
2011; Garud and Giuliani, 2013; Garud et al., 2014a). We thus examine the following in this study:
what is the narrative structure of entrepreneurial stories in pursuit of critical resources, in particular
in terms of how project histories and potential futures are framed and interlinked? And how do
narrative structures of entrepreneurial stories vary across different types of projects?
We investigate these questions through an inductive study of crowdfunding campaigns—an
increasingly important practice of Internet-based financing and marketing of new projects through
a large and often diverse audience—the “crowd” (Belleflamme et al., 2013; Mollick, 2014).
Crowdfunding campaigns are interesting contexts for studying narratives for two reasons: first,
these campaigns are temporally embedded, that is, they are typically initiated when projects are
“in-the-making.” They thus constitute an important opportunity for narrative construction of both
past accomplishments and future plans in the pursuit of resources for entrepreneurial projects.
Second, they typically address rather diverse crowds, which asks for “robust,” multi-vocal story-
telling that potentially appeals to expectations of a variety of potential project supporters.
Based on the analysis of 54 crowdfunding campaigns on the platform Kickstarter, we find that
campaigns typically employ and/or combine two dominant narrative styles we call the “ongoing
journey” and the “results-in-progress” style. The former narrates projects as longer-term endeavors
powered by creative initial ideas and a bold vision where audiences are invited to “join the jour-
ney.” The latter narrates projects more narrowly as a progression of accomplishments, placing
emphasis on utility for users/consumers and engaging audiences toward a more instrumental role
toward achieving the next steps toward completion. Furthermore, we show that their adoption var-
ies across different project types, as well as between successful and unsuccessful campaigns.
Our findings have important implications for future research. First, we add nuance to the narra-
tive perspective on entrepreneurial and innovation processes (Garud et al., 2014a, 2014b). We add
the notion that entrepreneurs may apply different more or less project-specific narrative styles to
mobilize resources. Also, we add the idea that narratives may not only apply different temporal
orders (e.g. “chronological” vs. “event-based,” see Gersick, 1994), but that they differ in how they
196 Strategic Organization 15(2)

address and connect narratives of past and future to convey valuable pursuits toward various stake-
holders. Second, we contribute to recent research on organizing crowds (Chesbrough, 2006;
Laursen and Salter, 2006) and crowdfunding as a specific practice (Belleflamme et al., 2013;
Colombo et al., 2013; Mollick, 2014). Our findings help better understand how entrepreneurs
mobilize support from typically very diverse crowds, which has implications for research on
crowdsourcing, open innovation and other collaborative processes.
We start out with a brief introduction of the narrative perspective in entrepreneurship and inno-
vation research. We then specify our understanding of narratives and introduce the particular con-
text of crowdfunding campaigns. After elaborating our data and methods, we report major findings
and discuss implications for future research.

Innovation and entrepreneurship as narrative processes

Research on both entrepreneurship, that is, the process of identifying and exploiting opportunities
for new ventures (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000), and innovation, that
is, the generation of novel ideas or combinations of existing ideas and routines that are perceived
as new and valuable by individuals and organizations (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Van de Ven,
1986), is increasingly informed by the narrative perspective (see Garud et al., 2014a; Navis and
Glynn, 2011). A narrative perspective particularly draws attention to temporal, relational, and per-
formative processes entrepreneurs engage in as they attempt to get support for and give meaning to
new projects (Garud et al., 2010). We focus here mainly on the temporality of narrative construc-
tion, which is arguably one of the defining features of the narrative perspective (Garud and Giuliani,
2013). The temporal dimension brings attention to how both past and potential future activities are
contextualized as part of ongoing entrepreneurial and innovation processes (Garud et al., 2014a).
On the one hand, narratives involve retrospective sense-making and sense-giving processes that
help rationalize and put into perspective past decisions, events, activities, and outcomes (Gioia and
Chittipeddi, 1991; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Re-interpretations of the past in the light of
present situations and activities are an important device for building and shaping entrepreneurial
identities (Gioia et al., 2002; Navis and Glynn, 2011). On the other hand, narratives build on pro-
jections of the future, whereby entrepreneurs aim to make projections both plausible (“pragmatic
legitimacy”) and comprehensible (“cognitive legitimacy”) in the context of present conditions and
accomplishments (Garud et al., 2014b). Over time, entrepreneurs thus engage in continuous “tem-
poral work” (Kaplan and Orlikowski, 2013) by connecting narratives about the past and future to
inform their own actions and to mobilize support from critical stakeholders, including business
partners, clients, and funders.
In this regard, the temporal construction of narratives also informs relational processes in inno-
vation and entrepreneurial processes. More specifically, it helps build and contextualize relation-
ships between actors and artifacts over time, thereby promoting interactions with the social and
material world (Callon, 1986). In other words, narratives inform the ways in which entrepreneurs
and their projects (seek to) relate to and interact with core audiences. In doing so, they give rise to
identity construction (Czarniawska, 1997), social action organization (Garud and Gehman, 2012),
and active deliberation, interpretation, and creative searches for meaningful activities (Brown
et al., 2000; Weick, 1995). However, identities are not only constructed but also conveyed over
time as processes of sense-giving and sense-making between social actors (e.g. Boje, 1991; Watson
and Bargiela-Chiappini, 1998; Weick, 1995). Related to this, narratives also have important per-
formative effects as they “serve as triggers for action towards goals that are forever changing”
(Garud et al., 2014a: 1181). More specifically, as entrepreneurs actualize the meaning they have
given to their entrepreneurial or innovation efforts, narratives may serve as the springboard to
Manning and Bejarano 197

launch envisioned expectations into reality through action (Callon, 2007; Garud et al., 2014a).
Actors thereby attempt to infuse meaning into their entrepreneurial efforts as they progress through
and build upon relational exchanges waiting for appropriate moments to act and realize possibili-
ties (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002).
However, with some notable exceptions (Martens et al., 2007; O’Connor, 2004) we have a
limited empirical understanding of how entrepreneurial narratives are constructed in the first
place, and how in particular they capture and connect past events and accomplishments and
future plans to mobilize support. Also, we need to better understand to what extent narratives
are project-specific, that is, how they reflect relevant project features and thus connect to related
expectations of stakeholders. We seek to examine these questions through the particular context
of crowdfunding campaigns which communicate entrepreneurial projects of different kinds to
diverse audiences in rather condensed ways, and which thus help uncover the more or less
project-specific structure of narratives and their effect on mobilizing support. Next, we intro-
duce the practice of crowdfunding and its utility for studying narratives in more detail.

Crowdfunding campaigns and entrepreneurial narratives

Crowdfunding campaigns are a relatively new practice of marketing and raising financial support
for projects of different kinds—from technology and other design projects, to fashion, art, and
events—from a large group of individuals (the “crowd”), typically via Internet platforms (Mollick,
2014). The practice of crowdfunding is part of a larger trend toward mobilizing crowds for differ-
ent purposes, including crowdsourcing, that is, the use of typically Information Technology (IT)-
based collaborative architectures to invite large groups of people to contribute to co-develop
software and other products (Baldwin and Von Hippel, 2011; e.g. Bayus, 2013; Fjeldstad et al.,
2012; Howe, 2008), and open innovation, that is, the again typically IT-based mobilization of new
ideas and solutions for problems through a geographically dispersed pool of potential contributors
(see e.g. Chesbrough, 2006; Dahlander and Gann, 2010). All these practices have in common that
a large number of typically diverse and dispersed actors needs to be reached and mobilized. We
argue that storytelling and narratives become important devices in this process.
Crowdfunding has increasingly attracted the interest of entrepreneurship scholars (Belleflamme
et al., 2013; Colombo et al., 2013; Mollick, 2014). The main focus of research has been on various
strategies of mobilizing social networks and virtual community ties before and/or during crowd-
funding campaigns to maximize funding (see e.g. Agrawal et al., 2011). Less attention, however,
has been paid to the actual content of campaigns (but see Mollick, 2014), and, more particularly,
the way different kinds of projects are framed and communicated in these campaigns. We focus on
the latter aspect in this study.
Importantly, crowdfunding campaigns differ quite significantly from regular practices of raising
financial capital for new projects. First of all, crowdfunding has been utilized for a wide range of
commercial, artistic and social projects, many of which would have trouble accessing conventional
funding sources. Related to this, whereas prior research has focused on how entrepreneurs promote
the value and feasibility of new projects vis-a-vis specialized and professional financial institu-
tions, such as banks and venture capitalists (see, for example, Teece, 2010), crowdfunding cam-
paigns address a much more diverse audience, composed of domain experts and lay actors who
share an interest in new projects. Also, the very purpose of launching crowdfunding campaigns
may range from raising financial capital to marketing new products and services to potential cus-
tomers (see, for example, Belleflamme et al., 2013). Oftentimes, individual funders thereby take
multiple roles in giving financial support, in taking interest in using or buying a particular product
or service, and/or in getting engaged in projects in various ways. Therefore, whereas more
198 Strategic Organization 15(2)

traditional forms of funding and interaction between entrepreneurs and stakeholders tend to be
highly specific—addressing particular interests—crowdfunding campaigns are richer interfaces as
they mobilize diverse audiences for supporting a wide range of projects in different ways.
Furthermore, crowdfunding campaigns may constitute critical moments in the evolution of entre-
preneurial projects, as multi-vocal images of a project are produced—and conserved on the
Internet—that endure as “project imprints” often beyond the actual context of funding.
Crowdfunding campaigns are typically initiated when new projects are already under way, past
initial idea development and team formation, but still more or less far away from completion.
Campaigns thus give rare snapshots of how entrepreneurs situate and communicate their projects
as undertakings in-the-making by reconstructing how the present state relates to both past project
development and potential futures (Garud et al., 2010). In order to run campaigns successfully and
thereby raise capital but also mobilize support, it is thus of critical importance for initiators to build
narratives that make future plans and objectives plausible in the light of past activities and accom-
plishments (see also Navis and Glynn, 2011; Teece, 2010). This, in turn, suggests that the narra-
tives of past and future that characterize crowdfunding campaigns are interlinked with how
campaigns seek to reach out to various audiences and thereby enact their support, not least in form
of funding. Studying crowdfunding campaigns thus allows us to analyze the interplay of temporal,
relational, and performative dimensions of narratives. Next, we analyze in more detail the narrative
structure of crowdfunding campaigns, in particular how project histories and potential futures are
framed to mobilize support, and how these narratives reflect key project features.

Data and methods

We analyze the narrative construction of projects in crowdfunding campaigns through an inductive
multi-case study design (Yin, 2003). Results from this inductive study can be used to assist theory-
building as they help derive and interrelate theoretical constructs and categories for future research
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Siggelkow, 2007). The main objective is not to “generalize” findings in the
statistical sense, but to promote “analytical generalization” (Yin, 2003). More than single case
studies, our multi-case study assists a “generalization in small steps” (Diesing, 1971).
Concretely, we compare and interrelate findings across 54 crowdfunding campaigns that were
launched on the Internet platform Kickstarter between 2012 and 2015. Kickstarter was launched in
2006 in order to give projects funding opportunities outside the established banking and venture
capitalist system. To launch Kickstarter campaigns, initiators set a funding target and a deadline
until which the target has to be met. Funding can come from any user whereby individual contribu-
tions may vary from US$1 to up to US$10,000, depending on the pledges and rewards set up by the
campaign initiators. Kickstarter is not equity-based but limited to one-off exchanges of pledges and
rewards, which invites the posting of commercial, social and artistic projects. Only if the funding
target is met then the initiators will receive the money and, in turn, commit themselves to sending
out rewards to funders. Those can range from symbolic rewards (t-shirts, posters), to the actual
products, or to invitations to meetings and events. Kickstarter campaigns thus combine multiple
goals—from raising funds, to marketing products, to mobilizing community support. Campaigns
tend to have a creative edge, yet they can range from high-tech, software, fashion, food, to social and
artistic projects. Focusing on Kickstarter as a crowdfunding platform facilitated case access and
limited extraneous variation (Eisenhardt, 1989). Case selection was random but guided by three
criteria: the project should be recent, involve at least two people, and target funding of at least
US$5,000 (to exclude mini/low-budget projects). We did not set an upper funding target limit, but
our sample largely reflects the size distribution of projects on the Kickstarter platform—with most
projects below and only very few above $100k (see also Kickstarter, 2016).
Manning and Bejarano 199

Data collection was done in multiple rounds to increase sample size while refining case selection
criteria based on preliminary findings. The first round was explorative and done in 2012, yielding
14 cases. It mainly served to identify similarities and differences in narrative patterns between cam-
paigns. In the next round in 2013/2014, 30 cases were added, whereby we made sure to increase case
variety across almost all project categories offered by Kickstarter, including, for example, fashion,
food, games, technology, design, and music (see Table 1). This allowed us to increase robustness
while further differentiating our findings. In the final round in 2015, we added 10 projects that failed
to meet funding targets. This allowed us to explore further not only how narrative patterns differed
across project categories but also between more or less successful projects. Importantly, we selected
these 10 “failed” projects randomly from each of the major project categories covered in the sample
of “successful campaigns.” We discuss findings in the empirical section.
Furthermore, data collection was done through three major data sources which helped us gener-
ate findings of high validity (Yin, 2003): videos, interviews, and written documents. First, we
analyzed partially transcribed videos of all 54 selected Kickstarter campaigns. Videos are the pri-
mary means of communicating projects to audiences through Kickstarter and are thus regarded as
a key vehicle for generating funding (Mollick, 2014). They tell entrepreneurial stories about pro-
jects in rather condensed ways, ranging from 1 to 3 minutes in length. Their content is thus a criti-
cal choice by entrepreneurs as to how narratives about projects are constructed and how diverse
audiences are addressed to mobilize support. Videos typically start with a description of a need,
then summarize how the project started and what has been achieved, followed by future plans; they
typically end with a direct request for support from the viewers. The two authors conducted a
focused content analysis of all case videos to capture project narratives. We discuss our coding
scheme below. Second, in collaboration with MBA students of the UMass Boston College of
Management, we interviewed the initiators of most projects (1 to 2 semi-structured interviews per
project; 54 interviews in total), which helped us better understand the context of project develop-
ment, the intentions of entrepreneurs and operational challenges. In particular, we used interview
data to better understand the choice of narratives. Also, it helped us validate the video content
analysis. Overall, we found that video narratives were reflective of how entrepreneurs conveyed
their story to us directly, which demonstrates that the videos we studied are reflective of entrepre-
neurial narratives. We provide evidence through interview quotes. Third, we used written informa-
tion on the Kickstarter campaign pages themselves as well as other external websites to gather
additional data on project characteristics, teams, and project development.
Our data analysis is a combination of qualitative inquiry and quantitative analysis of campaign
narratives and project features. We thereby combine case-specific insights with an analysis of pat-
terns across the population of 54 cases. First of all, the two authors independently coded all
Kickstarter videos for similarities and differences in terms of how narratives address past project
development and future plans, and how they address the audience. We focused on these aspects in
line with the notion that a key function of project narratives is to selectively convey “recollections
of the past and anticipations of the future” (Garud and Giuliani, 2013: 1059) in order to mobilize
support. Garud et al. (2014a) refer to this dynamic as the interplay of the temporal, relational, and
performative dimension of narratives. Importantly, however, we did not “operationalize” these
dimensions in a strict sense, but rather used them as “sensitizing devices,” which do not “provide
prescriptions of what to see” but “suggest directions along which to look” (Blumer, 1954: 7).
More specifically, we developed an inductive coding tree (see Figure 1) guided by the narrative
perspective as formulated by Garud et al. (2014a), whereby we focused in this coding tree on the
temporal and relational dimension of video-based narratives. We captured—to some extent—the
performative dimension through sample comparison of narratives of successful and unsuccessful
campaigns. However, we are not interested in explaining performance as such (for which we lack
200 Strategic Organization 15(2)

Table 1. Overview of projects.

No. Project name Type of Outcome Technol Social Funding Actual

outcome tangibility sophist orient target $ funding $
1 Big Red & Shiny Journalism Low Low High 9000 12,037
2 Grenada Goat Dairy School Food Low Low High 55,000 63,160
3 Torrent Engine 18 Theater Low Low High 10,000 23,181
4 Day 2 Night Convertible Heels Fashion High Low Low 15,000 16,506
5 Multiplo Robot High High Low 15,000 132,022
6 Sprout Design High Low Low 25,000 37,715
7 Ministry of Supply Fashion High High Low 30,000 429,276
8 Form 1 Technology High High Low 100,000 2,945,885
9 Hey Ocean Music Low Low Low 30,000 42,052
10 Cambridge Community Kitchen Food Low Low High 11,111 12,713
11 Qwik-keyz Technology High High Low 15,000 15,155
12 Robotboat Mark IV Robot High Low Low 80,000 83,424
13 Hexy Hexapod Robot High High Low 13,000 168,267
14 City Conquest Video Game Low High Low 10,000 11,170
15 Time Tribe Video Game Low High Low 25,000 30,873
16 Story Time Toys Fairytale Game High Low Low 20,000 33,871
17 Fresh Truck Food Low Low High 30,000 32,108
18 Forsake All Weather Shoes Fashion High Low Low 100,000 116,459
19 Loud Bicycle Design High Low Low 43,000 52,837
20 Fugu Foods Food Low Low Low 10,000 10,789
21 Holy Grail Technology High High Low 5000 57,358
22 HarvestGeek Hardware High High Low 25,000 47,053
23 UBI Hardware High High Low 36,000 229,594
24 Robo3D Printer Technology High High Low 49,000 649,663
25 Orbit Turntable Design High Low Low 60,000 233,940
26 myIDkey Technology Low High Low 150,000 473,333
27 Gotham bike light Design High Low Low 18,000 84,728
28 Four Saints Food Low Low Low 45,000 52,375
29 Transparent Speaker Sound High Low Low 120,000 169,480
30 Higher Ground Farm Food Low Low High 20,000 23,981
31 Fuel Design High High Low 20,000 81,329
32 Commonwealth Food Low Low High 50,000 59,454
33 Pressy Design High High Low 40,000 695,138
34 Quinn Popcorn Food High Low Low 10,000 27,880
35 Mei Mei Food Low Low Low 28,000 36,270
36 +Pool Design High High High 25,000 41,647
37 Nova Design High High Low 25,000 85,480
38 Ark Technology High High Low 35,000 131,939
39 Radlicht Technology High Low Low 10,000 28,509
40 Bringrr Hardware High High Low 75,000 75,561
41 Loop Pay Hardware High High Low 100,000 123,788
42 Hopster’s Food Low Low Low 35,000 40,053
43 Bot Mimico Design High Low Low 65,000 88,202
44 Twine Technology High High Low 35,000 556,541
45 Frosted Betty Bake Food High Low Low 35,000 400
(Continued)
Manning and Bejarano 201

Table 1. (Continued)

No. Project name Type of Outcome Technol Social Funding Actual

outcome tangibility sophist orient target $ funding $
46 Love is Love Fashion High Low High 30,000 358
47 Goga Goga Design High Low Low 20,000 328
48 Software Connecting Technology Low High High 30,000 20
49 Housing World Safely Architecture High High High 710,000 113
50 Holderen Mac Pro Design High High Low 142,500 2691
51 Tubeless Solution Technology High Low Low 60,000 1186
52 Paper Tank Theatre Theater Low Low High 25,000 610
53 A Bite of Me Music Low Low Low 10,000 15
54 Project FXBG Journalism Low Low High 50,000 475

Idenfying Depicng Idenfying Relang

First-order codes Second-order codes Dominant narrave styles Project properes

Y years ago, we started /

realized / thought about…
We hired X / Y was Focus on past development
low
excited about Z …
past

Tangibility
X is the result of Y
Focus on past accomplishment of outcome
months/years…
Ongoing journey style high
We’ve built / produced X
/ done a lot to …
Focus on future steps low
We are now ready to … Sophiscaon
With your help we can of technology
take the next step… Focus on future vision high
future

We want / envision this

project to be… Results-in-progress style high
With our project we want Emoonal engagement Social orientaon
to promote X of project
We ask you to join / become low
audience

part of / … this journey Transaconal engagement

We need your support to…

Figure 1. Coding tree for analyzing narratives.

data) but only in identifying potential differences between narratives employed in successful ver-
sus unsuccessful projects. Future research needs to test performance implications more rigorously.
Also, since this is not a longitudinal study, we lack information on longer-term performative
effects. We discuss these limitations in the implications section.
As for the temporal and relational dimension, we did an explorative round of first-order coding
of videos of the first 14 campaigns we collected data on. The coding followed the order in which
videos are typically scripted: from past to future to engaging the audience. As a result of this round,
we identified various recurring “narrative patterns” of telling different parts or episodes of the story.
After comparing these codes, we found that they can be grouped into second-order codes which
depict major ways or “styles” of talking about the past and future, and addressing the audience. As
illustrated by the coding tree (Figure 1), some campaigns, for example, would use formulations such
as “Five years ago, we started to …” or “Last summer we got together and discussed …,” all of
202 Strategic Organization 15(2)

which focus on the process of past project development. By comparison, formulations such as
“Project X is the result of three years of developments” or “We have been able to build a prototype
…” focus on past project accomplishments rather than the process. In a similar way, we classified
formulations focusing on concrete future steps versus future vision, as well as formulations suggest-
ing rather emotional or transactional engagement of audiences. We decided not to create specific
codes for the “present” since the present is largely constituted by the context of the campaign itself.
In other words, campaign videos converge around the fact that entrepreneurs ask for funding of their
projects in order for them to proceed. The present thus serves as a time stamp for the narrative con-
struction of the project around the need for funding. However, as we elaborate in detail in the
empirical section, narrative accounts of past and future differ in how narrowly they focus on the very
recent (or distant) past and immediate (or distant) future.
Based on these second-order codes, we developed a more rigorous coding scheme for the entire
sample, including the second and third round of data collection, in order to investigate potentially
dominant patterns across the case population. Specifically, each coder would give a score of either
0 (not mentioned), 1 (occasionally mentioned), or 2 (elaborated) for the extent to which each video
would talk about (a) past development, (b) past accomplishments, (c) future steps, and (d) future
vision. Importantly, we did not use the 0–2 numerical codes as metric measures, but rather as alter-
native thresholds for binary coding. In other words, this allowed us to compute descriptive statis-
tics using either “at least 1” or “2” as thresholds for whether videos “talk” about each of the
elements in question. We ended up presenting findings for the lower threshold (“1” or “2”), because
patterns were clearer this way. In addition, we captured in a binary fashion whether audiences are
engaged in an emotional or transactional style.
The coding scheme allowed us to do two things: on the one hand, it assisted, along with qualita-
tive evidence from interviews and website material, the identification of dominant narrative styles
across campaigns. We call them “ongoing journey” and “results-in-progress” style, whereby the
former combines a strong focus on past development, future vision, and emotional engagement,
whereas the latter combines a focus on past accomplishments, future steps, and transactional
engagement. We discuss the meaning and properties of each style, as well as various implications
of applying and/or combining these styles, in the findings section. On the other hand, the coding
scheme allowed us to analyze relevant sub-samples of campaigns which helped us explain why
certain styles or combinations there-of were used in the case of particular projects. Based on prior
research as well as a comparative analysis of narrative styles within and across the project catego-
ries provided by Kickstarter, we identified three relevant features: tangibility, technological sophis-
tication, and social orientation. Tangibility specifies the degree to which project outcomes are
designed to generate value from tangible/material rather than experiential/immaterial features;
technological sophistication is specified here as the degree to which advanced technology is a core
aspect of the promoted project value; finally, social orientation is specified as the degree to which
a project either directly targets or at least aims to benefit groups in need, for example, local com-
munities or disadvantaged groups, rather than paying customers only. Again, we looked for both
qualitative evidence, in terms of indicative quotes, and quantitative support, by using in this case
binary codes for specifying projects across each dimension. Based on the coding, we did a sub-
sample analysis based on the main coding scheme introduced earlier.
To further ensure reliability (Yin, 2003), the two authors invited a third person, who was unfa-
miliar with the study, to also code a sample of videos to check for coders’ bias. She agreed on the
appropriateness of our coding scheme as well as the project categories, but expressed some con-
flicting views regarding the boundaries of “ongoing journeys” and “results-in-progress” as catego-
ries. Specifically, she argued that one video in particular that we categorized as “ongoing journey”
conflicts with her perception that “journeys” should “end,” whereas we started out with a more
Manning and Bejarano 203

open understanding of “journeys.” This prompted us to be more specific in our discussion of “jour-
neys” as more or less open-ended rather than bounded endeavors.
Finally, based on the both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the adoption of narrative
styles across project categories, we interrelated conceptual categories and codes, similar to the
praxis of axial coding (Charmaz, 2006). Our main objective at this stage was to identify links
between categories to inform future research. In particular, we focused on how the use of the main
narratives—projects as “ongoing journeys” versus “results-in-progress”—are interrelated with the
tangibility of project outcomes, technological sophistication, and social orientation, as well as how
successful and unsuccessful projects differ in this regard. Evidence from interviews further helped
us interpret linkages in meaningful ways. Based on this analysis, we were then able to further theo-
rize, differentiate, and contextualize narrative styles in crowdfunding campaigns—and entrepre-
neurial processes in more general—for future research.

Major findings
Table 1 provides an overview of all Kickstarter campaigns included in this study. Projects range in
terms of their targeted funding from US$5,000 (Holy Grail) to US$710,000 (Housing World
Safely). Actual funding ranges from US$15 (A Bite of Me) to US$2,945,885 (Form 1). Project
teams are typically small and do not exceed 10 people at the time campaigns are launched. A total
of 44 out of 54 projects reached or exceeded their funding target and thus were able to utilize the
funding. In total, 10 projects failed to reach their target. We further categorize projects across the
three dimensions introduced above: tangibility (high/low), technological sophistication (high/low),
and social orientation (high/low). Table 1 gives an overview of how projects fall into each of the
three categories. We discuss their importance later in this section. Next, we describe in detail how
various projects were presented based on the content analysis of project videos. We first introduce
the three major narrative “building blocks” which combine into the two dominate styles—“ongoing
journey” versus “results in-progress”: narratives about the past and the future, and styles of engage-
ment. The building blocks follow the typical script order of videos in crowdfunding campaigns. We
then discuss properties of and differences between the two dominant styles and how they apply
across different types of projects as well as across successful and unsuccessful campaigns.

Narratives about the past: development process versus accomplishments

Most videos start by giving information about past project development. The main purpose of tell-
ing stories about the past is to help rationalize and contextualize past decisions, events, activities,
and outcomes (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). One key indicator is
the use of either past tense or present perfect. Examples include “I thought about the idea …,”
“about a year ago,” “We’ve been working here day and night …” Typically, for example, project
videos inform in some way about how or why a project was initiated and how project teams were
formed. For example, the video of Sprout—a pencil with a seed inside—informs about the origins
of the project and team in a product design course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT). Similarly, the founders of Four Saints Brewing Company talk at the beginning of their
video about how the idea of starting a brewing company grew out of their joint brewing experience
prior to that.
Importantly, given the short duration of videos, narratives about the past are necessarily selec-
tive and so are the ways in which they are narrated. In particular, we identified, quite independent
of the specifics of each project, two distinctive styles in which project developments up to the
present are communicated. One focuses on the development process as such. This style emphasizes
204 Strategic Organization 15(2)

how projects have unfolded over time, how particular activities have been embedded and linked in
time–space. It enacts a linear conception of time (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Söderlund, 2004)
and situates developments in chronological order (Gersick, 1994), for example, by use of time
markers and sequencing. By comparison, the other style focuses on accomplishments based on
past activities, quite independent of any processes, decisions, or circumstances contributing to
them. This style compresses time and follows a milestone logic (Gersick, 1994). Notably, many
campaigns combine both styles, but some focus on one rather than the other.
Looking at narratives that focus on the past development process, they are communicated such
that viewers are taken back in time to learn about how initial ideas came about, and how particular
people got involved in projects over time. Past tense is most frequently used. For example, cam-
paigns would describe situations or contexts within which project founders came up with initial
ideas. The following quotes are good examples:

Raise your hand if you don’t like the keyboard on the iphone, me too. My name is Dennis, about a year ago
I was sitting in my living room with my daughter saying we need to come up with a solution for the iphone.
(Quik-Keys)

I thought about the idea of Fresh Truck when I was working for another company. […] I heard a lot of
feedback from families that said it was still really difficult to shop for fresh fruits and vegetables. (Fresh
Truck)

As we looked at what downtown Asheboro was achieving with its revitalization efforts we realized that
Asheboro was ready to support its own nano-brewery. (Four Saints)

By contrast, narratives focusing on accomplishments are characterized by the use of present or

present perfect tense rather than past tense. Rather than focusing on various decisions or activities
over time, past project developments are “summarized” in terms of accomplishments that are rel-
evant in the present. Thereby, project time is “compressed” to direct attention to what has been
achieved. Typical formulations include the following: “after three prototypes we have come up
with,” “product X is the result of years of development.” The following quotes exemplify this:

We’ve built a reliable and beautify designed printer. And were developing materials which will enable our
users to make amazing things. (Form 1)

We’ve produced dozens of designs and hand manufactured hundreds of prototypes. We have the volume
manufacture process all figured out. (Sprout)

Apollo [name of business shirt] is the result of over a year of research and design, we developed over a
dozen prototypes and fabric combinations to arrive at this incredible shirt. (Ministry of Supply)

Interviews with entrepreneurs helped us interpret these two narrative choices. Both serve to
convey project value, yet in different ways: development-centered narratives derive the value of
projects from the importance of initial ideas and the context in which they emerged. For example,
the initiator of an artist news magazine explains,

During that time in the arts community, there was—just recently—a very big void left because there
wasn’t a lot of critical writing going on about art. We figured that would be a good way to have people
support us and become informed that we were coming back and get involved in their own way. Everyone
in the city felt like things were failing, and we felt like it would be a way for everyone to feel like they were
doing their part.
Manning and Bejarano 205

By contrast, narratives focusing on past accomplishments regard initial ideas as valuable only
as far as they resulted in actual outcomes. The story around a high-resolution three-dimensional
(3D) printer illustrates that. For example, rather than spending a lot of time contextualizing the
project beginning, this statement makes direct connections to what has been achieved:

I knew one of the founders […] from an internship one summer. He got in touch with me and said he was
building a 3D printer, I said that sounds pretty neat, I like 3D printers. I flew up and checked it out and said
this is going to go somewhere; I went back to Pittsburg, quit my job and moved up here.

Narratives about the future: next steps versus long-term vision

After informing about how projects came about and what has been achieved so far, most cam-
paigns would address the aspired or imagined future of the project. Indicative of future storytelling
are formulations such as “now it’s time to start,” “we really want our restaurant to be,” “we are so
excited to take the next step.” Again, we were able to identify two major styles of narrating future
project development: one focuses on immediate future steps following the crowdfunding cam-
paign. By comparison, the other places emphasis on the long-term vision. Again, some campaigns
combine both styles to various degrees.
Narratives about the future focusing on next steps typically link the crowdfunding campaign to
particular short-term objectives. For example, some projects launch campaigns right before the
first production run, or before starting the layout for packaging. Other projects are in the middle of
reaching out to particular partners. The following quotes provide examples of this:

We need this money right here: $30,000 to purchase the bus and to make the retro fitting for a spring
launch. (Fresh Truck)

We are so excited to take the next step and partner with the Saint Patrick Anglican public school. […] We
are asking for 55 thousand dollars to cover the cost of building materials, equipment and tools and
educational resources for the students and this will also take us one crucial step closer towards being a
model of self-sustainability. (Grenada Goat)

To make Battery Bot a reality we are going to need your help to fund the first production run and cover the
expensive upfront tooling costs and also with your input we’ll finalize character designs, packaging,
accessories, and other decisions that will define the final product. (Bot Mimico)

By comparison, narratives about the future that focus on long-term vision emphasize the ulti-
mate goal of projects and how projects are designed to impact communities and the society at large.
In doing so, they typically do without explaining in detail how to get there. Accordingly, future
visions are often vague and sometimes speculative. The following quotes exemplify this:

We really want our restaurant to be a neighborhood place where locals, students, families and our truck
regulars can come in anytime to say hi and get a Double Awesome. (Mei Mei)

So what we are really talking about is an opportunity for people to get together, have fun and really come
in and learn about creating great craft beer. (Hopster’s)

In our interviews, it became clear that, again, the choice of narratives about the future is related
to where project initiators see most “value” in project narrations. Whereas the emphasis on “next
steps” suggests that projects are either close to completion or in a stage of continuous progress, the
206 Strategic Organization 15(2)

focus on future visions places emphasis on the value coming from the larger impact of projects. For
example, the founder of a non-profit farming project explains,

I mean, that’s what sustains our project. A lot of people are much more aware of the project, and what our
whole mission is. Not just about the [farm], but about obtaining healthy, local food and keeping the money
in the local economy. That whole concept of being green and healthy and holistic.

Engaging audiences: transactional versus emotional

After detailing both past project development and future aspirations, campaign videos typically
address the audience directly. However, campaigns differ in the way they do so. We differentiate
based on our analysis two styles of audience engagement: transactional and emotional. The trans-
actional style is explicit about specific requests from viewers, whereas the emotional style is more
ambiguous while using expressions of affection and imagination.
More specifically, transactional engagement uses formulations such as “We are ready for the
first production run. All we need right now is your support by pledging X.” Viewers are directly
reminded of their particular role in the process. Interestingly, this pattern of addressing the audi-
ence is also reflected in the way videos talk about the involvement of team partners in projects.
Often, teams are not introduced by name, but by emphasizing the role they played in accomplish-
ing particular outcomes. Two examples of this are the projects myIDkey, a voice-activated, finger-
print secure Bluetooth/USB Drive, and Robo3D Printer, a 3D printer:

We have done tremendous work with the team. All the PC board design, all the layouts, all the prototypes,
all our apps are ready to go. (myIDkey)

Our team has been working together for a few years now and we’ve had the opportunity to work with a
wide range of different technologies. (Robo3D Printer)

By comparison, the emotional style goes beyond just “asking for support.” Instead, cam-
paigns ask the audience to “join” the project. For example, the presentation Mei Mei (a restau-
rant project) goes, “we would love for you to join us in making this happen.” As another example,
the presentation of Project FXBG, a media project dedicated to showcasing the work of local
artists, ends with, “join us show the world everything we can be […] we come together to do
great things.”
Similar to the transactional style, the emotional style is also reflected in the way campaigns
talk about the involvement of team members and other partners. Oftentimes, team formation is
talked in greater detail and in a highly personalized fashion, whereby the process of “finding
each other” and “joining forces” is emphasized. The following examples illustrate this
narration:

One day though JJ, Mat, Dan, Breanne and Sarah all put their heads together and realized that with a little
hard work and some help from their friends they could really shake things up in Cambridge and so it was
that the Cambridge community kitchen was born. (Cambridge Kitchen)

A few years ago Andrew and I started brewing together. He the seasoned veteran with 10 years brewing
experience and me the beginner as we continued to brew, together we started to talk about the idea of
having a bar or brewery here in Asheboro, North Carolina. And through our research we found that there
were 4 patron saints of brewing in beer, ‘four saints’, that would make a pretty cool name for a bar or
brewery. And that’s what struck that match and lit the kindling. (Four Saints Brewing Company)
Manning and Bejarano 207

In sum, campaigns tend to show a distinctive pattern of how they seek to engage partners and
supporters, including potential project funders. Whereas the transactional style emphasizes the
various roles and functions obtained by participants, the emotional style is less specific about roles
and rather emphasizes overall levels of engagement. We found this difference reflected in our
interviews as well. For example, in this interview, the involvement of team partners is talked about
rather enthusiastically which corresponds to an emotional engagement style:

We started the project while we were still in college, during our junior year. […] I was at Alta, Utah, and
he was at Big Sky, Montana (ski areas), and we noticed while we were out there that all of our friends were
walking around, soaking through their skateboard shoes or their everyday sneakers, so they weren’t
wearing winter boots or hiking boots. So, we kind of saw that and said why aren’t they wearing them? It’s
because they don’t like the look. We had an enthusiasm for skiing and snowboarding and being outside,
and kind of saw a little niche opening in the market and wanted to kind of grab that.

Combining narratives: ongoing journey versus results-in-progress

The three building blocks of project narratives discussed above combine into two major narrative
styles we introduce next: ongoing journeys versus results in-progress. Importantly, these styles
are multi-faceted yet coherent combinations of narrative elements; they differ in their core build-
ing blocks, even though their boundaries might be blurry. The ongoing journey style narrates
projects as longer-term, sometimes open-ended endeavors that are powered by creative initial
ideas and a bold vision. Projects are typically communicated as part of something bigger. The
focus is on imagination and possibilities rather than the current project state. In contrast, the
results-in-progress style narrates projects as progressions of accomplishments. Immediate out-
comes are communicated as valuable in themselves. Strong emphasis is put on the current state of
project development rather than initial ideas or future possibilities. This style focuses on the abil-
ity of an entrepreneurial story to harness the crowd based on the utility of project outcomes for
users and/or customers. Importantly, most campaigns contain elements of both styles, yet they
typically lean toward one rather than the other.
More specifically, the ongoing journey style combines three elements: strong focus on past
project development process, elaborate long-term vision, and emotional engagement of the audi-
ence. One typical example of this style is the campaign for Fresh Truck—a school bus retrofitted
as a mobile farmers market selling fresh affordable fruits and vegetables in Boston. The video
starts with the founders telling the story of their experience in organizations that educate families
about the benefits of healthy eating. Based on feedback from clients, according to the video, they
developed the idea of Fresh Truck. While the video focuses a lot on the beginning of project devel-
opment, it does not elaborate much on what has actually been achieved so far. Instead, it formulates
an elaborate future vision of how Fresh Truck will make an impact in the community once the
project will be completed. Specifically, they say,

So we plan on hosting really cool events to promote health literacy and add to the capacity of existing
health initiatives and groups like health centers and community centers already doing work to promote
healthy eating. We plan on hosting block parties and really building health into the DNA of communities.

Another typical feature of the “ongoing journey” narration is how they address viewers—not
merely in their role as financial supporters but as potential participants of an “ongoing journey”
and a cause that goes beyond the objectives of anybody’s particular project. For example, the
above-mentioned Fresh Truck campaign explicitly asks viewers to join their “journey”:
208 Strategic Organization 15(2)

Any support that you can give us is much appreciated. We’ve got our incentives on the right hand side that
you can look at. We really want people to become part of the Fresh Truck journey and hopefully these
incentives will help you become part of that.

By comparison, the results-in-progress style combines the opposite characteristics: strong focus
on past accomplishments, elaboration of next steps, and rather transactional engagement of the
audience. One example is Form 1, a high-resolution 3D printer for professional creators. This
presentation focuses mainly on key features of the product as well as what has been achieved so far
in project development. The presentation does not elaborate much on initial ideas or any key events
in the past that have contributed to the project. Instead, it focuses on major past outcomes. Yet, the
video also explicates next steps toward completion:

We have a great user experience, we have powerful and easy to use software. We’ve built a reliable and
beautify designed printer. And we are developing materials which will enable our users to make amazing
things. […] We’ve been working on the design of our product for over a year and it’s nearly complete and
so now it’s time to start gearing up manufacturing so that we can get it into the hands of users everywhere.

Also, unlike in campaigns of the ongoing journey type, in this narration style viewers are
addressed in rather instrumental ways as potential financial supporters and/or buyers of a product.
In other words, the interface between project and funders is designed much thinner and more trans-
actional than in the ongoing journey narrative.
One major difference in the use of each style are the perceived sources of value. The results-in-
progress style assumes that viewers see immediate value in the utility of project outcomes for
users—something that is also stressed in interviews like this one:

So, our motivation is probably the one big change, Kickstarter was a test market for us, what the general
market would feel about this product. This brings me back to my role and experience which is mostly in
sales/marketing. I wanted to see if this was operational. I am comfortable with putting teams together and
moving products forward to accomplish goals, but was unsure of the product idea itself. Because of the
high contribution of our backers and overall support of our project we decided to move forward.

By comparison, the ongoing journey style reflects a greater concern for the context and larger
impact of the project. Its acceptance is thus more closely associated with contributions to the well-
being of individuals and communities.
In this regard, it is also interesting to compare each style in terms of how it embeds projects in
time. The results-in-progress style frames project development much “closer” to the present situa-
tion and state of development, by “summarizing” past accomplishments up to the time when the
campaign is launched and by elaborating on immediate future steps following the campaign. In
contrast, the ongoing journey narration stretches much further into the past and future, by building
bridges over time between the very beginnings of a project and the long-term vision, thereby often
“skipping” the present situation or immediate operational needs. We elaborate on implications of
this difference in the discussion section.

Narration styles and project features

We find that the two major narrative styles are interrelated with certain project features—tangibility,
technological sophistication, and social orientation. Table 2 reports for each property (high/low
tangibility, high/low technological sophistication, and high/low social orientation) the percentage
Manning and Bejarano 209

Table 2. Frequency of narrative elements: past development/accomplishments, future steps/vision.*

Projects with low vs. high tangibility Projects with low vs. high technological Projects with high vs. low social
sophistication orientation

All Past Future Past Future Past Future

projects
Devel Accom Steps Vision Devel Accom Steps Vision Devel Accom Steps Vision

Low 71% 57% 76% 90% Low 81% 74% 65% 71% High 77% 54% 62% 100%

High 61% 94% 55% 52% High 43% 87% 61% 61% Low 61% 88% 63% 56%

Funded Past Future Past Future Past Future

projects
Devel Accom Steps Vision Devel Accom Steps Vision Devel Accom Steps Vision

Low 82% 59% 71% 88% Low 88% 75% 54% 71% High 100% 38% 50% 100%

High 59% 96% 52% 52% High 45% 90% 65% 60% Low 61% 92% 61% 58%

Projects Past Future Past Future Past Future

missing
funding Devel Accom Steps Vision Devel Accom Steps Vision Devel Accom Steps Vision
target
Low 25% 50% 100% 100% Low 57% 71% 100% 71% High 40% 80% 80% 100%

High 67% 83% 67% 50% High 33% 67% 33% 67% Low 60% 60% 80% 40%

*Percentage numbers report the relative no. of campaign videos in the respective sub-sample, e.g. all projects that were highly tangible
and funded, to mention past development, past accomplishments, future steps and future vision.
Bold percentage numbers indicate for each narrative element which project sub-sample (e.g. low vs. high tangibility) shows the respective
element more frequently in their campaigns.

of campaigns informing about past project development, past accomplishments, future next steps,
and future vision. For example, in the entire sample, 71% of videos promoting projects that are
rather intangible contain information about the past development process (which is typical of the
ongoing journey style). Overall, descriptives suggest that projects that rate low in tangibility, low
in technological sophistication, and/or high in social orientation are typically narrated in an ongo-
ing journey style, that is, they emphasize the past development process and future vision, whereas
projects of high tangibility, high technological sophistication, and/or low social orientation often
follow the results-in-progress style, that is, they emphasize past accomplishments and future next
steps. Notably, many campaigns, depending on project characteristics, combine elements of both
styles. Next, we discuss these associations in more detail.
First, we find that campaigns promoting outcomes whose value comes from tangible, that is,
visible and touchable, features, for example, gadgets, toys, and clothing, are mostly narrated as
results-in-progress, whereas campaigns promoting rather intangible outcomes whose value is
based on user and/or customer experience, for example, music, software, and restaurants, are typi-
cally narrated following the ongoing journey style. One example of the former is Ministry of
Supply, a fashion product line focusing on sporty business attire using advanced materials that
prevent sweating and odor. The campaign, which was highly successful, focuses in their presenta-
tion on past accomplishments, including the ability to use advanced materials, established ties to
designers and manufacturers, and so on. Also, they report in detail about next steps, including
launching the production of the first product line. Both features are typical of results-in-progress
narrations. By contrast, Torrent Engine 18, a successfully funded artist/community project, aims
for rather immaterial outcomes. The initiators aim to turn an old Boston firehouse into a theater and
gallery. In their presentation, they emphasize how they got the idea in the first place and what chal-
lenges they faced in the process. They also go at length about the various purposes of the final art
space: residence for artists, exhibitions, and others. In other words, the presentation follows an
ongoing journey narration.
210 Strategic Organization 15(2)

Second, we find that projects using advanced technology, such as software, high-tech products,
and infrastructure projects, tend to be presented using results-in-progress narratives, whereas pro-
jects that are less dependent on advanced technology, such as food, art projects, and toys, are typi-
cally presented using the ongoing journey style. Such differences are strongest for projects that are
tangible and highly technical versus projects that are intangible using simple technology. Above
we introduced two projects—Form 1 and Fresh Truck—that fall into the respective categories and
whose presentations show clear characteristics of the results-in-progress (Form 1) and ongoing
journey styles (Fresh Truck) respectively.
However, other projects blend features related to opposing styles, for example, by being intan-
gible yet relying on advanced technology, or by being tangible yet based on simple technology. As
for the former, City Conquest is a good example—a sophisticated real-time strategy video game
with computer opponents that have advanced learning capability. The developer of this game uses
the Kickstarter presentation to demonstrate the functionality and artificial intelligence features of
the game, which he has been able to develop over recent years (= results-in-progress style). Yet, as
is typical for rather intangible products, like software, the developer would also talk in some detail
about why and how he came up with the idea in the first place (= ongoing journey style). One
example of a tangible, yet low-tech project is Story Time Toys Fairytale - a set of toy houses and
storybooks for kids. The narrator would “start from the beginning” by sharing how she saw the
need of new educational toys for kids. The campaign would emphasize how this product will help
children “act out their own” happily in the future (= ongoing journey style). However, as is typical
for tangible projects, the presentation would also mention at some length which components have
already been created (= results-in-progress style). In both cases, narratives thus become much
richer, which is also reflected in interviews with project initiators.
Third, projects with a strong social orientation, such as community and educational projects, are
often presented following the ongoing journey style, whereas projects with a strong commercial
orientation are typically presented following the results-in-progress model. As for the former,
Fresh Truck is again a good example. Not only does it combine features of low-tech and intangible
projects, but it also has a strong social mission. For example, the narrator of this project would talk
at length about the fact that the project was from the start conceptualized as a social business serv-
ing the Boston neighborhood. Following the ongoing journey style, the social mission is presented
in a way that emphasizes high community involvement:

Having worked in the city for a while and in the non-profit sector on a really grassroots level, I have a great
network with different city agencies and groups across the city on the community-level that can help us along.

In contrast, Form 1, a 3D printer project that was introduced earlier, ran a campaign following
the results-in-progress style as is typical of high-tech hardware projects. In addition, the project
developers show no indication in their presentation that the printer is designed to help a larger
cause. Emphasis is put on cost savings for users and other competitive product features. This
emphasis on marketability seems to further support the results-in-progress style. Similarly, many
market-oriented projects that are high-tech and/or material have a tendency of emphasizing narra-
tive elements typical of results-in-progress styles.
In other cases, however, social orientation “makes a difference” for tangible high-tech projects
that would otherwise be narrated as results-in-progress. For example, +Pool is a highly sophisti-
cated infrastructure project that aims to filter the Hudson River to improve water quality, making
it possible for New Yorkers to swim (again) in clean river water. The project relies on highly
sophisticated filtering technology. This may explain why the presentation is very detailed about the
various project elements that have been developed already. However, more than other high-tech
projects, the presentation of +Pool also talks about how difficult it was to get city approval, how
Manning and Bejarano 211

different supporters in New York were mobilized over time, and how the project, in turn, will
change the way New Yorkers live and use the Hudson River. In other words, it elaborates on both
the history of project development and the future vision—two typical features of the ongoing jour-
ney narrative. We argue that the strong social orientation of this project may explain this rather rich
and emotionally engaging project presentation.
Finally, comparing successfully funded projects with projects that failed to get sufficient fund-
ing, we find that failed campaigns either do not show a clear narrative pattern (whereas success-
fully funded projects in the same project category do), or they miss certain critical elements of
expected narrative styles. Also, failed campaigns show a tendency of overemphasizing future
aspects while neglecting the past. For example, Software Connecting is an educational software
project designed to enable teachers and students to better connect and support learning objectives.
This project shares features of both intangible and social projects suggesting an ongoing journey
style of narration. However, the presentation does not elaborate at all on the background and his-
tory of project development as would be typical of this style. As another example, Holderen Mac
Pro is a rather sophisticated mounting device for Mac Computers thus showing features of high-
tech tangible projects favoring a results-in-progress narration. However, while the narrator elabo-
rates to some extent why he came up with the idea in the first place, it is unclear from the presentation
what the developer has really accomplished so far. In other words, the presentation fails to deliver
critical elements of a results-in-progress narration style. These findings indicate that narratives
may be related to the ability or inability of campaigns to align presentations with narrative styles
that are expected of projects sharing certain features.

Discussion
This study has examined, based on crowdfunding campaigns, how entrepreneurial narratives are
constructed to mobilize support from diverse audiences for various kinds of projects. Following
the growing interest in narratives as part of entrepreneurial and innovation processes (Garud et al.,
2014a, 2014b; Navis and Glynn, 2011), we have argued that crowdfunding campaigns are an
important nexus in narrative processes, as they constitute an important interface between projects
in-the-making and various audiences (Mollick, 2014). More than traditional presentations to
domain experts and venture capitalists (Alderman et al., 2005; Navis and Glynn, 2011), crowd-
funding campaigns address a much more diverse group of supporters and thus provide an opportu-
nity for entrepreneurs to narrate a coherent and condensed project identity. In other words,
crowdfunding campaigns, due to their public exposure, can be conceived as “strategic moments”
where entrepreneurs can substantially influence the way projects are communicated and perceived
among key audiences. One key concern of entrepreneurs is thereby to legitimize past develop-
ments and accomplishments in line with future objectives (see in general, Garud et al., 2014a,
2014b) in order to mobilize funding and support in general.
Following the narrative perspective by Garud and colleagues, we were specifically interested in
the temporal construction of narratives, that is, the way they frame and link project histories and
potential futures to mobilize support, and how narratives reflect key project features. Based on an
analysis of 54 crowdfunding campaigns, we found that entrepreneurs employ and/or combine two
major narrative styles to present projects—as ongoing journey or results-in-progress—to elicit
funding. Table 3 compares major properties of each style.
The ongoing journey style narrates projects as longer-term, sometimes open-ended endeavors
driven by creative initial ideas and a bold vision; project goals/outcomes are contextualized as part
of a larger concern, for example, healthy eating, the environment, and so on. Narratives following
this style emphasize imagination and possibilities, combining stories of key events in the past with
a formulation of long-term visions. Audiences are engaged in highly emotional ways and invited
212 Strategic Organization 15(2)

Table 3. Comparison of dominant narrative styles in crowdfunding campaigns.

Dimension Ongoing journey style Results-in-progress style

Definition/ Narrates projects as longer-term endeavors Narrates projects as a progression of

properties powered by creative initial ideas and a bold accomplishments
vision Immediate project outcomes are seen as
Project goals/outcomes are seen as part of valuable in themselves
something bigger Strong emphasis on the current state of project
Focus on imagination and possibilities rather development rather than initial ideas or future
than the current state of project development possibilities

Source of project Intentions and contributions of project to Immediate utility of project outcomes for users/
value well-being of individuals and communities customers

Narrative building Combines stories of key events in past project Combines reports of key outcomes of past
blocks and styles development with a formulation of long-term project development with immediate future
of engagement future goals steps
Highly emotional style of engaging the Fairly transactional style of engaging the
audience—they are invited to become part of audience—they are addressed as funders/
a “journey” supporters

Concept/ Narrative is stretched far into past and future; Narrative concentrates on present
narration of time present is regarded as rather fluid moment in accomplishments and needs; past and future
larger journey from past ideas to future vision; narratives are condensed, focusing on what’s
past and future serve as primary time markers “relevant” in the present—the primary time
marker

Project Elements of this style are most prevalent Elements of this style are most prevalent in
specificity in narrations of projects characterized by narrations of projects characterized by rather
rather intangible project outcomes; rather tangible project outcomes; rather advanced
simple technology; and/or rather strong social technology; and/or rather strong commercial
orientation orientation

to become part of a “journey.” In contrast, the results-in-progress style narrates projects as a pro-
gression of accomplishments, focusing on the immediate value and utility of projects for users or
customers. Emphasis is placed on the current project state rather than initial ideas or future possi-
bilities. Narratives following this style thus focus more narrowly on past accomplishments and
immediate future steps. The audience is addressed in a transactional way in their specific role as
potential funders and/or buyers of products.
These styles to some extent resemble but also extend distinctions made in prior studies about
entrepreneurial narratives and resource-seeking for new projects. For example, our findings can be
related to the distinction developed by Garud et al. (2014b) between “cognitive” legitimacy (see
Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Suchman, 1995) and “pragmatic” legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). The former
refers to the comprehensibility of the project, whereas the latter refers to the plausibility of the
project outcomes. Both seem to get mobilized to a different extent by the narrative styles we identi-
fied. For example, stories that offer “vivid accounts of future possibilities” facilitate the under-
standing of the story by the audiences, enabling the setting of cognitive legitimacy (Garud et al.,
2014b: 1482). Accordingly, the ongoing journey style focuses heavily on imagination and possi-
bilities rather than the current state of project development. By comparison, the setting of prag-
matic legitimacy becomes facilitated through stories that focus much more on “plotting an end
state and the intermediary steps that will lead to this desired outcome” (Garud et al., 2014b: 1482)
such as those stories we found exemplifying the results-in-progress style.
However, we also extend prior research in particular by pointing to the “temporal embedded-
ness” of narratives and their implications for resource-seeking. The ongoing journey style stretches
Manning and Bejarano 213

narratives into past and future, whereby the present is seen merely as a fluid moment in a longer-
term transition process. In contrast, the results-in-progress style focuses on the present while con-
densing accounts of past and future. In other words, the styles differ in the way they link project
value to markers in time. Whereas ongoing journey narrations seek to mobilize resources by focus-
ing on contexts and ideas developed in the past as well as visions of the future, results-in-progress
narrations anchor project value in the present. To understand these differences in conveying the
value of projects it is important to realize to what extent each style is employed for different types
of projects. These affect expectations as to how “value” is or should be generated. We discuss these
interrelations in detail next.
First, we find that the choice of narrative styles can be partly explained by the tangibility of
project outcomes. Projects whose value is significantly based on material features, such as cloth-
ing, printers, and gadgets, are typically presented as results-in-progress, whereas projects whose
user or customer value is based more on experience, such as restaurants and art projects, are often
narrated as ongoing journeys. Our findings correspond with the basic insight that entrepreneurial
storytelling in search of resources involves the “plotting” of material elements (see, for example,
Garud et al., 2014b) which can become important “boundary objects” for the joint understanding
of what projects are about (Alderman et al., 2005) and where the potential value of projects lies
(see in general Teece, 2010). Tangible boundary objects can literally be “presented” whereas pro-
jects that lack those objects are more ambiguous in terms of value and require a different way of
rationalizing past efforts (see in general, Weick, 1995). Their “utility” is often highly subjective
and based on the experience customers have, which is why intangible goods are often described as
“experience goods” (Hirsch, 1972; Lampel et al., 2000). We argue that experience can be “imag-
ined” whereby imagination is not linked to present observation but typically anchored in stories of
the past and visions of the future. Our findings thus suggest that harnessing the crowd for intangi-
ble projects requires a strong focus on imaginative narratives that allow audiences to get emotion-
ally involved and appreciate the value of the longer-term project journey.
Second, we find that narrative styles reflect the sophistication of technology projects are based
on. More specifically, we find that projects based on sophisticated technology, such as 3D printers
and software, are typically presented as results-in-progress, whereas projects relying on more basic
technology, such as food or clothing, are predominantly presented as ongoing journeys. Again, this
finding seems to correspond to the notion that realized or envisioned material outcomes often take
a central role in suggesting “value” in entrepreneurial storytelling (Garud et al., 2014b). In this
case, however, the problem of legitimizing new or advanced technology seems to become particu-
larly important (Griffith, 1999). Our findings suggest that for projects using new technology, it
becomes important to demonstrate the progression of projects along with the timeliness and utility
of new technology in practice (see also Orlikowski, 1992). Project narrations are therefore very
much linked to the “present state-of-the-art.” By contrast, simple technologies are more “timeless,”
their utility has been proven and can be imagined more easily. Yet, to add value, the new contexts
in which they will be used need to be stressed. Thus, in order to present such projects as “novel,”
external audiences expect a larger story around the rationale for initial project development. One
good example is toy houses, which may be based on simple materials but whose development can
be motivated by a combination of educational and creative drivers. Knowing about context and
history gives additional meaning to their novelty and utility.
Third, we find that the degree of social orientation of projects may affect the way they are nar-
rated. Social orientation refers to the extent to which projects serve social causes, rather than just
generating revenue (see e.g. Battilana and Lee, 2014; Haigh and Hoffman, 2014; Porter and
Kramer, 2011). We find that projects with a strong social orientation, such as food trucks or com-
munity projects, are typically narrated as ongoing journeys, whereas commercial projects are
214 Strategic Organization 15(2)

typically presented as results-in-progress. One explanation for this difference could be that one
defining characteristic of socially oriented projects is their concern for social change—beyond the
immediate capacity of any particular project. In order for a project to legitimately address that
change (and derive support from that), narrators will need to elaborate both on the historical con-
text, for example, of a particular need among beneficiary groups, and the larger vision of change
(ongoing journey style). By contrast, commercial projects are much more embedded in current
norms and structures of market capitalism and society at large. Also, their value is much more nar-
rowly linked to the utility of the actual project outcome (rather than its wider impact). Rather than
context and vision, the actual value derived from past project development and the ability to “go to
market” soon become more relevant (results-in-progress style).
We also find that (successful) project presentations often combine features of ongoing journey
and results-in-progress narration styles in particular when projects do not fall into any one cate-
gory. For example, high-tech software projects, low-tech toy projects, and socially oriented fashion
projects combine features affiliated with both narration styles. However, we also find that no mat-
ter in what combination, successfully funded campaigns typically address all critical elements
associated with each narration style. By comparison, unsuccessful campaigns often miss critical
elements of expected narrative styles. One interpretation of this finding is that with the increasing
professionalization of Kickstarter campaigns, audiences have become used to certain presentation
styles and thus assume project deficiencies if core style elements are missing. We recommend
future research to test the adoption of narration styles across a larger sample—of both successful
and unsuccessful projects—in order to further explore their capacity to affect success, along with
many other factors that drive the performance of campaigns.

Implications
With our study, we seek to contribute to two streams of research: the narrative perspective on entre-
preneurial and innovation processes, and research on crowds and crowdfunding. First, our study
can inform recent research on narrative dynamics in entrepreneurial processes (Garud et al., 2014a,
2014b; Navis and Glynn, 2011). Following this focus, we have been able to depict two generic
narratives—projects as ongoing journeys and results-in-progress—which may apply to various
entrepreneurial processes. Our findings particularly add nuance to our understanding of how nar-
ratives construct time (see e.g. Garud et al., 2014a; Gersick, 1994) and how this relates to the per-
ceived value of projects. Specifically, while both narratives construct connections between past,
present, and future, they do so in fundamentally different ways.
More specifically, we argue that the ongoing journey style is much more open for imagination
and re-contextualization—something that seems relevant where the “added value” of a project is
not immediately clear, for example, when projects are intangible, do without new technology, and/
or pursue less obvious or multi-faceted goals (e.g. transforming local communities). The results-
in-progress style is much more anchored not just “in the present,” but in the “present reality” of
value perception, where new technology is almost “automatically” seen as value-adding, where the
value added is visible and/or tangible, and where a project has evident market value. We argue that
project value perception and “temporal embedding/construction” are intertwined processes. Future
research needs to investigate the relevance of the two styles explored here in various contexts of
entrepreneurial communication to stakeholders.
Also, we suggest that narrative strategies to mobilize project support may differ depending on
whether audiences are “specialized” or “mixed.” For example, prior studies have focused on how
entrepreneurs try to mobilize funding for projects through professional banks, venture capitalists,
or other conventional financial institutions (Navis and Glynn, 2011). Crowdfunding presents a new
Manning and Bejarano 215

context where entrepreneurs not only face a much more diverse audience but where the purpose of
communication is multi-faceted, combining funding, marketing, and other objectives. In this con-
text, we find that entrepreneurial identity-building is not just affected by the “structures of the
market” (Navis and Glynn, 2011), but also by product and services properties which are designed
to appeal to potential consumers or users. This suggests that in times when entrepreneurs address
more “mixed” audiences to mobilize support for projects, for example, potential customers who
might also become sponsors, they are likely to ‘constuct value’ in multi-vocal and yet holistic ways
rather than addressing specific stakeholder expectations.
Second, we contribute to recent research on organizing crowds in general (Chesbrough, 2006;
Laursen and Salter, 2006) and crowdfunding as a specific funding practice (Belleflamme et al.,
2013; Colombo et al., 2013; Mollick, 2014). With regard to crowds, our research contributes to our
understanding of how entrepreneurs “communicate” to diverse audiences who might have various
interests in getting involved in projects. This insight may have important implications for crowd-
sourcing, open innovation, and other forms of participation in entrepreneurial and innovation pro-
cesses. For example, we can imagine that the employment of narrative styles might become
important for collaborative architectures in the context of open innovation (Baldwin and Von
Hippel, 2011; Ferraro et al., 2015; Fjeldstad et al., 2012). In order for these architectures to share
goals and mobilize contributions, it seems important to narrate projects in appropriate ways. In the
context of software development, for example, we would expect a results-in-progress style that
emphasizes what has been achieved and what the next steps will (or could) be. By comparison,
other participatory processes, such as developing sustainability standards (see, for example,
Reinecke et al., 2012), may be much more ambiguous and embedded in larger society contexts.
Not surprisingly, recent studies suggest that standard-setters in order to maintain their identity in
dynamic sustainability arenas often tell and connect stories about their origin and future vision,
following an ongoing journey style (Levy et al., 2016; Manning and Reinecke, 2016).
As for practices of crowdfunding more specifically, we show how certain critical features of
projects translate into different presentation strategies. We thereby shift focus from the network
function of crowdfunding (see, for example, Colombo et al., 2013) to the actual content of crowd-
funding campaigns and its role in funding success. Yet, we also realize that a number of factors
contribute to funding success (see, for example, Belleflamme et al., 2013; Colombo et al., 2013;
Mollick, 2014), such as the experience of funders, the feasibility of targets, the mobilization of
audiences prior to campaigns, and so on. Our findings indicate, however, that the use of narrative
styles may at least moderate the effect of other factors explaining funding success.
Our study also has a number of limitations that need to be addressed in future work. First, we
lack data on the actual perception of campaigns by viewers and the way they respond to what they
see. Through an experimental design, the various effects of narration styles could be tested with
different audiences. As part of the test, narration styles could be used for different types of projects
to better contextualize their effectiveness. Second, and related to this, our study omits various other
factors that may play a role in choosing narrative styles as well as in their effectiveness for getting
funded. Among them is the size of projects: while we can see a correlation between funding target
and resource needs (e.g. in case of high-tech projects), project scale itself may prompt audiences to
expect certain narration styles rather than others. Also, styles may vary by country of origin of
campaigns and differences in founding conditions of entrepreneurial teams. Finally, the choice of
narratives may interrelate with other success factors, such as the overall readiness of projects, the
choice of funding target, the mobilization of support prior to campaigns, and of course specific,
more or less competitive project features. Future research needs to incorporate such sources of
variation. Third, our findings may be affected by specifics of the platform Kickstarter, which not
only has become a highly professionalized platform making the adoption of dominant narration
216 Strategic Organization 15(2)

styles more likely, but which also, due to the funding structure, invites a lot of artistic and social
projects. Even though our discussion suggests that the narratives may be of importance in a range
of contexts, future research needs to elaborate this, for example, by examining their relevance on
different funding and media platforms. For this and other purposes, we suggest the use of qualita-
tive comparative analysis (QCA) to capture the relative importance of certain narrative styles in
different project samples. Fourth, another limitation of this study is our lack of longitudinal data.
Whereas we were able to capture through crowdfunding campaigns a potentially critical moment
of narrative construction in entrepreneurial processes, future research should try to investigate how
different narrations and narrative styles may interrelate or change over time. For example, to what
extent does the application of styles change as projects progress and what are key contingencies of
that? To what extent is the adoption of a certain style path-dependent in terms of generating certain
expectations among critical audiences and stakeholders?
In conclusion, this study has helped better understand the constitution of entrepreneurial narra-
tives through crowdfunding campaigns. Future research is invited to further link this case to other
contexts of narrative construction, such as marketing and media campaigns, project presentations,
and so on. Also, we see potential linkages to the impression management literature. Furthermore,
it will be interesting to learn how “virtual narratives” differ from narratives emerging from face-to-
face interactions. Finally, this study stimulates future research to pay more attention to both con-
textual conditions and performance implications of adopting certain narratives in entrepreneurial
processes—both in and beyond the context of crowdfunding.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the editors of the Special Issue and three anonymous reviewers for their very construc-
tive comments on earlier versions of the article. We are also very grateful to the Organizations and Social
Change Group at UMass Boston for providing tremendously helpful feedback throughout the process.
Furthermore, we are thankful to the MBA students of the capstone course Strategic Management at UMass
Boston (2012-2014) for assisting us with interview data collection. Finally, we would like to thank our third
coder Laura Bejarano for forcing us to sharpen our analytical categories.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Agrawal A, Catalini C and Goldfarb A (2011) Friends, family, and the flat world: The geography of crowd-
funding. Working Paper 16820. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Alderman N, Ivory C, McLoughlin I, et al. (2005) Sense-making as a process within complex service-led
projects. International Journal of Project Management 23: 380–385.
Aldrich HE and Fiol CM (1994) Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of
Management Review 19: 645–670.
Alvarez SA and Barney JB (2007) Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1: 11–26.
Baldwin C and Von Hippel E (2011) Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open
collaborative innovation. Organization Science 22: 1399–1417.
Bartel CA and Garud R (2009) The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organization
Science 20: 107–117.
Manning and Bejarano 217

Battilana J and Lee M (2014) Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social
enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals 8: 397–441.
Bayus BL (2013) Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community.
Management Science 59: 226–244.
Belleflamme P, Lambert T and Schwienbacher A (2013) Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of
Business Venturing 29: 585–609.
Blumer H (1954) What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review 19: 3–10.
Boje DM (1991) The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly 106–126.
Boje DM (2001) Narrative Methods for Organizational & Communication Research. London: Sage.
Brown N, Rappert B and Webster A (2000) Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Callon M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisher-
men of St. Brieuc Bay. Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge 32: 196–223.
Callon M (2007) An essay on the growing contribution of economic markets to the proliferation of the social.
Theory, Culture & Society 24: 139–163.
Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London:
Sage.
Chesbrough HW (2006) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Colombo MG, Franzoni C and Rossi Lamastra C (2013) Internal social capital and the attraction of early
contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39: 75–100.
Czarniawska B (1997) Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Czarniawska B (2004) Narratives in Social Science Research. London: Sage.
Dahlander L and Gann DM (2010) How open is innovation? Research Policy 39: 699–709.
Diesing P (1971) Patterns of Discovery in Social Sciences. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publications.
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14:
532–550.
Ferraro F, Etzion D and Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited.
Organization Studies 36: 363–390.
Fjeldstad ØD, Snow CC, Miles RE and Lettl C (2012) The architecture of collaboration. Strategic Management
Journal 33: 734–750.
Gartner WB (2007) Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Journal of Business Venturing
22: 613–627.
Garud R and Gehman J (2012) Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, rela-
tional and durational. Research Policy 41: 980–995.
Garud R and Giuliani AP (2013) A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of
Management Review 38: 157–160.
Garud R and Van de Ven AH (2002) Strategic change processes. In: Pettigrew A, Thomas H and Whittington
R (Eds), Handbook of Strategy and Management, London: Sage, pp. 206–231.
Garud R, Gehman J and Giuliani AP (2014a) Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A narrative per-
spective. Research Policy 43: 1177–1188.
Garud R, Kumaraswamy A and Karnøe P (2010) Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management
Studies 47: 760–774.
Garud R, Schildt HA and Lant TK (2014b) Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox
of legitimacy. Organization Science 25: 1479–1492.
Gersick CJ (1994) Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal 37:
9–45.
Gioia DA and Chittipeddi K (1991) Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic
Management Journal 12: 433–448.
218 Strategic Organization 15(2)

Gioia DA, Corley KG and Fabbri T (2002) Revising the past (while thinking in the future perfect tense).
Journal of Organizational Change Management 15: 622–634.
Grabher G (2002) The project ecology of advertising: Tasks, talents and teams. Regional Studies 36: 245–262.
Grabher G (2004) Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies.
Organization Studies 25: 1491–1514.
Griffith TL (1999) Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review 24:
472–488.
Haigh N and Hoffman AJ (2014) The new heretics hybrid organizations and the challenges they present to
corporate sustainability. Organization & Environment 27: 223–241.
Hirsch PM (1972) Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural industry systems.
American Journal of Sociology 77: 639–659.
Howe J (2008) Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business. New York:
Random House.
Kaplan S and Orlikowski WJ (2013) Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science 24: 965–995.
Kickstarter (2016) Stats. Available at: https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats (accessed 3 March 2016).
Lampel J, Lant T and Shamsie J (2000) Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural indus-
tries. Organization Science 11: 263–269.
Laursen K and Salter A (2006) Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation perfor-
mance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27: 131–150.
Levy DL, Reinecke J and Manning S (2016) The political dynamics of sustainable coffee: Contested value
regimes and the transformation of sustainability. Journal of Management Studies 53: 364–401.
Lounsbury M and Glynn MA (2001) Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of
resources. Strategic Management Journal 22: 545–564.
Lundin RA and Söderholm A (1995) A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of
Management 11: 437–455.
Manning S (2008) Embedding projects in multiple contexts - a structuration perspective. International
Journal of Project Management 26: 30–37.
Manning S and Reinecke J (2016) A modular governance architecture in-the-making: How transnational
standard-setters govern sustainability transitions. Research Policy 45: 618–633.
Manning S and Sydow J (2011) Projects, paths and practices: sustaining and leveraging project-based rela-
tionships. Industrial and Corporate Change 20: 1369–1402.
Martens ML, Jennings JE and Jennings PD (2007) Do the stories they tell get them the money they need?
The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal 50:
1107–1132.
Mollick E (2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing 29:
1–16.
Navis C and Glynn MA (2011) Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on
investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review 36: 479–499.
Nelson RR and Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Obstfeld D (2012) Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization
Science 23: 1571–1592.
O’Connor E (2004) Storytelling to be real: Narrative, legitimacy building and venturing. In: Hjorth D and
Steyaert C (eds) Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK, and
Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 105–124.
Orlikowski WJ (1992) The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.
Organization Science 3: 398–427.
Porter ME and Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review 89: 62–77.
Reinecke J, Manning S and Von Hagen O (2012) The emergence of a standards market: Multiplicity of sus-
tainability standards in the global coffee industry. Organization Studies 33: 789–812.
Shane S and Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review 25: 217–226.
Manning and Bejarano 219

Siggelkow N (2007) Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal 50: 20–24.
Simms K (2003) Paul Ricoeur. London: Routledge.
Söderlund J (2004) Building theories of project management: Past research, questions for the future.
International Journal of Project Management 22: 183–191.
Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management
Review 20: 571–610.
Teece DJ (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning 43: 172–194.
Van de Ven AH (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science 32: 590–
607.
Watson TJ and Bargiela-Chiappini F (1998) Managerial sensemaking and occupational identities in Britain
and Italy: The role of management magazines in the process of discursive construction. Journal of
Management Studies 35: 285–301.
Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM and Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization
Science 16: 409–421.
Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zimmerman MA and Zeitz GJ (2002) Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legiti-
macy. Academy of Management Review 27: 414–431.

Author biographies
Stephan Manning is an Associate Professor of Management and co-founder of the Organizations and Social
Change Research Group at the College of Management, University of Massachusetts Boston. His research
mainly covers three areas: sustainability standards, global services sourcing, and project-based organizing. He
has done field research in various countries, including China, Germany, Guatemala, Kenya, Romania, South
Africa, and the United States. His research has been published in numerous academic journals, such as
Strategic Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management Studies,
Organization Studies, and Research Policy. He serves as Senior Editor of Management and Organization
Review. He is also founding co-editor and author of the Organizations and Social Change Blog, and has writ-
ten for The Conversation, The Broker, and other blog platforms.
Thomas A Bejarano is a PhD Candidate in the Organizations and Social Change program at the College of
Management, University of Massachusetts Boston. His research focuses on entrepreneurial processes, inno-
vation, and geographic cluster development. In this regard, he has studied the role of incubators, individual
networks across organizations, and narrative processes, all of which are part of his dissertation project “The
Dynamics of Early Stage Cluster Development.” Related to this, he has done field research in both the United
States and Brazil, focusing on the clean tech sector. In parallel, he has started researching the link between
virtual entrepreneurial strategies, such as crowdfunding, and local embeddedness.