arbiter
JournalsAccount

When the crowd signals quality: A blind test of reward-based crowdfunding's informative value

Claire van Teunenbroek et al.

Journal of Business Venturing Insights2026https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2026.e00607article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Reward-based crowdfunding is widely used to raise early-stage capital, and practitioners use its outcomes as indicators of product viability. While this evaluative function is evident in practice and supported by conceptual arguments, it remains underexplored in academic research. This study provides a robust empirical examination of crowdfunding's informational value by examining the convergent validity between crowdfunding campaign success and expert assessments of intrinsic project features, under the condition that experts did not know the crowdfunding status. A sample of 120 business analysts assessed 20 high-tech Kickstarter projects, half of which were successful and half of which were unsuccessful, resulting in 240 expert evaluations. Despite being unaware of their funding status, the experts consistently rated successful projects higher on credibility, feasibility, reliability, and usefulness. However, experts rejected more projects than the crowd, possibly taking on a gatekeeper role in the form of a ‘rejection task’: rejecting unreliable projects rather than supporting promising projects. Our findings further show that experts and the crowd apply different evaluation logics, with the most pronounced differences emerging among campaigns that ultimately reached the funding threshold. Our results demonstrate that crowdfunding encodes a selective subset of quality dimensions—credibility, feasibility, and usefulness—but not innovation-related qualities such as novelty or uniqueness. By identifying which dimensions of quality crowdfunding outcomes actually reflect, the study advances theoretical understanding of its informational function. • Experts rate crowdfunded projects higher on feasibility and credibility. • Crowdfunding success signals consumer appeal, not innovation. • Experts disagree with backers on which projects deserve funding. • Study uses 240 blind evaluations of 20 high-tech Kickstarter campaigns. • Crowdfunding acts as both financial and informational tool.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2026.e00607

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{claire2026,
  title        = {{When the crowd signals quality: A blind test of reward-based crowdfunding's informative value}},
  author       = {Claire van Teunenbroek et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Business Venturing Insights},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2026.e00607},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

When the crowd signals quality: A blind test of reward-based crowdfunding's informative value

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.