Managing platform ecosystems requires providers to govern the permeability of platform boundaries in order to strike a balance between openness and control. But is it worthwhile for platform providers to conduct screening processes for third-party offerings, or should they rather apply a laissez-faire approach and let the market determine winners and losers? In this study, we compare the market conditions on Kickstarter, one of the world's largest crowdfunding platforms, before and after a policy change that relaxed the previously stringent screening process for new campaigns. By analyzing over 230,000 crowdfunding campaigns with a combined funding of over $1.9 billion that cover a 4-year period around the policy change, we find that increasing platform openness was a double-edged sword for the platform's ecosystem. While Kickstarter's revenue from commissions surged after the policy change due to an increase in the number of campaigns available on the platform, funding conditions for project creators and backers deteriorated. Project creators have to cope with lower success rates and an intensified competition due to a growing disproportion of backers to campaigns, while backers face higher uncertainties as project creators invest less in reducing information asymmetries. Our evidence from this natural experiment therefore suggests that increasing platform openness for third-party offerings can destabilize a platform's ecosystem. We thus extend the literature on platform openness and on the implications of policy changes on platform ecosystems. Our findings also provide practical insights for different platform stakeholders into possible “ripple effects” that are triggered when policy changes alter platform openness.
AgrawalA., CataliniC., and GoldfarbA. (2010). Entrepreneurial Finance and the Flat-World Hypothesis: Evidence from Crowd-Funding Entrepreneurs in the Arts, Working paper.
2.
AgrawalA., CataliniC., and GoldfarbA. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy24 (2): 253–274.
3.
AhlersG.K.C., CummingD., GüntherC., and SchweizerD. (2015). Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice39 (4): 955–980.
4.
AlmirallE., and Casadesus-MasanellR. (2010). Open Versus Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery and Divergence, Academy of Management Review35 (1): 27–47.
5.
AndreoniJ. (2006). Philanthropy. In Serge-ChristopheK., and Jean MercierY. (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity (pp. 1201–1269). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
6.
BakosY., and KatsamakasE. (2004). Design and Ownership of Two-Sided Networks: Implications for Internet Intermediaries, Journal of Management Information Systems25 (2): 171–202.
7.
BaltagiB. (2008). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Chichester: Wiley.
8.
BayusB.L. (2013). Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell Ideastorm Community, Management Science59 (1): 226–244.
9.
BelleflammeP., LambertT., and SchwienbacherA. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the Right Crowd, Journal of Business Venturing29 (5): 585–609.
10.
BenlianA., HilkertD., and HessT. (2015). How Open is This Platform? The Meaning and Measurement of Platform Openness from the Complementors’ Perspective, Journal of Information Technology30 (3): 209–228.
11.
BoudreauK.J. (2010). Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access Vs Devolving Control, Management Science56 (10): 1849–1872.
12.
BoudreauK.J. (2012). Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom? An Early Look at Large Numbers of Software App Developers and Patterns of Innovation, Organization Science23 (5): 1409–1427.
13.
BoudreauK.J., and HagiuA. (2009). Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators. In GawerA. (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation (pp. 163–191). London: Edward Elgar.
14.
BurtchG., GhoseA., and WattalS. (2015). The Hidden Cost of Accommodating Crowdfunder Privacy Preferences: A Randomized Field Experiment, Management Science61 (5): 949–962.
15.
CameronA.C., and TrivediP.K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
CameronA.C., and TrivediP.K. (2013). Regression Analysis of Count Data, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
CardinalL.B., SitkinS.B., and LongC.P. (2004). Balancing and Rebalancing in the Creation and Evolution of Organizational Control, Organization Science15 (4): 411–431.
18.
ChenY., WangQ., and XieJ. (2011). Online Social Interactions: A Natural Experiment on Word of Mouth Versus Observational Learning, Journal of Marketing Research48 (2): 238–254.
19.
ChoudhuryV., and SabherwalR. (2003). Portfolios of Control in Outsourced Software Development Projects, Information Systems Research14 (3): 291–314.
20.
ChuJ., and ManchandaP. (2016). Quantifying Cross and Direct Network Effects in Online Consumer-to-Consumer Platforms, Marketing Science35 (6): 870–893.
21.
ClaussenJ., EsslingC., and KretschmerT. (2015). When Less Can Be More-Setting Technology Levels in Complementary Goods Markets, Research Policy44 (2): 328–339.
22.
ClaussenJ., KretschmerT., and MayrhoferP. (2013). The Effects of Rewarding User Engagement: The Case of Facebook Apps, Information Systems Research24 (1): 186–200.
23.
ConnellyB.L., CertoS.T., IrelandR.D., and ReutzelC.R. (2011). Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment, Journal of Management37 (1): 39–67.
24.
CoughlanP.J. (2004). The Golden Age of Home Video Games: From the Reign of Atari to the Rise of Nintendo, Harvard Business School Case Study9-704, 487.
25.
CusumanoM. (2010a). Cloud Computing and Saas as New Computing Platforms, Communications of the ACM53 (4): 27–29.
26.
CusumanoM.A. (2010b). Technology Strategy and Management Platforms and Services: Understanding the Resurgence of Apple, Communications of the ACM53 (10): 22–24.
27.
EconomidesN., and KatsamakasE. (2006). Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary Vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry, Management Science52 (7): 1057–1071.
EisenmannT., ParkerG., and Van AlstyneM.W. (2006). Strategies for Two-Sided Markets, Harvard Business Review84 (10): 92–101.
30.
EisenmannT.R., ParkerG., and Van AlstyneM.W. (2009). Opening Platforms: How, When and Why? In GawerA. (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation (pp. 131–162). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
31.
GhazawnehA., and HenfridssonO. (2013). Balancing Platform Control and External Contribution in Third-Party Development: The Boundary Resources Model, Information Systems Journal23 (2): 173–192.
32.
GoldbachT., KemperV., and BenlianA. (2014). Mobile Application Quality and Platform Stickiness under Formal Vs. Self-Control—Evidence from an Experimental Study, In:International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).Auckland, New Zealand.
33.
GoldfarbA., and TuckerC.E. (2011). Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising, Management Science57 (1): 57–71.
34.
HansenM.T., and HaasM.R. (2001). Competing for Attention in Knowledge Markets: Electronic Document Dissemination in a Management Consulting Company, Administrative Science Quarterly46 (1): 1–28.
KimS.K., and TiwanaA. (2014). Chicken or Egg? Sequential Complementarity Among Salesforce Control Mechanisms, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science44 (3): 1–18.
46.
KingM.F., and BalasubramanianS.K. (1994). The Effects of Expertise, End Goal, and Product Type on Adoption of Preference Formation Strategy, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science22 (2): 146–159.
47.
KirmaniA., and RaoA.R. (2000). No Pain, No Gain: A Critical Review of the Literature on Signaling Unobservable Product Quality, Journal of Marketing64 (2): 66–79.
48.
KirschL.J. (1996). The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development Process, Organization Science7 (1): 1–21.
49.
KirschL.J. (1997). Portfolios of Control Modes and is Project Management, Information Systems Research8 (3): 215–239.
50.
KirschL.J., SambamurthyV., KoD.-G., and PurvisR.L. (2002). Controlling Information Systems Development Projects: The View from the Client, Management Science48 (4): 484–498.
51.
KumarA., and TelangR. (2012). Does the Web Reduce Customer Service Cost? Empirical Evidence from a Call Center, Information Systems Research23 (3 part-1): 721–737.
52.
KuppuswamyV., and BayusB.L. (2014). Crowdfunding Creative Ideas: The Dynamics of Project Backers in Kickstarter, Working Papers/UNC Kenan-Flagler Research (Paper No.: 2013-15).
LeungM.D., and SharkeyA.J. (2014). Out of Sight, out of Mind? Evidence of Perceptual Factors in the Multiple-Category Discount, Organization Science25 (1): 171–184.
55.
LinM., PrabhalaN.R., and ViswanathanS. (2013). Judging Borrowers by the Company They Keep: Friendship Networks and Information Asymmetry in Online Peer-to-Peer Lending, Management Science59 (1): 17–35.
56.
LiuL., BormanM., and GaoJ. (2014). Delivering Complex Engineering Projects: Reexamining Organizational Control Theory, International Journal of Project Management32 (5): 791–802.
57.
LongJ.S. (1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables, Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
MollickE. (2014). The Dynamics of Crowdfunding: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Business Venturing29 (1): 1–16.
60.
OndrusJ., GannamaneniA., and LyytinenK. (2015). The Impact of Openness on the Market Potential of Multi-Sided Platforms: A Case Study of Mobile Payment Platforms, Journal of Information Technology30 (3): 260–275.
61.
OuchiW.G. (1979). A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms, Management Science25 (9): 833–848.
62.
ParkerG.G., and Van AlstyneM.W. (2005). Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design, Management Science51 (10): 1494–1504.
63.
ParkerG., and Van AlstyneM. (2010). Innovation, Openness & Platform Control, In:Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, New York: ACM, pp. 95–96.
64.
PoetzM.K., and SchreierM. (2012). The Value of Crowdsourcing: Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas?Journal of Product Innovation Management29 (2): 245–256.
65.
RemlerD.K., and Van RyzinG.G. (2011). Research Methods in Practice: Strategies for Description and Causation: Strategies for Description and Causation, Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
66.
RochetJ.-C., and TiroleJ. (2003). Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets, Journal of the European Economic Association1 (4): 990–1029.
67.
RysmanM. (2009). The Economics of Two-Sided Markets, The Journal of Economic Perspectives23 (3): 125–143.
68.
SchlagweinD., and Bjørn-AndersenN. (2014). Organizational Learning with Crowdsourcing: The Revelatory Case of Lego, Journal of the Association for Information Systems15 (11): 754–778.
69.
SchlagweinD., SchoderD., and FischbachK. (2010). Openness of Information Resources—A Framework-Based Comparison of Mobile Platforms, In:European Conference on Information Systems, Pretoria, South Africa.
70.
SchwienbacherA., and LarraldeB. (2012). Crowdfunding of Small Entrepreneurial Ventures. In CummingD. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance (pp. 369–391). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ThiesF., WesselM., and BenlianA. (2016). Effects of Social Interaction Dynamics on Platforms, Journal of Management Information Systems33 (3): 843–873.
77.
TiwanaA. (2014). Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy, Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann.
78.
TiwanaA. (2015). Evolutionary Competition in Platform Ecosystems, Information Systems Research26 (2): 266–281.
79.
TiwanaA., and KeilM. (2009). Control in Internal and Outsourced Software Projects, Journal of Management Information Systems26 (3): 9–44.
80.
TiwanaA., KonsynskiB., and BushA.A. (2010). Research Commentary-Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics, Information Systems Research21 (4): 675–687.
81.
TuckerC.E. (2014). Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls, Journal of Marketing Research51 (5): 546–562.
82.
TuckerC., and ZhangJ. (2011). How Does Popularity Information Affect Choices? A Field Experiment, Management Science57 (5): 828–842.
WesselM., ThiesF., and BenlianA. (2016). The Emergence and Effects of Fake Social Information: Evidence from Crowdfunding, Decision Support Systems90, 75–85.
86.
WestJ. (2003). How Open is Open Enough? Melding Proprietary and Open Source Platform Strategies, Research Policy32 (7): 1259–1285.
YeS., GaoG.G., and ViswanathanS. (2014). Strategic Behavior in Online Reputation Systems: Evidence from Revoking on Ebay, Management Information Systems Quarterly38 (4): 1033–1056.
89.
YoffieD.B., and KwakM. (2006). With Friends Like These: The Art of Managing Complementors, Harvard Business Review84 (9): 88–98.
