Success Factors in Reward based and Equity based Crowdfunding in Finland

Master’s Thesis 
57 
if people do not support the idea, it is not carried out”. Additionally, marketing op-
portunities seemed to be important to the entrepreneurs. Crowdfunding enabled not 
only funding, but marketing possibilities for Ambronite and EkoRent. 
In addition to the wider benefits attainable through reward-based crowdfunding, Su-
ojanen felt that the relative smallness of the funding target meant reward-based 
crowdfunding was best suited for EkoRent. This is closely aligned with academic lit-
erature stating investment-based crowdfunding is better suited for larger amounts and 
reward-based crowdfunding suiting smaller amounts (Belleflamme et al., 2014). Su-
oheimo on the other hand explained how equity crowdfunding would not have suited 
Ambronite, because “people were not attracted to the venture as an investment, but 
wanted a product like it”. This seems to be an informed decision, since companies 
such as Ambronite, offering a tangible product as compensation tend to attract more 
funding (Belleflamme et al., 2013). 
9.2.3. Choice of Crowdfunding Platform 
The interviewed ventures had slightly differing motivations for their choice of crowd-
funding platform. The most common reasoning behind choice of platform seemed to 
be the monetary fee platforms collect for their services. Service fees acted as a criteri-
on for choosing a crowdfunding platform for Ambronite, Autolla Nepaliin and Pyyni-
kin Käsityöläispanimo. For Ambronite it seemed to be a secondary concern, but Au-
tolla Nepaliin and Pyynikin Käsityöläispanimo were more affected by it. Both Autolla 
Nepaliin and Pyynikin Käsityöläispanimo facilitated their crowdfunding independent-
ly, at least in part due to high platform service fees. 
In addition to service fees, Autolla Nepaliin and Pyynikin Käsityöläispanimo both 
held the lack of meaningful marketing opportunities as a criterion for choosing to fa-
cilitate funding independently. Autolla Nepaliin already had 11 to 12 thousand fol-
lowers on Facebook in the beginning of their crowdfunding campaign, while the bud-
ding crowdfunding platform Mesenaatti had only about 3000. Thus, Mesenaatti’s 
marketing reach did not seem attractive enough to compensate for the service fee ac-
cording to Leppänen. Pyynikin Käsityöläispanimo had adequate marketing capabili-

---