Agnieszka Kwapisz sat down to parse through 635 Kickstarter campaigns, searching for a universal language of persuasion—and discovered the opposite. The Montana State University professor and her analysis revealed that there is no magic formula for crowdfunding success, no perfect set of words that unlocks donations across every project and sector. Instead, what works depends entirely on knowing your audience, your project, and the money you're asking for.
Kwapisz, a professor of management and entrepreneurship at Montana State's Jake Jabs College of Business and Entrepreneurship, published her findings this March in the Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal under the title "Framing novelty in crowdfunding: Which words win support, where, and at what stakes." The research examined Kickstarter campaigns posted between 2010 and 2024, using a text analysis tool to map language patterns against outcomes—a clean measure of success or failure, since Kickstarter only releases funds if campaigns hit their goals.
The researcher categorized language into three types of "hype": capability/rigor words like "tested," "scientific," and "sophisticated"; excellence/status language such as "premier" and "renowned"; and attitude/affect descriptors including "incredible" and "epic." The campaigns themselves were sorted into five sectors: arts, design, technology, entertainment, and consumer goods.
What emerged from the data challenged the assumption that piling on hype language boosts any campaign. Instead, Kwapisz found clear sector-specific patterns. Capability/rigor language worked best for technology projects—backers wanted proof of technical competence. Entertainment campaigns thrived on attitude/affect language, where emotion and enthusiasm mattered most. But in design, excellence/status language actually hurt: calling something "renowned" or "premier" apparently triggered skepticism rather than confidence.
One striking pattern cut across all sectors: as funding goals climbed higher, capability/rigor language became increasingly powerful. In other words, when asking for larger sums, entrepreneurs needed to sound rigorous and tested, not just excited or prestigious.
The research carries particular weight now, as generative AI rapidly reshapes how entrepreneurs write campaign copy. Most AI-generated text, Kwapisz notes, tends toward homogeneity and consistent patterns of word choice—which means it's likely using "wrong" language for many projects without realizing it. She cautions that entrepreneurs relying on AI tools to draft their pitches should be skeptical of whatever hype words their algorithm suggests.
For Kickstarter and other platforms, the implications are equally practical. Rather than encouraging all creators to use the same persuasive language, these sites could offer context-specific guidance tailored to sector and funding amount. Kwapisz imagines platforms using her findings to nudge creators toward language that actually fits their project and audience, rather than one-size-fits-all scripts.
The study does have limits: it cannot prove that specific words caused success, since campaigns depend on factors beyond text—existing networks, social media reach, off-platform outreach. But the patterns are clear enough to reshape how we think about the language of asking. The lesson is simple and counterintuitive: knowing when to dial down the hype may be just as important as knowing when to turn it up.