As a firm that both runs a crowdfunding site (www.fundchange.com) and sells a white label crowdfunding platform (www.ideavibes.com), we see the groups that are successful are those that manage to mobilize a crowd and direct them to the project to fund. Dividing attention between multiple sites or multiple projects for that matter, is hard to pull off. The peer to peer nature of the crowdfunding model makes focusing your crowd to one destination to fund the optimal choice I think.
Waka Waka pulled it off. They had one project on Kickstarter.com. Where funders would get the product for an X ammount of funding(sponsorhip model). And the other project was on Symbid.com where funders would get Equity. So the trick seems to be, to divide your project on different sites, using different crowdfunding models.
Some platform allows for it, some don't. Anyway, I think every case is different... it may also create confusion in the potential donators.
As a firm that both runs a crowdfunding site (www.fundchange.com) and sells a white label crowdfunding platform (www.ideavibes.com), we see the groups that are successful are those that manage to mobilize a crowd and direct them to the project to fund. Dividing attention between multiple sites or multiple projects for that matter, is hard to pull off. The peer to peer nature of the crowdfunding model makes focusing your crowd to one destination to fund the optimal choice I think.
Answer source: http://www.ideavibes.com
Waka Waka pulled it off. They had one project on Kickstarter.com. Where funders would get the product for an X ammount of funding(sponsorhip model). And the other project was on Symbid.com where funders would get Equity. So the trick seems to be, to divide your project on different sites, using different crowdfunding models.
Answer source: http://www.wakawakalight.com/wakawaka/Home.html