Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Top of the Class: Mining Product Characteristics Associated with Crowdfunding Success and Failure of Home Robots

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent high-profile failures of domestic robotic products suggest more research is needed on factors that impact consumers’ willingness to purchase robots, and the success rates of the consumer robotics industry compared with other innovative technologies. Using data from two crowdfunding sites (Kickstarter and Indiegogo), we summarize the applications, forms, prices, contexts of use, target populations, and sociality of potential consumer and home robots. We then use statistical analysis, predictive modeling, and word co-occurrence to determine which characteristics are associated with increased product support by early market consumers, finding that health and fitness, security and monitoring, and general education applications, cartoon-like and animal-like robot forms, and single user group robots have significantly more backers. We also find that social robots have a mean of 1.2–3.2 times as many backers as non-social robots and that every twofold increase in price results in a 20% decrease in financial supporters. Product reviews from these sites are additionally used to identify product features consumers found important. Finally, analyses of the failure rates of social and home robots find that these products are not failing more frequently than other innovative products overall. This research is among the first to study factors influencing consumers’ purchasing behavior of home robots, and to use data mining methods to gain insights into home and consumer robot design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.kickstarter.com/.

  2. https://www.indiegogo.com/.

  3. Naïve Bayes was used as it outperformed our Logistic Regression and Neural Network models.

  4. Tenfold CV was chosen as ten is a popular and often-recommended choice in k-fold CV [55], as it has been shown to provide reasonable estimates of accuracy [56].

  5. https://github.com/cjhutto/vaderSentiment.

  6. https://spacy.io/.

References

  1. Types of Robots—ROBOTS: your guide to the world of robotics: https://robots.ieee.org/learn/types-of-robots/. Accessed 29 Sept 2019

  2. Service robots: global sales value reaches 12.9 billion USD: https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/service-robots-global-sales-value-reaches-12.9-billion-usd. Accessed 29 Sept 2019

  3. A robot in every home: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-robot-in-every-home-2008-02/. Accessed 01 Oct 2019

  4. Onishi N (2006) In a wired South Korea, robots will feel right at home. The New York Times

  5. Silvia BK, Bernstein DP, Michaud RG (2010) Consumer robotics: state of the industry and public opinion. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/iqp-all/2450

  6. Anki, Jibo, and Kuri: What we can learn from social robots that didn’t make it. IEEE Spectrum— IEEE Spectrum. https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/home-robots/anki-jibo-and-kuri-what-we-can-learn-from-social-robotics-failures. Accessed 29 Sept 2019

  7. Why the pursuit of a “Killer App” for home robots is fraught with peril IEEE Spectrum—IEEE Spectrum: https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/home-robots/why-the-pursuit-of-a-killer-app-for-home-robots-is-fraught-with-peril. Accessed 29 Sept 2019

  8. De Graaf M et al (2017) Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp 224–233

  9. Forlizzi J (2007) How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 129–136

  10. Alexander DL et al (2008) As time goes by: do cold feet follow warm intentions for really new versus incrementally new products? J Mark Res 45(3):307–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stanko MA, Henard DH (2016) How crowdfunding influences innovation. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 57(3):15

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jones JL (2006) Robots at the tipping point: the road to iRobot Roomba. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 13(1):76–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Consumer robots are dead; long live Alexa: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/12/13/consumer-robots-dead-long-live-alexa/2272460002/. Accessed 29 Sept 2019

  14. Kwak SS et al (2017) The effects of organism-versus object-based robot design approaches on the consumer acceptance of domestic robots. Int J Soc Robot 9(3):359–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ray C et al (2008) What do people expect from robots? In: 2008 IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 3816–3821

  16. Li D et al (2010) A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int J Soc Robot 2(2):175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lohse M et al (2007) What can I do for you? Appearance and application of robots. Proc AISB 2007:121–126

    Google Scholar 

  18. PublicOpinion—European Commission: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/search/robots/surveyKy/1044. Accessed 29 Sept 2019

  19. de Graaf MM et al (2016) Long-term acceptance of social robots in domestic environments: insights from a user’s perspective. In: AAAI spring symposia

  20. Randall N et al (2019) More than just friends: in-home use and design recommendations for sensing socially assistive robots (SARs) by older adults with depression. Paladyn J Behav Robot 10(1):237–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fernaeus Y et al (2010) How do you play with a robotic toy animal?: A long-term study of Pleo. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on interaction design and children, pp 39–48

  22. Paepcke S, Takayama L (2010) Judging a bot by its cover: an experiment on expectation setting for personal robots. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 45–52

  23. Scholtz J, Bahrami S (2003) Human–robot interaction: development of an evaluation methodology for the bystander role of interaction. In: SMC’03 Conference proceedings. 2003 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics. conference theme-system security and assurance (Cat. No. 03CH37483), pp 3212–3217

  24. Gourville JT (2006) Eager sellers and stony buyers. Harv Bus Rev 84(6):98–106

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jhang JH et al (2012) Get it? Got it. Good! Enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity. J Mark Res 49(2):247–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Entrepreneurship and the U.S. Economy: https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.htm. Accessed 29 Sept 2019

  27. Three Common Causes of Innovation Failure—Nielsen: 2018. https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2018/three-common-causes-innovation-failure/. Accessed 29 Sept 2019

  28. The top 20 reasons startups fail: 2018. https://www.cbinsights.com/research/startup-failure-reasons-top/. Accessed 29 Sept 2019

  29. Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bass FM (1969) A new product growth for model consumer durables. Manag Sci 15(5):215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mahajan V et al (1995) Diffusion of new products: empirical generalizations and managerial uses. Mark Sci 14(3_supplement):G79–G88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Moore GA (1991) Crossing the chasm: marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. Harper-Collins, New York

  33. Feldman LP, Armstrong GM (1975) Identifying buyers of a major automotive innovation: the introduction of the rotary-engined Mazda offers a unique opportunity to study consumer innovators. J Mark 39(1):47–53

    Google Scholar 

  34. Laukkanen T, Pasanen M (2008) Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: how they differ from other online users? J Financ Serv Mark 13(2):86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Martínez E, Polo Y (1996) Adopter categories in the acceptance process for consumer durables. J Prod Brand Manag 5(3):34–47

  36. NW, 1615 L. St et al. 28% of Americans are ‘strong’ early adopters of technology. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC

  37. Robertson TS, Kennedy JN (1968) Prediction of consumer innovators: application of multiple discriminant analysis. J Mark Res 5(1):64–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Manross GG, Rogers EM (2004) Closing the chasm. Strategy Research Institute, pp 1–14

  39. Valente TW (1996) Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Soc Netw 18(1):69–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Coskun A et al (2018) Is smart home a necessity or a fantasy for the mainstream user? A study on users’ expectations of smart household appliances. Int J Des 12(1):7–20

  41. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York

  42. 2016. Crowdfunding demographics and kickstarter project statistics. Art of the kickstart. https://artofthekickstart.com/crowdfunding-demographics-kickstarter-project-statistics/

  43. Romanowski CJ, Nagi R (2001) A data mining-based engineering design support system: a research agenda. In: Data mining for design and manufacturing. Massive Computing, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, pp 161–178

  44. Braha D (2013) Data mining for design and manufacturing: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  45. Qi J et al (2016) Mining customer requirements from online reviews: a product improvement perspective. Inf Manag 53(8):951–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Giess MD et al (2008) Informing design using data mining methods. In: ASME 2002 International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, pp 207–215

  47. Jin J et al (2016) What makes consumers unsatisfied with your products: review analysis at a fine-grained level. Eng Appl Artif Intell 47:38–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bae JK, Kim J (2011) Product development with data mining techniques: a case on design of digital camera. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9274–9280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang Y et al (2018) Mapping customer needs to design parameters in the front end of product design by applying deep learning. CIRP Ann 67(1):145–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Tucker C, Kim H (2011) Predicting emerging product design trend by mining publicly available customer review data. DS 68-6: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on engineering design (ICED 11), impacting society through engineering design, volume 6: design information and knowledge, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.-19. 08. 2011

  51. Tourangeau R (2018) The survey response process from a cognitive viewpoint. Qual Assur Educ 26(2):169–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Randall N (2019) A survey of robot-assisted language learning (RALL). ACM Trans Hum Robot Interact (THRI) 9(1):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  53. Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):167–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Duffy BR et al (1999) What is a social robot? In: 10th Irish conference on artificial intelligence and cognitive science, University College Cork, Ireland, 1–3 Sept, 1999

  55. Nguyen H et al (2018) Comparative study of sentiment analysis with product reviews using machine learning and lexicon-based approaches. SMU Data Sci Rev 1(4):7

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kohavi R (1995) A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. Ijcai 1995:1137–1145

    Google Scholar 

  57. Stratigi M et al (2019) Ratings versus reviews in recommender systems: a case study on the amazon movies dataset. In: European conference on advances in databases and information systems, pp 68–76

  58. Gilbert CHE, Hutto E (2014) Vader: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In: Eighth international conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM-14), p 82. http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/icwsm14.vader.hutto.pdf. Accessed 16 Apr 2020

  59. Sung J et al (2009) Sketching the future: assessing user needs for domestic robots. In: RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 153–158

  60. Lieven T et al (2011) Who will buy electric cars? An empirical study in Germany. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 16(3):236–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Belch MA, Willis LA (2002) Family decision at the turn of the century: has the changing structure of households impacted the family decision-making process? J Consum Behav Int Res Rev 2(2):111–124

    Google Scholar 

  62. 2013. Dads are “Making Inroads” but moms still “rule the roost.” Child’s Play Communications. https://childsplaypr.com/blog/dads-making-inroads-moms-still-rule-roost/

  63. de Graaf MM et al (2016) Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes. Interact Stud 17(3):462–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Purington A et al (2017) Alexa is my new BFF: social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the amazon echo. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 2853–2859

  65. Šabanović S et al (2013) PARO robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. In: 2013 IEEE 13th International conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR), pp 1–6

  66. Jeong K et al (2018) Fribo: a social networking robot for increasing social connectedness through sharing daily home activities from living noise data. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 114–122

  67. Mitchell WJ et al (2011) A mismatch in the human realism of face and voice produces an uncanny valley. i-Perception 2(1):10–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Saygin AP et al (2011) The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci 7(4):413–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Moreau CP et al (2001) “What is it?” Categorization flexibility and consumers’ responses to really new products. J Consum Res 27(4):489–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C (2006) Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the Roomba vacuum in the home. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction, pp 258–265

  71. Fink J (2012) Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human–robot interaction. In: International conference on social robotics, pp 199–208

  72. Kwon M et al (2016) Human expectations of social robots. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 463–464

  73. 3 Amazon Echo security features to turn on when you leave the house: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/3-amazon-echo-security-features-to-turn-on-when-you-leave-the-house/. Accessed 17 Jan 2021

  74. Belpaeme T et al (2018) Social robots for education: a review. Sci Robot 3(21):eaat5954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Wu W-CV et al (2015) Instructional design using an in-house built teaching assistant robot to enhance elementary school English-as-a-foreign-language learning. Interact Learn Environ 23(6):696–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Kidd CD, Breazeal C (2008) Robots at home: understanding long-term human-robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2008. IROS 2008, pp 3230–3235

  77. Zhang H et al (2018) Path planning for the mobile robot: a review. Symmetry. 10(10):450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Truong X-T, Ngo TD (2017) Toward socially aware robot navigation in dynamic and crowded environments: a proactive social motion model. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 14(4):1743–1760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Zeyer A et al (2018) Improved training of end-to-end attention models for speech recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03294

  80. Dong L et al (2018) Speech-transformer: a no-recurrence sequence-to-sequence model for speech recognition. In: 2018 IEEE International conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pp 5884–5888

  81. Pierson HA, Gashler MS (2017) Deep learning in robotics: a review of recent research. Adv Robot 31(16):821–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Afouras T et al (2018) Deep audio-visual speech recognition. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2889052

  83. Etter V et al (2013) Launch hard or go home!: predicting the success of kickstarter campaigns. In: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on online social networks, pp 177–182

  84. Mollick ER (2015) Delivery rates on Kickstarter. Available at SSRN 2699251

  85. Jibo social robot: where things went wrong: 2018. https://www.therobotreport.com/jibo-social-robot-analyzing-what-went-wrong/. Accessed 01 Oct 2019

  86. Van Camp J. My Jibo is dying and it’s breaking my heart. Wired

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Natasha Randall, Selma Šabanović, Staša Milojević & Apurva Gupta

Authors
  1. Natasha Randall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Selma Šabanović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Staša Milojević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Apurva Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natasha Randall.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Randall, N., Šabanović, S., Milojević, S. et al. Top of the Class: Mining Product Characteristics Associated with Crowdfunding Success and Failure of Home Robots. Int J of Soc Robotics 14, 149–163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00776-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00776-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation