It's a good week for me to be guest blogging. The topic of "crowdsourcing" was brought up by none other than Dave Winer, who recently explained in response to a Twitter question from Jay Rosen, why he doesn't like the word. I obviously can't speak on behalf of Jeff Howe, but since I've also given the topic thought I'll at least put my thoughts on the table.
Dave writes...
I don't like it cause it's cheap, it's always used by people who want something for nothing....Bottom-line: I don't think of myself as part of a crowd when I write on
the Internet. When you describe me that way I don't like it.
As you can see in the comments, I've gone back and forth with the word myself - but have made my peace which I'll explain below. For proof of how long I've been mulling over the word "crowdsourcing" see this NewAssignment post which I edited in late 2006. In it Chris Messina and Tara Hunt brought up a point that stuck with me for some time which is that "crowdsourcing" sounds like exploitation. I believe that ethos comes from its relation to "outsourcing" which in the 80's had a successful campaign to turn it into something un-American and the source of many woes. As a child of the 80's outsourcing to me = bad.
Another reason why I had issues with the word was just because I suffered from overload. I worked on Assignment Zero which was "crowdsourced journalism" and from there I was Jeff Howe's research assistant on the book "crowdsourcing." I don't think anybody can blame me for being overloaded. I spent my fair share of time using it a lot and after the book was done being researched it disappeared from my vocabulary completely.
But now that I've had time to step back and decompress I no longer have qualms with the word. Why? Well first, let's take a closer look at what Dave wrote in his piece.
"One more reason -- it's not useful because it doesn't actually model
what's going on. In the 20th century everything was about mass markets
and centralization. You could explain things with concepts like crowds.
In this century we're going the other way."
Here's where I have to respectfully disagree with Dave. I think the word "crowdsourcing" is VERY useful for describing what is happening. Yes, there is a lot of one-to-one conversation that is happening, but there is still (and always will be) one-to-many conversations. Except now those conversations can be interactive. You can SOURCE the crowd you are marketing your message to. You can ask them for feedback.
In fact, I'd argue that mass marketing isn't disappearing, it's increasing. I can now mass market myself if I want! Twenty years ago it would have been very difficult for a 26-year-old nobody to market themselves. The cost of marketing you or your product has gone down. And the ability to rely on the crowd to help you define your product/positioning, etc, is easy because the modes of communication are there. Just because the audience can talk back doesn't mean they aren't an audience. It just means the relationship is different and you can make them part of the process.
I can't think of another word that captures the phenomena of Wikipedia, iStockphoto, Threadless, etc, better than crowdsourcing. Perhaps I could think of a phrase, but a single word? Believe me, if I had a better word I'd put it in this post and then I'd have the book coming out this August. But the truth is - crowdsourcing is a single word that captures it very well.
I think because of its seeming connection to "outsourcing," crowdsourcing gets a negative connotation even before people take the time to become familiar with how it's defined. This is too bad, because I think the word could also be connected to "open source" which leaves a great taste in people's mouth. In fact one way of describing "crowdsourcing" is: "the application of open source practices to fields outside of software."
Let's take a look at the white paper definition: "the act of taking a task traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people, in the form of an open call."
I understand Dave's point: Nobody wants to be "part of the crowd." But people do want to be winners. To be a "winner" you have to be picked out from the crowd. That's the Threadless model. There are countless crowdsourcing startups that rest on the notion of competition and reward. Take Innocentive, they create a small marketplace with crowds where somebody comes out a winner, having produced something of high value - and they are rewarded. So it's not exploitation, nobody is forced into anything and like all things if people are good at what they do - they are rewarded. Want to prove you are a "winner" - first you need to rise up amongst the crowd. If you aren't competing, you can't be a winner.
As Dave notes you wouldn't say to your wife she was "part of the crowd you were thinking of marrying" and I certainly wouldn't recommend that. But that description isn't inaccurate. And as Dave knows - it's all about positioning. You might say to your wife "of all the women in the world, you were the one for me." Both statements are accurate, but the second one won't put you in the dog house. So - whether or not a company uses the word "crowd" (and I can understand why it's less appropriate at times) the fact is - the 'crowd' is part of the scenario.
I'd rather call a spade a spade then pander to my personal notions of self-importance. Yes, I am part of the crowd. That doesn't mean I can't be a winner, produce original work and get recognition for it. That isn't easy - but neither is life. And guess what, you live it amongst a crowd. Let's not pretend that the crowd doesn't exist.
From Fight Club: "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."
Recent Comments