AdAge wrote a piece yesterday noting the momentum of crowdsourcing. It reminded me of a couple of posts on crowdsourcing that have been on my mind. The first, by Becky McCray, asks, Is crowdsourcing a good thing for rural designers? Her post was in part a response to a widely read piece named Spec Work is Evil by Andrew Hyde.
For several years I have been interested in crowdsoucring, which Jeff Howe defines as the “act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.” Applications of crowdsourcing include Yahoo! Answers, Wikipedia, Elance and iStockphoto. My favorite description of crowdsourcing was used to illustrate a science solution finder named InnoCentive: Let’s say you want to know an obscure fact such as the names of the starting pitchers for the first game of the 1965 World Series. If you ask only one person the question, you probably won’t get a correct answer. But if you ask the question to a large audience on a talk radio show, someone out there will likely call in with the right answer. Crowdsourcing can be powerful stuff.
So, why do some people have a problem with crowdscourcing? Andrew Hyde looks at a popular crowdsourcing website named crowdSPRING, which asks graphic designers to compete on logo designs for the chance to win a prize, such as $5,000. He argues that such work is inherently bad for designers, because so many participants end up doing free work and never get paid. Becky McCray added fuel to the fire when a person she interviewed indicated participation in crowdSPRING being somewhat similar to gambling. The person interviewed knows it’s an uphill battle to win, but she is addicted to the contests.
That’s not to say most crowdscourcing is ethically challenged. Applications like Yahoo! Answers, iStockphoto and open source software are generally seen as good things by most participants. Furthermore, even a company like crowdSPRING, which has been a lightning rod for controversy, has its redeeming qualities. For example, although the person whom Becky McCray interviewed acknowledged the distracting addiction of crowdSPRING, she also cited the positive elements: “Pairing up with websites like crowdSpring makes it possible for me to do business with people from all over the world… I don’t have to spend money or time promoting myself or finding clients… I can just focus on my design, and I’m not held back by being in a rural area with no local clients or connections.”
Ross Kimbaraousky, co-founder of crowdSPRING, also responded with good points to the Spec Work is Evil post that attacked his company: “We’ve built a level playing field where people can compete on the basis of their talent, not the size of their offices, where they went to school, or fancy brochures. “
I don’t know where I would come down on the debate over crowdSPRING. There is a lot more to understand. I would probably tend to say that the benefits of crowdSPRING outweigh the problems that have been cited. I certainly think it’s a very innovative service. But I figured out what bothers me about the whole debate around crowdSPRING. Although crowdSPRING co-founder Ross Kimbaraousky and others make some great points about the benefits of crowdSPRING, they don’t address head on some of the concerns that have been raised. I would like to see Ross say something like “Doing spec work for free can indeed create concerns.” He could go on to put the concerns in perspective and then point out the benefits of crowdSPRING that outweigh the concerns.
Venture capitalists often say that they want entrepreneurs to admit what they don’t know. Glossing over an information gap can be worse than simply saying, “I don’t know.” (Information gaps can be filled. Credibility is hard to restore.) The same applies to companies with controversial ethical issues. I would prefer to see executives not only point out their companies’ benefits but also acknowledge potentially controversial items and address them head on and not gloss over them.
Alan Kelley
