Thanks to Jeff Howe’s seminal work, crowdsourcing has acquired mythical proportions. Crowdsourcing has become the panacea for every problem an organization encounters. Just bring in the guys from ‘outside’ and you will be swamped by amazing ideas. And if you are lucky, they will even do the job themselves. How unbelievable is that?

But it actually happens. Galaxy Zoo shows how a crowd of amateur experts expands our ability to charter the skies. Threadless, the T-shirt design community, and Dell Ideastorm are famous trendsetting examples. The basic principle in each of these cases is outsourcing an act formerly performed by inside experts to an undefined outside group.

The point with this definition is that it is simply too broad. Is it just about aggregating data or ideas by a score of outside individuals? Should there be a measure of interaction between the ‘agent’ and the participant beyond stipulating the rules and saying thanks? Is it about stirring a collective exchange and enrichment of ideas and experiences among peers?

To date, it appears to be all this and more. And why should this be wrong? Crowdsourcing is a web-enabled phenomenon rearing its head in ever-changing shapes. Why this effort to tie it down? Because it encourages misuse. Every week a new crowdsourcing initiative is announced. On close inspection, many of these initiatives are just contests or online research programs:
- People are asked to contribute a design or join a panel.
- They receive a brief with guidelines or a regular set of questions.
- They might win something.
- There is limited feedback and dialogue.

Let’s not fool ourselves; these are all too familiar techniques from the marketing toolbox. Marketing agencies simply repackage their tools, as a tried and trusted way to bask in the glow of a fashionable trend. Simply stating that any open call for ideas or insights, incidentally fed by a few probing questions, is actually crowdsourcing, demotes the whole idea.

Sometimes it gets even worse, as agencies try to solicit ideas and concepts without proper reward. Look at the recent uproar about these practices by Crispin Porter and others. Crowdsourcing is here used as a way to curb expenses by assigning a remunerated task to a group desperate enough to perform this freely.

So what? Nobody is forced to participate, right? If this provides an even infinitesimal chance to win attention, why not try? There are two reasons why this is wrong.

First, there is the ethical argument of honoring someone’s contribution. The value exchange should be balanced. If you willingly ignore this, you are simply out to exploit a vulnerable relationship.

Second, there is a self-interested argument. In my view, the ultimate benefit of crowdsourcing is not the value transaction, but the cementing of a productive relationship with your stakeholders, vastly expanding your ability to act in a volatile world. So better treat them well..