The topics on social media and social networks are numerous. Social and the power of a large group of users cannot be underestimated. There is even a book titled “The Wisdom of the Crowds”, with the sub-title “Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few”. This is a best-seller book published in 2004.
Without going too much into detail, it is important to make an important distinction here. That is the distinction between humans and other social creatures like ants, termites or even meerkats. Humans have a mind of their own, can think for themselves and make decisions based on their thinking. That is, if you agree with the ability of humans to act by reason instead of drifts. Other creatures like ants act purely based on their instincts. Their behaviour is determined by pheromones that are left behind by other ants. It is a way of self-organizing, there is no planning, control or direct communication.
Since I visited The Mass Customization and Personalization Conference in Helsinki last month, I am puzzled by the confounding variety of definitions.
Joseph Pine told me he did not understand the whole fuzz about co-creation. According to him, co-creation is simply the act of a producer and consumer jointly shaping the fulfilment of a proposition. This ‘experience’ is becoming more and more commonplace as product delivery increasingly relies on a measure of cooperation and added value on the part of the user.
Co-creation has from its inception been synonymous with customer co-creation. It is about acknowledging the potential of the end user as a co-creative or co-developer in the innovation process. Co-creation entails the integral engagement of customers through the different cycles of the innovation process.
In practice customer co-creation is often limited to the ideation phase, the phase of netting the first insights and getting an initial grasp of potential solutions. This sounds pretty straightforward: Just call upon your audience to contribute their ideas, filter and cluster the useful bits and start developing.
This is what actually happens, under the cloak of crowdsourcing: Give us your idea and if it proves to be valuable, we will reward you. This exchange is often devoid of any conversation, apart from the perfunctory remarks from a moderator. The exchange is stripped down to a digital selection mechanism. It is however the conversation that makes co-creation truly valuable.
Brand ambassadors or slick street vendors?
Posted on October 25, 2009 by Raul Lansink in Branding, CommunitiesIn this era of Word of Mouth, having brand ambassadors proclaiming the virtues of your new & improved product is absolutely essential. But suppose you do not have a pool of ambassadors, what then? Well, you can simply buy them, can’t you? There are numerous intermediaries that offer a database of ‘pioneers’, ‘community leaders’ or simply ‘very cool people’. These individuals can leverage their status and heap praise on a particular product or brand. By association the product becomes desirable. Voila!
So supposedly this vanguard possesses the ability to enchant their tribe, simply by acting as, well, as a vanguard… We should not blame them for believing this. They are told that their voice counts, regardless whether they are recommending cookies or cars. Blinded by their newly elevated status, they grow oblivious the fact that they are actually putting their street credibility on the line. So while they are transferring credibility to the brand, their own personal brand erodes. Once they realize this, they will turn against the brand without any remorse, claiming it to be what it actually was: an alliance of cheap opportunism.
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..
Dialogue is an important aspect of community management. As a community manager, you have to cater to many interests, depending on the objective. First you have the people that are part of the community, you have your client and you have the discussion. As a community manager you have to make sure the process of communication between people will lead to something, for example new insights. The people that are part of the community all have their own personal interests, which may differ from each other and seem not to get any closer. That’s where the community manager plays an important role.
Every self-respecting communications agency nowadays has a Chief Community Officer. The CCO is responsible for the nurturing of a brand community. Every self-respecting brand wants a community of users, aficionados, evangelists and anyone else remotely engaged. The reasoning behind this craving is costs and exposure. What is more convincing then an unsuspected group of people proclaiming their brand preference? Word of Mouth and Peer to Peer is the best recommendation you can get as a brand. And it is free of charge!
Read more and discuss… »
Practice what you preach. A common saying, but nonetheless not being practiced widely I think. This is especially true for organizations. How many times have you been preached at, while the ‘preacher’ does not act like it? Not very motivating.
When we talk about co-creation, it is very important to practice what you preach. It’s still very difficult to measure the value of co-creation in amounts of money. That is even more true when we talk about the short term. Like other value creating methods, it pays on the long term, it needs investments in time on the short term that is not paid out immediately. You have to plant seeds, make the soil fertile and make sure heavy storms and bad weather doesn’t wash away everything making your time invested worthless.
Practice what you preach is true for everybody, it refers to your trustworthiness. If you can be trusted, if you dare to be transparent, if you do what you promise, then people will act more similar to you. That doesn’t mean you can be naive because you practice what you preach, but your seeds may start to grow.
For some people the saying can be more of application than it is for others. And even more in organizations. People that have important or key functions within companies are being watched and judged by more eyes and minds, their credibility is constantly being questioned, or at least negotiated. That brings opportunities and threats. It brings power, it gives tools to accelerate projects, makes it possible to connect with people to achieve something. However, if this power is misused, people will lose trust in you and it becomes even more difficult to rebuild it.
The moral of the story, it doesn’t matter who you are, or what ‘power’ you have, but always practice what you preach. When you plant a seed, nurture it well and you’ll be amazed what you can accomplish.
For the second time I did a joint session at Picnic with Albert Boswijk, director of the European Centre of Experience Economy. Our topic was Beyond Co-creation (I must admit this title sounds a bit trite..).
Our audience was the usual eclectic mix of students, designers, consultants, software engineers and an occasional marketing or innovation manager. I was pleasantly surprised to notice that compared to last year, people were far more familiar with co-creation. They were more interested in our concrete co-creation experience than in a visionary exposé about its potential virtues. So, in the end, the title was more apt than I presumed.
Read more...
» Sorting out your brand – are you sure?
» From Ipad to bowel movement 2.0
» Harnessing social capital, but what is it really?
» Why a bit of autism is not that bad
