Four Models for Competitive Crowdsourcing
by Hutch Carpenter
Crowdsourcing is heating up in terms of corporate interest. Pepsi's decision to skip the Super Bowl in favor of a crowdsourced ideas initiative - Pepsi Refresh - is an example of the interest in the market. Digital strategy, marketing and design firm Last Exit called crowdsourcing a top digital marketing trend for 2010.
Contests are a particular form of crowdsourcing that are proving to be beneficial in a number of areas. Contests allow people from around the world to compete with one another on a specific challenge put forth by an organization. Participation is motivated by incentives commensurate with the level of the challenge.
The contest version of crowdsourcing has its own activities for gathering, filtering and selecting among the submissions of people. These activities are:
Crowdsourcing starts with the contributions of people from around the globe. These submissions are aggregated into a common site. Submissions are provided in the format matching the contest objectives.
People provide their feedback on the submissions of others. This feedback can be up-down votes, star ratings, comments and buying into ideas with virtual currency. This process can be collaborative, helping refine submissions.
Organizations establish panels of experts who review the crowdsourced submissions, and select those best meeting their requirements. Experts possess distinct domain knowledge to make the final decision in the contest.
The winners of the contest are determined by people's votes and other measures. This selection process is a mix of overall crowd sentiment, weighted for higher reputed members, and the power of individuals to leverage word-of-mouth marketing.
These components can be integrated in different ways to provide four different models for running crowdsourced contests. These four models are described below.
Model #1: Crowd Sentiment, Expert Decision
The Crowd Sentiment, Expert Decision model allows organizations to include the sentiment of the crowd as part of their decision-making process. This is valuable input for contests where the selected submissions will ultimately be put in front of the market. The crowdsourced feedback provides an early read on the potential market reaction.
This model is also ideal for cases where a collaborative spirit can refine and improve submissions. Especially for more complex contests, feedback from interested collaborators is valuable for fully understanding the opportunity in the submission and its weaknesses.
Two organizations are using our tools for this model of crowdsourcing contest. Cisco is seeking $1 billion ideas through its I-Prize contest. And the Enterprise 2.0 Conference is managing its competitive speaker proposal process with this model. Both are utilizing crowdsourced feedback as part of the decision-making process.
Model #2: Crowd Decision
The Crowd Decision model leverages the crowd for all parts of the contest. This model provides a great platform for organizations to better understand the meaning that is associated to their products and services. The submissions reflect the creativity of customers and interested parties. The feedback on a submission signals the intensity of feeling for someone's particular interpretation of meaning. Winners are determined by how the community rates their submissions.
This model is ideal for marketing purposes. It becomes a strategic engagement model, particularly where customers are talking about your organization in social media. It's a fun way to increase company awareness.
Model #3: Expert Decision
The Expert Decision model engages the global community to find solutions to complex problems. Experts review the submissions, identifying those best addressing the objective of the contest. The sentiment of the crowd is not an element in these contests, as they typically address more technical challenges.
This model also prevents theft by competitors of people's ideas. The submissions are only visible to designated experts associated with the sponsoring organization. The closed nature of submissions is important for generating interest from people with the technical competence to address a challenge.
Model #4: American Idol
The American Idol model is so-named because it reflects the selection process of that show. The community ultimately selects the winners of the contest. But the candidates in the contest are first selected by experts.
This model is good when the quality of submissions will fluctuate significantly. The experts act as a filter before the community votes. It's also appropriate when the sponsoring organization has a specific direction it wants for the winning submission. The experts identify candidate submissions consistent with the direction desired.
Four different models for running a competitive crowdsourcing initiative, each with its own characteristics and business objectives. The biggest takeaway for anyone considering such an initiative is the flexibility of approaches to accomplish different objectives.
Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e8000c79-4d68-48a2-9ee9-d7d542038ec1)
Hutch Carpenter is the Vice President of Product at Spigit. Spigit integrates social collaboration tools into a SaaS enterprise idea management platform used by global Fortune 2000 firms to drive innovation.
Crowdsourcing is heating up in terms of corporate interest. Pepsi's decision to skip the Super Bowl in favor of a crowdsourced ideas initiative - Pepsi Refresh - is an example of the interest in the market. Digital strategy, marketing and design firm Last Exit called crowdsourcing a top digital marketing trend for 2010.
Contests are a particular form of crowdsourcing that are proving to be beneficial in a number of areas. Contests allow people from around the world to compete with one another on a specific challenge put forth by an organization. Participation is motivated by incentives commensurate with the level of the challenge.
The contest version of crowdsourcing has its own activities for gathering, filtering and selecting among the submissions of people. These activities are:
Crowdsourcing starts with the contributions of people from around the globe. These submissions are aggregated into a common site. Submissions are provided in the format matching the contest objectives.People provide their feedback on the submissions of others. This feedback can be up-down votes, star ratings, comments and buying into ideas with virtual currency. This process can be collaborative, helping refine submissions.Organizations establish panels of experts who review the crowdsourced submissions, and select those best meeting their requirements. Experts possess distinct domain knowledge to make the final decision in the contest.The winners of the contest are determined by people's votes and other measures. This selection process is a mix of overall crowd sentiment, weighted for higher reputed members, and the power of individuals to leverage word-of-mouth marketing.These components can be integrated in different ways to provide four different models for running crowdsourced contests. These four models are described below.
Model #1: Crowd Sentiment, Expert Decision
The Crowd Sentiment, Expert Decision model allows organizations to include the sentiment of the crowd as part of their decision-making process. This is valuable input for contests where the selected submissions will ultimately be put in front of the market. The crowdsourced feedback provides an early read on the potential market reaction.
This model is also ideal for cases where a collaborative spirit can refine and improve submissions. Especially for more complex contests, feedback from interested collaborators is valuable for fully understanding the opportunity in the submission and its weaknesses.
Two organizations are using our tools for this model of crowdsourcing contest. Cisco is seeking $1 billion ideas through its I-Prize contest. And the Enterprise 2.0 Conference is managing its competitive speaker proposal process with this model. Both are utilizing crowdsourced feedback as part of the decision-making process.
Model #2: Crowd Decision
The Crowd Decision model leverages the crowd for all parts of the contest. This model provides a great platform for organizations to better understand the meaning that is associated to their products and services. The submissions reflect the creativity of customers and interested parties. The feedback on a submission signals the intensity of feeling for someone's particular interpretation of meaning. Winners are determined by how the community rates their submissions.
This model is ideal for marketing purposes. It becomes a strategic engagement model, particularly where customers are talking about your organization in social media. It's a fun way to increase company awareness.
Model #3: Expert Decision
The Expert Decision model engages the global community to find solutions to complex problems. Experts review the submissions, identifying those best addressing the objective of the contest. The sentiment of the crowd is not an element in these contests, as they typically address more technical challenges.
This model also prevents theft by competitors of people's ideas. The submissions are only visible to designated experts associated with the sponsoring organization. The closed nature of submissions is important for generating interest from people with the technical competence to address a challenge.
Model #4: American Idol
The American Idol model is so-named because it reflects the selection process of that show. The community ultimately selects the winners of the contest. But the candidates in the contest are first selected by experts.
This model is good when the quality of submissions will fluctuate significantly. The experts act as a filter before the community votes. It's also appropriate when the sponsoring organization has a specific direction it wants for the winning submission. The experts identify candidate submissions consistent with the direction desired.
Four different models for running a competitive crowdsourcing initiative, each with its own characteristics and business objectives. The biggest takeaway for anyone considering such an initiative is the flexibility of approaches to accomplish different objectives.
Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
Hutch Carpenter is the Vice President of Product at Spigit. Spigit integrates social collaboration tools into a SaaS enterprise idea management platform used by global Fortune 2000 firms to drive innovation.Labels: Hutch Carpenter, Open Innovation, Social Media
posted by Blogging Innovation at 12:15 AM
3 Comments:
Thank you, Hutch, for an excellent rendition of the meaning and import of crowdsourcing. A good article.
Still, I can't get the image of a lynch-mob out of my head.
Crowds, the antithesis of communities, are frightening.
Interesting perspective. But it seems to me that like any good buzzword CrowdSourcing is being hijacked. In this case a marketing spin on what is basically a data gathering mechanism.
Thank you Hutch for your post! It offers very precise and informative models of crowdsourcing.
I agree with Nuke. Crowdsourcing is another industrial buzzword that just brings up all of hypes but seemingly it is a camouflage of an old conventional approach. However, at the same time, I think there’s a distinction between traditional data-gathering and crowdsourcing. The use of the Internet allows a much smoother informative flow between corporate and their consumers compare to the past where traditional techniques of colleting and measuring consumers’ responses and feedbacks often proves more unproductive than efficient in creating new contents. In this era, consumers not only contribute ideas but also help to build contents and even participate in corporate R&D. It means that we, as consumers, seem to have more influence, although not necessary power, over the corporate decisions of their products.
Post a Comment
<< Home