Who Gets the Credit? Crowdsourcing as the Newest Form of Group Work

I have done my fair share of group work, and I have typically been one of the few, or even the only group member, to do any work on the assignments. My experiences have led me to detest group work, but I know I must push my feelings toward group work to the side in order to become a successful communication strategists. In my graduate course, we learned about crowdsourcing and its usefulness for communication strategists. Daren C. Brabham gives a simple definition of crowdsourcing in his article, “Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving,” which was published in Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies in 2008. He defines crowdsourcing as “the act of a company or institution taking a function once performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network of people in the form of an open call.” In even simpler terms, crowdsourcing is “a tool to gather collective intelligence for certain tasks” (Aitamurto, Leiponen, & Tee, 2011, p. 2). Our society uses crowdsourcing on a daily basis and in several ways, which extend from the most extensive of tasks to the simplest ones, and the biggest corporations to the individual consumer use crowdsourcing. Large companies employ crowdsourcing as a means to glean information from their consumers, and consumers employ crowdsourcing when looking for the best rates on hotels or the best places to go to for vacation.

Take TripAdvisor, for instance. TripAdvisor touts itself as being “the world's largest travel site” that “offers trusted advice from real travelers and a wide variety of travel choices and planning features with seamless links to booking tools” (TripAdvisor, 2013, “About TripAdvisor”). I have used TripAdvisor on numerous occasions to plan vacations down to the minutest detail. My family and I depend on what the reviews say about certain locations, restaurants, places to visit, and things to do and we plan our vacation based on the best reviews. There was one instance, however, when I did not follow the reviews and paid the price for not listening to the “wisdom of the crowd” (Aitamurto, Leiponen, & Tee, 2011, p. 2).

I needed to find a hotel my family to stay in during our two-night visit to Pensacola. We were looking for something cheap but up to our standards, and we wanted something close to where we were going to be the majority of the trip. Now, the reviews we read about a particular hotel were very mixed, and with mixed reviews, the product could be either good or bad. Based on the reviews, we decided to book the hotel—big mistake! When we got there, I immediately knew we needed to get our money back and get our children out of there! After some finagling with the manager, we were able to get a refund. I used TripAdvisor again to find a better hotel, and this time we based our decision on the best reviews possible. We were able to find a great hotel close to the National Naval Aviation Museum within our price range and sleep soundly. We learned a valuable lesson that trip!

Although my example shows how crowdsourcing at its simplest level can have its advantages and its disadvantages, overall it is a proper technique to use when trying to solve complex or diffuse issues at any level. For instance, when companies use regular citizens to gather information for new products and technologies, they open up the door for fresh ideas that they would otherwise overlook because their Research and Development (R&D) teams have become conditioned to the problem they are trying to solve. These companies will be able to reach out to the crowd on the outside for solutions, and this crowd will be able to think outside of the box because they are not as knowledgeable about the product that they assume to know everything about it, and because they are not ready to accept defeat. Much like the individual performing a simple search for answers, businesses are able to use consumers to get the answers they need.

Crowdsourcing also allows users with little to no experience to work alongside those who are professionals to come up with solutions to issues companies need an outsider’s perspective on in order to make any progress. Professionals who participate in crowdsourcing “inspire others in the crowd to continue working” to become better in their skillsets (Brabham, Daren C., 2008, “Crowdsourcing as a Model”). Amateurs are able to see that they too can make it in the professional world when they see professionals winning crowdsourcing competitions. In addition, when companies pose complex problems to the crowd, they are able to rely on a group of users who are eager to use their skills, especially those who have just graduated and are looking for outlets to display their skills. Conversely, crowdsourcing allows companies to take advantage of users, especially those who are new to group contributions, which leads to this question: who gets the real credit in crowdsourcing?

Much like group work, crowdsourcing pools together the intelligence and wisdom of the crowd for the answers companies need. Yes, these companies compensate those whose ideas they use, but these companies stand to make millions of dollars on the ideas they glean from those whom they have only paid a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars as compensation. Brabham argues that “the intellectual labor the crowd performs is worth a lot more than winning solutions are paid” (Brabham, 2008, p. 83). In addition, crowdsourcing makes obsolete the skills of trained professionals because crowdsourcing gives companies the option to skip over the more expensive professionals and use the crowd for cheap labor. In his article, “The Rise of Crowdsourcing,” which was published in June 2006, Jeff Howe writes that crowdsourcing allows easier, digital methods to ice out professionals, such as stock photographers, by “creating a market for the work of amateur photographers” (Howe, 2006, “The Rise of Crowdsourcing”). The reason for this is that “the product [photographers and other professionals] offer is no longer scarce” (Howe, 2006, “The Rise of Crowdsourcing”). What crowdsourcing does is take away the novelty from the services skilled professionals offer.

Brabham and Howe’s articles lead me to believe that the crowd has shortchanged itself in that it will take the experience of working with major companies and using their skills over getting monetary compensation. Of course, money is not the main reason we want to do what we have gone to school for, but how can we not see that this is a form of exploitation? Is this a way of paying dues? I would like to think not, but with the various changes our society has undergone in the name of progress, it seems best to jump in with the group and get what we can than to stand on the sidelines and get left behind or worse—become obsolete.

References

Aitamurto, Tanja, Leiponen, Aija & Richard Tee. (2011, June). “The promise of idea crowdsourcing—Benefits, contexts, limitations.” White Paper, 1-30. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/963662/The_Promise_of_Idea_Crowdsourcing_Benefits_Contexts_Limitations

Brabham, Daren C. (2008). “Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An introduction and cases.” Convergence 14(1): p. 75-90. DOI: 10.1177/1354856507084420

Howe, Jeff. (2006, June). “The rise of crowdsourcing.” Condé Nast Digital. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html

TripAdvisor. (2013). “About TripAdvisor.” TripAdvisor LLC. Retrieved from http://www.tripadvisor.com/PressCenter-c6-About_Us.html