Tory Spokesman: Umm.. right. Well, welcome everyone. Please take your complimentary cup of bovril .. we’ll need all the strength we can muster for the long fight ahead of us.

(Crowd settles)

Well, thank you – thank you. As you all know this is the big one – the year we’ll oust this incumbent government out of office and we’ll have another shot at the big time!

Crowd: Huzzar!!

Tory Spokesman: Well – looking back on the political landscape of the past year, we were all obviously totally enthralled by the US elections. A time of enormous triumph.

Well now it’s our turn, and we need to let the people of Britain realise that David is the Obama of Britain .. are you with us?!

Crowd: Huzzar!! x2

Tory Spokesman: Now that really is the spirit, tally-ho, by-gosh, wot-wot-wot!?!!.

Um, so .. First on the agenda is, how to let the public know that we’re the good guys. We need to be clever here. We will use the word ‘change’ in our campaign – as much as is humanly possible!!

(Crowd goes wild)

Tory Spokesman: And, as we – the party of change – are all aware, there are other things that Obama has done, which we too will do. Obama likes healthcare – and so do we. We will be the party who make healthcare free to every single citizen living in the UK!!

(Crowd goes wild x10)

Tory Spokesman: At the moment, we think this is possibly all that’s required to gain office; but rest assured, David has told us that he will do absolutely anything to get into office.

Specifically, he’s decided to combine the spirit of morris-dancing Britain with Obama-mania. Which leads me to proudly announce our latest series of campaign posters; my lords, ladies and gentlemen… introducing David ‘a-la-Morris’ Cameron.

[[insert photograph of Cameron blacked up in a morris dancer's costume]]

So much of the hype that I read regarding crowdsourcing seems disingenuous.

The majority of the proponents are either those who take a fee from the initial prize fund (crowdSpring/99designs et al), or those who use crowdsourcing as a tool (CP&B, and other clients).

I’d imagine the most fierce supporters of crowdsourcing (as participants) are the very same people who would traditionally participate in the outsourcing of work. For this group, the $1000 offered by design firm CP&B to create a logo for motorcycle brand Brammo, may have been fair compensation – even if obtaining the fee involves entering into a lottery.

After reading about CP&B’s decision to use crowdSpring, my anger piqued my curiosity and I entered into one of these design ‘competitions’ myself.

After participating, I decided to exchange some emails with the contest organiser, and I discovered that he was a subcontractor who takes on web-jobs and uses the crowdsourcing agency to produce PSD images of each potential website which can then be given to other outsourcers who create an HTML website. He likes the crowdsourcing model because he has a number of different designs to choose from, and ultimately he doesn’t need to carry out the work himself.

Crowdsourcing creates a dynamic of factory owner v. factory workers. There’s no equality between participants.

I honestly don’t think that those participating are going to gain a better understanding of the processes involved in design. The idea that the contest organiser even knows what constitutes a good design isn’t even a given. The only known fact is that the organiser has some money.

The bottom line is that it’s unfair to expect anyone with any skill to work for free. In my mind, this is about good old fashioned wrong and right. One group of people is benefiting at the expense of another group of people – and your comment that participants experience “psychic reward” is laughable and offensive.

I do believe that crowdsourcing has a future – but only when a fair remuneration model has been developed. I think that the Amazon Mechanical Turk provided a more fully formed conceptual model in this respect.

The Future of Crowdsourcing

I believe that crowdsourcing in it’s best format involves creating efficiency by horizontally dividing a task between hundreds and thousands of people. Ideally all the participants involved are employed (i.e. paid), and the amount of work they complete is at least as engaging as it would be if the task was approached conventionally.

The benefits of this idealised view, involve speed / efficiency in completing the task and the luxury of a plurality of viewpoints.

Baring this in mind, in my opinion, there are a limited variety of tasks that are suitable for a crowdsourcing approach. I don’t think design is very suitable for crowdsourcing because it’s very difficult to divide a design task among multiple participants.  I don’t think that design can possibly excel when it’s carried out by committee.

Long term, I’d actually question whether these CS companies will survive. Currently I think they’re doing well because:

• We’re currently in an economic downturn – the number of people willing to participate and give crowdsourcing a go will surely have been buoyed by laid off workers.
• The concept is novel. Many people are willing to give something new a chance… but after a short while they’ll most probably ask themselves whether continued participation is worthwhile.

Even so, I don’t think the game’s totally over for companies like crowdSpring or 99designs.

I think that these companies are providing two types of service.

1. The first can be loosely defined defined as crowdsourcing. I say ‘loosely’, because they don’t divide the task of creating design – they multiply it.
2. The second type of service involves building relationships between designer and client; a task which is very similar to that of a traditional work agency.

I think they should focus on providing the second type of service – this is where they could make the most positive difference.

If we look at the way they operate at the moment, (cynically) I’d state that the current crop of crowdsourcing applications are only really acting as ‘enablers’. They provide a place for client and participant to meet – and the functionality they provide is very basic. Currently it would probably be fair to suggest that crowdsourcing web-applications are still most similar in functionality to a traditional bulletin board system.  Ideas (graphic files) can be submitted, and messages can be submitted publicly and privately. There’s little in the way of innovation.

If speaking optimistically, I’d state that these crowdsourcing applications provide a platform for collaboration. This statement holds a lot of potential, but if these companies can possibly survive, they need to try to offer innovative collaborative technologies. The problems they try to solve are both interesting and challenging – but unless they accept the fact that their current approach is full of holes, they stand no chance of becoming a positive force for change.