As much as the internet has fueled innovation through the free exchange of ideas and collaboration with anyone across the globe, are we also remaking a market economy that only benefits those on top who control the mass lines of distribution? Wired considers the pitfalls of crowdsourcing – a phenomenon once heralded for its ability to disrupt the traditional model of business by leveling the playing field for experts and amateurs alike – as more and more companies leverage its potential to their advantage which turns out, might not be beneficial for everyone involved.
Witness the upheaval afflicting the design industry, sparked by the rise of so-called “spec design” sites likecrowdSpring and 99designs. Customers post creative briefs directly to the community, which then competes to create a design that best fits the clients’ needs. A typical “assignment” will draw dozens of submissions. The winner receives a nominal fee (as little as $200), and the client receives a logo or website design at a fraction of what a professional agency might charge. The losers get zip, which goes a long way to explaining why working on spec (”on speculation,” or without guarantee of payment) has always been considered the work of last resort for writers, designers and other creative professionals.
Of course, this methodology doesn’t come without its risks – results are not always immediate and quality is variable – but as the economy continues to falter, companies can afford to be more patient and accepting of the realities that come with doing “more with less.” Despite a backlash from the larger community – going so far as to create the website No!Spec to explain to colleagues and clients why this rationale behind this model is flawed – the hired gun mentality will thrive so long as there are individuals who fail to pick a side.
If crowdsourcing isn’t going anywhere, how do we live within its parameters while still acknowledging the fact that everyone needs to eat? Recognizing the inherent value in the work we do and setting reasonable limits on what we’re willing to accept for it is probably a good place to start. And utilizing the web’s connectivity – the very thing that got us here in the first place – to discuss these same issues with people of every stripe to reach something that approaches common ground wouldn’t hurt either.
As always, we’d appreciate feedback from our readers. What do you think?
[image via onedegree]
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
