When Your Crowdsourcing Client Becomes Your Competition

Your Client or Your Competition?
Crowdsourcing, once an innovation by a few forward-thinking companies and organizations, has spread into a diverse industry of firms working in ideation, design, development, philanthropy, customer service, venture capital funding – you name it. Do a simple search for crowdsourcing and you’ll see how many have popped up in the few years.

Recently, a new player entered the arena – the companies themselves. Big corporations, small businesses, governments, universities and non-profits are using social media as their engagement and services like Ning and Chaordix as their tools. They’re fostering their own crowds, launching their own competitions and creating their own opportunities.

A few companies have been ahead of the curve and crowdsourcing on their own for the past several years, but we’re now seeing a vast number of them jumping on board the crowdsourcing train, creating a definite trend.

So what does this mean for the crowdsourcing firms, the companies and the crowd? Let’s find out.

Track Record
First of all, it shows that crowdsourcing is working. Even though there were (and are) definite bumps in the road and many lessons learned, overall it’s been pretty successful. If it wasn’t, I can assure you that many of these companies wouldn’t be implementing it.

Diffusion of Innovation
Adoption
All innovations travel the same relative path towards adoption and acceptance. Crowdsourcing is no exception. Right now, we’re sitting near the end of the early adopters with the innovators long established and the new-comers settled in. Company crowdsourcing is moving everyone quickly into the early majority and getting us ready for mass adoption. It’s no longer only the voices of the new that’s driving crowdsourcing, but the new in combination with the well established.

Spreading the Word
Exposure is good. The more people see it, the more they’re going to talk about it and use it. Crowdsourcing is still a relatively new model, so having that extra boost of PR is not such a bad thing.

Competition
Like it or not, these companies are now competition. Crowdsourcing firms can no longer think of them as inconsequential or as only clients (potential or existing). It doesn’t matter whether you’re a newbie startup or one of the original innovators of the crowdsourcing/competition methodology. The simple fact is that if these companies are doing it for themselves, they’re not doing it with you.

The Fans
Most major brands have a loyal fan base (WD-40, Verizon). Unlike crowdsourcing firms that struggle to assemble a community, the company’s crowd is ready-made and all packaged up nice and neat. Yes, these companies may have taken years and countless resources nurturing their fan base, but their community is pretty well established before their first competition even launches. That said, a loyal fan base doesn’t necessarily equate to a productive crowd and their existence doesn’t ensure success.

The Undecided
Lots of eyes are on crowdsourcing these days. As many as there are on either side of the debate, there are even more still on the fence, waiting and observing. The mere fact that more and more companies are participating in crowdsourcing on their own is creating an even greater “They can do it, so why can’t I?” mentality. And it’s the discussions and market demands that build upon this mentality, benefiting not only the companies but the crowdsourcing firms as well.

So now what?

Crowdsourcing Firms
Enjoy your position on the wider playing field, but take these new players seriously. Accept that you’ll probably be compared to them, in process and especially results. Most of all, understand that your potential clients have the option of not only going to a competitor, but now also doing it for themselves.

On the flip side, you’re not new to this game. You’ve experienced and course-corrected a laundry list of road blocks that they haven’t even encountered yet. Acknowledge your strengths (and weaknesses) and use them to your benefit. Companies may all want to crowdsource, but that doesn’t mean they all want to do it themselves.

Big Corporations and Small Business
Don’t think you can simply jump on the crowdsourcing train and be successful. There are a lot of subtleties in managing a successful competition and community. Do your research. See what other crowdsourcing firms and other companies have done and learn from them. Recognize your successes and failures and learn from them as well.

The Crowd
There are now more choices for competition and collaboration than ever before, which puts you squarely in the driver’s seat. Select a contest (or as many as possible) that you’ll enjoy and excel at. But be smart about it. As I discussed in an earlier post, look at the requirements, risks and rewards then find your comfort level. Remember that the bright, shiny object of a major brand doesn’t necessarily translate into a quality contest and/or your success.

What’s the point?

The point is this. It’s no longer about who has the tools, because we all have them. It’s no longer about who has access to a global community because we all do. Now more than ever, it’s about the services you provide and results you deliver.

That said, crowdsourcing is still growing and maturing. So no worries. The crowd has enough room for all of us.

What do you think? Comment and let’s discuss.

  • I admit I am new to the concept of crowdsourcing, but after reading a few of your blog posts, I see it as an exciting field. The competition and increased diversification you discussed in this post can only make it more exciting. Like many innovative (and successful) ideas, the novelty can only last so long. I look forward to additional posts identifying ways for crowdsourcers to deliver results.
  • Case,

    Thanks for the great comment and feedback. I'm glad you've enjoyed the posts so far. As you stated, the challenge is, like in most new fields, to look beyond the novelty and explore how you can identify, deliver and measure the results.

    If you have any suggestions for a future post, feel free to contact me and we can it discuss over a real (or virtual) beer or two. :)
  • Jason:

    Thoughtful post. I think this reflects a general dynamic, much like the adoption distribution you mention, where companies will experiment with taking services that they buy and attempt to build because it is (or appears to be) either a) cheaper and/or b) possible to improve upon if brought under the auspices of internal resources.

    I also think crowdsourcing is ripe for this type of experimentation since the same properties that make it relatively easy for a start-up to create a platform also make it (potentially) easy for a firm with sophisticated internal resources to duplicate (if not improve upon) the commercialized version.

    The key to firms that will continue to monetize their service and thrive, rather than be replaced by firms' internal resources, will be their ability to provide differentiated and proprietary value. Three areas that come to mind that likely would tip the balance from "build" to "buy":

    1) Crowd: it could be that a company has a larger, more diverse, better quality crowd given the area of interest--one that cannot easily be duplicated

    2) Platform: possibly the platform for accessing the crowd is beyond what a firm could create in-house. Maybe the bells and whistles include proprietary technology for efficiently managing crowds and projects, providing payment, ensuring QA amongst the crowd and for a particular project, etc.

    3) Cost: if the crowdsourcing firm has created a platform that allows for more cost-effective crowdsourcing (even with their profit margins and mark-up) then most firms will choose to buy, unless their technology need is so specific (and difficult to produce) that no vendor can provide it. Firms always have to take into account the opportunity costs of building vs buying, so it isn't just the raw costs of contracting with a vendor, but also what the internal bandwidth will (or will not) allow.
  • Bill,

    You make some very good points. I do agree that it is much easier for companies (small and large) to experiment given the tools and platforms now available. Your addition of the word "potentially" is well placed since it's not just the tools available, but the experience and knowledge that comes along with it. Experimentation is all well and good, but that doesn't immediately translate to consistent measurable results.

    I also like your breakdown of the crowd, platform and cost as well. Regarding the crowd, I agree that the company may have a larger, more diverse crowd, but they might not have the skills needed depending on the tasks required by the company. This is where I think some companies hit bumps in the road. They assume that a large crowd equals a diverse crowd. It may be the case that your crowd is comprised of your greatest fans, but not the best skill sets for the job.

    Thanks for the great comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus