Posts filed under 'Exploitation'
Crowdsourcing, a Bad Influence?
In preparation for my talk on the 15th, I have been doing some interviews with my peers. One of the questions that comes up, naturally, is “does crowdsourcing encourage exploitation”. If you’ve read my blog/articles before, you already have an idea of my thoughts on that (quick answer: “no, but in the wrong hands…”)
Someone with no intentions to exploit is not suddenly going to go “Hey, exploiting people?! That’s rad - I totally want to do that!” I make the same argument when people bring up violence in films - it doesn’t influence anyone to commit crimes. Someone who wants to hurt someone doesn’t need a film to propel them into action - and someone who doesn’t, won’t suddenly decide it’s a great idea.
If you think exploiting people is the way to go, hey, there’s always a way. Is it beneficial? I think it’s severally short-sighted.
I’ve always believed in respect & as I get older, I’m even more opinionated about it. I’ve been at companies where they treated their employees with such blatant disrespect - one corporation, in particular, just had the worst tactics. And, logically there was a mass exodus. We’d get 3 emails a week saying so-and-so has “chosen to pursue other opportunities” etc. and then I’d hear Human Resources lamenting that they were so desperate they were having to hire people straight out of school… And all I could think was “Well, then why don’t you just treat the good, experienced people you have as though you appreciate them?!!!”
At a discussion recently, a gentleman asked re: social media “How do you get them to drink the Kool Aid”. I sincerely hope he didn’t mean it the way it sounded… If you want them to “drink the Kool Aid” - you’ll find people who feel that they should. But there’s no longevity to this - any longer. People are getting more demanding - carving out the kind of employment and relationships that they want.
Someone participating in a Crowdsourcing project where they contribute and contribute and never win the prize or reap any sort of reward - well, what kind of quality individuals would do that…
A healthy discussion on the topic of exploitation in Crowdsourcing can be found on Jeff Howe’s blog. And my friend, Jan sent me Aaron Swartz’s blog where he says (among much other brilliance):
I have a friend who is even more brash than I am and when anyone asks her for business advice she tells them simply: Well, in the future, your servants are going to rise up and eat you. So, invest in toothpicks.
Yip.
Employees - as well as Crowdsourcing participants should be treated as if they matter. Because they really do.
You get more out of people when you treat them right.
And if you don’t agree with that, keep cracking that whip… And pray.
Add comment April 7, 2008
Be Sure to Use, Not Abuse
(This is meant as a companion to Part 4 of my Crowdsourcing series on One Degree).
Any good concept is prone to misuse and/or hijacking by greed. While I understand the need for any business to profit, I am certainly wary of the exploitation of the populace and/or consumer regards to Crowdsourcing and of the potential for misuse (including blatant self-aggrandizing/promotion).
How little can we pay… I imagine minimum wage was established to make sure people didn’t get underpaid/exploited but now it is often “how little can we pay people”… You can look at almost anything and see how things were established to keep some sort of ethics within the concept and then the process got corrupted. While I don’t pretend that Crowdsourcing is altruistic at its core, the idea can be respectful and collaborative. (Side note here. Once, at an audition, I had to fill out a form and check off the wage I would accept for playing the role. Here were my options:
I will work for:
A) $15/hr
B) Food
C) Bus Tokens
This wasn’t a joke.
Too Much Promotion: Promotion is good/Plastering the space with your company/product is, well, tacky. I spoke of film-submission sites in Part 2 of my Crowdsourcing piece. Ifilm (now “Spike - powered by Ifilm”) used to be a legitimate site for independent film. While the quality varied (I don’t recall there every being any sort of filtering as there was (and is) with Atom films and Trigger Street (which came along later), it was a source to find something new and un-studioed (A type of YouTube, pre-YouTube). Now that it is owned by Viacom it’s basically a showcase for its related studio/network products (plus some wild frat stunts thrown in for good measure). The indie films are there, somewhere, buried [in the fray]… [Lesson… Don’t let this happen to you] This kind of thing backfires in the long run. It corrupts/weakens the platform, and is outdated at best and insulting at worst.
Don’t manipulate: Remember that your clients are not people that you need to trick or manipulate. This is about collaboration. Your clients can be very beneficial to your business - and not merely in a purchasing capacity. So be honest. Communication can happen - but like everything Web 2.0, the expectation is that it is a conversation. So remember to both contribute and listen.
Add comment March 19, 2008
Please Sir, Can I Have Another
As anyone who has read my articles and posts on Crowdsourcing has likely noticed, I am fascinated by the notion, but tend to approach it with “eyes wide open”. While Crowdsourcing is exciting and inspiring, it also has its fair share of issues and drawbacks. And so, if I seem like I bounce back and forth between my enthusiasm and my concerns, I hope it is clear that I am not so much indecisive (well, it least not in this case) but simply more realistic than evangelical about the concept.
Which brings me to the concept of exploitation.
When claims of exploitation are brought up with regards to Crowdsourcing (and they are, frequently) often the counter argument is that because people willingly participate, there is no mistreatment. While “exploitation” is not exactly the word I would use, it is wrong to assume that because people contribute out of passion rather than necessity, this logically translates into balance and equity.
Here is how I would best illustrate this conundrum. Having worked as an actor, I know how often performers are expected to work for free or for very low rates, to “pay ones dues”, in assumption of future paid work (with the same company, once established), to gain exposure etc. (One might draw the parallel between this and interning - another concept I’m not in love with - but it is not an accurate comparison. While the low-to-non-existent pay scale is similar, the carrot is somewhat more accessible: There are, generally, more positions available after an internship - i.e. if 10 people are interns, the best or 2 might be eventually employed by the company. Not the same situation in film – in which future employment - regardless of hard work, ability or ambition - is, generally, a long-shot (companies may not gain funding, or may eventually disband and/or end up at different production companies). And, most frighteningly, there exists the assumption that there is often no need to pay people since there is always a pool of people vying for unpaid positions.
Many artistic fields have this issue – and so Web 2.0 has by no means “started the fire” – it is just brighter and spreads quicker. One more example: as a writer, I have been asked to produce articles at rates of 2 cents a word (80 articles would earn me my entire rent money, Yeee hah!) It may be absurd and unacceptable to me, but it is by no means rare.
“Climbling the ladder” is something most have to do - but the “low market value” is what Crowdsourcing companies and Crowdsourcers should be weary of.
“Climbing the ladder” is not the issue – having a ladder that is infinite is. “Paying dues” is often realistic, but paying forever is akin to extortion.
The critical problem exists when there is no end in sight to the game and a profession/skill-area assumes the low-no pay scale as a consistent form of compensation.
Many agree to accept low rates because at a certain point the rate becomes a market standard/industry expectation. And there comes a point where so many people are offering their work for free that the mindset for buyers becomes: “well, why would we bother to pay more if we don’t have to”.
Make no mistake that people who give into this system and offer their services for little in return are agreeing with it. They in are merely reflecting the low value placed on what they do.
Are they being exploited in the true definition of the word? Well, not exactly. They have a choice, certainly. But once the choice becomes “work or don’t work” – the “choice” becomes between the rock and the hard place.
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://monicahamburg.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/please-sir-can-i-have-another/;title=Please%20Sir,%20Can%20I%20Have%20Another :: http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/edit.pl?new_url=http://monicahamburg.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/please-sir-can-i-have-another/;new_comment=Please%20Sir,%20Can%20I%20Have%20Another :: TailRank
2 comments February 25, 2008