Crowdsourcing is Broken: How to Fix It

(page 2 of 2)

The mechanics are already on the horizon. The talent market is becoming more of a meritocracy through the power of community curation and transparent feedback exchange. Through communities that ultimately sort quality through human recommendations—such as Digg.com, StumbleUpon, and LinkedIn—the best stuff (people, content, etc.) rises to the top. Beyond the standard measure of votes and views, quality can now be measured by taking into account what specific groups of people think of specific content. For example, when evaluating a photography project, the opinion of experienced photographers should matter more than that of a typical visitor. It's easier than ever to find precisely what you're looking for.

One promising model to follow comes from the architecture industry. For large buildings, anywhere from 3 to 12 architects are selected to propose a rough set of plans for the building based on the quality of their previous work. Each one is compensated with a submission payment that helps to cover their costs, with the full fee for the project going to the architect ultimately selected. Why not do the same when engaging other types of creative experts? The crowd can be used to distinguish quality talent, and then a filtered "mini crowd" can be paid to contribute more specific ideas. This sounds laborious, but it needn't be. With the smart use of online applications for managing content and projects, it would be easy and seamless to identify and assemble and compensate a mini crowd.

Think Long Term

New business models need to be built that strive for sustainability rather than short-term greed. Crowdsourcing should spawn long-term relationships between clients and creatives rather than be a one-off experiment that leaves a bad taste. And some guiding principles should be put in place. For starters, there should be a clear distinction between fun brand-engagement competitions and overt spec-work contests that are simply seeking to use free labor. There should be more disclosure about the odds of winning and details regarding ownership of work.

Creative agencies and recruiters should be the innovators in this area rather than the bandits. The value of a highly vetted, dedicated pool of talent will only increase as its members are compensated and become more educated about a client. Creative output for that client will improve while its overhead costs will be cut dramatically.

Most importantly, the freelancers, designers, and other plugged-in workers across industries should show themselves some respect. Talented people should showcase their strengths in online communities but only embrace crowdsourcing programs when the odds (and returns) are fair. Those with talent should only engage in systems (and with clients) that provide the opportunity to improve skills and offer constructive criticism. Like the more traditional employment experiences, crowdsourcing should help build relationships and career opportunities.

It is time that we stop whining about the bad implementations of crowdsourcing and start innovating better ones.

Scott Belsky is founder and CEO of Behance, an organization which comprises the Behance Network, the leading online platform for creative professionals; Action Method, a project management application for creative teams; and The 99%, a think tank and annual conference. He is the author of the book, Making Ideas Happen; Overcoming The Obstacles Between Vision and Reality.

Business Exchange

Track and share business topics across the Web.