Viralogy

Photo by chego101

Last week we covered the Power of Crowdsourcing Content. We looked at how the popular I Can Has Cheezburger Network leverages crowdsourcing to fantastic success. That said, this tool, like any other is not without its inherent dangers and caveats.

The Rights are All Wrong

When content is crowdsourced, the rights, privileges and license is effectively taken by the creator, and given to its parent website. When any content is created for a user-generated network like I Can Has Cheezburger, the parent site has the ability to reap all of the benefits (and most importantly, profits) of said work. One could argue that this particular content would be worthless without the parent site, but to that same effect, the site would also be worthless without its content.

The problem with proper attribution affects not only the work when published on the web, but any further work, such as t-shirts, mugs and books. According to Ben Huh, when creating books using their content, they make sure to contact each author to ask if they can publish their content. This is absolutely the right approach when it comes to books. ICHB is honest and makes sure to only print content that has been approved (once they have received the rights). But what benefit do they receive from offering up content on I Can Has Cheezburger, and what benefit do they receive from being published in the book? Minor amounts of notoriety and fame, and that’s all. By comparison, the I Can Has Cheezburger network pulls in huge revenues.

Though user-generated content creates some interesting rights issues, ultimately, (this particular use of) crowdsourced content is created by users with no likely desire of fame or fortune. It’s the equivalent of volunteering at a church or non-profit. However, a company IS making a profit off of this content. So far, the two I Can Has Cheezburger books have landed on the New York Times Bestseller list, and their website gets billions of page views every year, driving a profitable ad revenue business.

So what’s the solution? Ideally, the users creating content would eventually see some of the profits being made by the parent site, but that is a wholly unrealistic expectation, and the blame cannot be reasonably laid on a parent network or site, when the content creators are not unhappy with the process or the results. Perhaps there is no right answer to this rights dilemma, but it should be noted that the problem with attribution may come up often in the future as user-generated content continues to move to the forefront of the social web.

I Got 99 Problems, and Spec Work Is One

Crowdsourced design has long been both a hero and a villain of the design industry. It has given designers of all shapes, sizes and backgrounds a fair shake at design contracts. It has also given freelance designers another source of income. However, it has also created dozens of articles and multiple organizations dedicated to stopping crowdsourced design.

The issue with crowdsourced design has to do with what is called “spec work” or speculative design work – any job where a designer creates content with no guarantee of payment. Two of the biggest crowdsourced design websites are 99 Designs and Crowdspring. Each site focuses on auctioning off creative services (logo, business card, web design), selling the “best design” to the client. To quote 99 Designs:

Getting something designed at 99designs is easy. We help you run a “design contest”, where thousands of designers compete to create the best possible design to meet your needs. All you need is a clear idea of what you want designed and how much you’re prepared to pay for it.

To steal from the LendingTree commercials: when designers compete, you win. It’s hard to argue with that. Until you realize that there are hundreds of designers who are losing out, spending time and effort on projects for free. A handful of designers do win out, earning revenues that they would never have seen, but those are the minority. Additionally, spec work actually rewards more shoddy design – why should a designer spend 3 hours working on one project, when they can spend 30 minutes and apply for six separate contests?

When logos and designs are chosen based on crude personal taste and nothing else, the actual skill, thought process and quality of the design doesn’t matter as much. When hiring a designer on for a project, however, they will often provide a couple drafts, incorporate new ideas, and create a dialogue. When crowdsourcing a design, there’s only a monologue, with no insight on the process or ideas involved. Crowdsourcing also creates a product that might be improved, but may ultimately be left unfinished as a final product. In other words, you get what you pay for.

There are many advantages to crowdsourced design and crowdsourced content. It creates better competition, diversified and varied voices, and far more content than you ever would have gotten through other means. However, it is important to always keep in mind the dangers that come along with these advantages. However, the problems with attribution, rights and licensing goes hand-in-hand with user-generated content, and the negatives of spec work are obvious. When searching for a new design, feel free to crowdsource your creative content but realize that there are significant downsides for both you and the designers. When building a website, utilize user-generated content whenever you can, but understand the clear questions of content recognition and credit. By realizing the powers of crowdsourced content without looking at the dangers, you only see half of the story.

What are your thoughts on crowdsourced design content? Have you ever used design companies like Crowdspring or 99 Designs? I’d love to hear your thoughts.