Crowdsourcing: Pro and Con

Crowdsourcing is one of the most contentious topics in the world of charities today. The term was first used by Jeff Howe in a 2006 Wired magazine article, and it has become part of the digital/social conversation. (There's more at http://northcountryconsulting.com/crowdsourcing.)

Crowdsourcing is part of the idea behind contests for charities such as Pepsi Refresh, Chase Community Giving, and (as announced in a commercial on the Emmy Awards show) the Clorox Power a Bright Future contest. All of these have the same basic pattern:

1. Ideas for worthy endeavors are submitted online to the contest. In most cases, a panel screens them and selects a subset (1000 a month for Pepsi Refresh).
2. The organizations' submissions are posted online, and people can vote for the projects that they feel should be funded.

This idea has caught the attention of many people in the world of charitable giving. Much of this attention is negative -- some of it violently so. The idea caught my eye some time ago, and the negative reaction caused me to look further at it. Having developed Apple software for many years, and having lived through the "Ick. Why do you program for that loser platform?" period and then through the recent "Why do you program for iPad? It's not a real computer! It doesn't have a <fill in the blank--printer port, keyboard, etc.>." I recognize what I think is an overreaction -- possibly from people who don't understand a new idea. 

One of the early articles about iPad opined that it had no place in the business world because Apple's ads never showed anyone sitting at a desk and using an iPad. Everyone in the ads is sitting around with their feet up. Funny, I didn't take those images as indicating no business future for iPad: I took them as suggesting that the office itself might be changing.

We're All Learning

This is a very new field. And, like all social networking ideas that rely on virality, the ideas can spread very quickly -- sometimes faster than the experience and best practices can be developed. The organizations (funders and fundees) are learning on the fly how to do this. By next year or later this year, the first Crowdsourcing conference is sure to be held in one of the usual venues. (Will there be a crowdsourcing vote on which venue?)

The Pushback

As with any new ideas, there is a certain amount of pushback from the people who know how to do things the old way. There is a tension in crowdsourcing because it suggests that in some types of problems, groups of people can make better decisions than individuals including experts. This is threatening in some ways (particularly to the experts).

The Clear Benefit of the Contests

Kelly Kleiman in her article "What's Wrong with Chase Community Giving" writes that these contests

set up a system which rewards the nonprofits with the greatest Internet presence or savvy, which is not the same as giving the money to the neediest, or best, or most diverse, group of people doing important work in society

So far so good, but she (along with many other people) miss the two most important points of crowdsourcing contests.

1. They do not replace traditional philanthropy: they augment it.
2. By using the social web, they may get people involved in philanthropy (indirectly, by directing dollars from corporations--not their own money). As with everything on the social web, the costs are low, so if even a tiny fraction of the thousands of people who vote for projects start to think about charities, this is a good (and cost-effective) thing. This is the same principle behind mobile giving.
3. The contests can help charities develop "Internet presence or savvy." This is worth its own heading.

The Undisputed Benefit to the Charities

If nothing else, crowdsourcing contests help charities use the social web and the Internet more productively. 'Fess up: how many charities do you know that have plans to use computers for their mailings...someday? Many groups have benefited enormously over the years from the efforts of stalwart volunteers (I've had my share of paper cuts from those mailings). But in some ways we're spoiled by those volunteers. Without them, we'd be forced to aggressively use the new technologies that can save time and money.

All of the contests require an application -- just like traditional funding opportunities. It typically is a brief description of what the project will do. Photos and videos are welcomed and sometimes required. The group signs a release so that the corporate sponsor can use these materials to promote the corporation and, indirectly, the charity. The contest certainly isn't a sure thing, but it's a clear possibility of funding that may help an organization move into new technologies.

To be successful in one of these contests, you have to enlist people to reach out to friends who can vote online for the cause, and then they have to be persuaded to reach out to their friends. You're not asking for money: you're asking for a mouse click. And if a small fraction of those people click over to the organization's website (see the point about how they help develop Internet savviness) then that fraction of a fraction may support the organization in other ways -- even money. Does having 5000 Facebook friends for the organization mean anything? It's 5000 people who you can contact through your Page. 

Yes, these contests won't work for ongoing operational costs: in fact, that's the hardest kind of money to raise from any donor. Everyone wants special projects. In addition, this emphasis on an informal and multimedia application can be dismissed as trivializing the process, but I've certainly read (and written!) enough grant applications that were laden with infraspeak, jargon, and obfuscatory acronyms.

Crowdsourcing contests are one way of involving new people in organizations and in the world of charities in general. It's not a matter of jettisoning existing development efforts but just expanding their scope. And part of the benefit is that the skills needed for working in the social web may be new to an organization. That can mean new volunteers and opportunities for service. But organizations do need to look forward to the future. There's really only one thing to remember about incorporating crowdsourcing and the social web:

If people (including volunteeers) want to work on a crowdsourcing project, don't ask them to stuff envelopes.