So if you present a problem to a vast number of people and ask for their opinion and input in creating solutions, isn't that the utopia we're all striving for in so many different ways?
Enter Crowdsourcing.
According to a recent BBC article, Wikipedia, open source software, BP's call for suggestions to help solve the oil spill catastrophe and Nick Clegg's website to involve the British public in amending laws and regulations are all examples of "crowdsourcing".
In media, you can now crowdsource all your graphic design needs (send out a brief, get hundreds of responses and pay for only the best one); user generated content is being used by brands to create consumer engagement through competitions (like Doritos Crash the Superbowl); and raising finance through "crowd funding" is all the rage, with edgy director David Lynch as the most recent example.
Are we finally giving "power to the people"?
Perhaps, but there are a whole lot of problems that need to be fixed on the way.
It takes a lot of administration to "listen" to every suggestion and if it becomes too easy to send through opinions, there is a real chance that individuals will take pleasure in messing with the system. Some people in the 2001 British census may have been indulging this pleasure when they recorded "Jedi" as their religion.
Valuable leadership time is taken to hear off-the-cuff opinions that are not well-founded. And if you delegate the task of "listening" to representatives who aren't also valuable leaders, what's the point to begin with?
Shared ownership - such as the shared gathering of knowledge on Wikipedia or an equity share in a film that's crowd funded - means shared responsibility, but if that responsibility is too divided then it can also cause a serious lack of accountability. Who is responsible for making creative or financial decisions? And if that power remains only with a few individuals, again, what's the point?
Crowdsourcing is an easy tool to create that all-important "marketing buzz" - if you're involved in something, then you feel ownership and will become an advocate for a brand, a film, a government... Marketers are well aware of this and coupled with the new endless potential of "social media marketing", it's a goldmine no one is going to ignore.
But the problems begin when the ownership is only imaginary. Is your opinion really going to be taken seriously when it reaches the top?
It takes a lot of administration to "listen" to every suggestion and if it becomes too easy to send through opinions, there is a real chance that individuals will take pleasure in messing with the system. Some people in the 2001 British census may have been indulging this pleasure when they recorded "Jedi" as their religion.
Valuable leadership time is taken to hear off-the-cuff opinions that are not well-founded. And if you delegate the task of "listening" to representatives who aren't also valuable leaders, what's the point to begin with?
Shared ownership - such as the shared gathering of knowledge on Wikipedia or an equity share in a film that's crowd funded - means shared responsibility, but if that responsibility is too divided then it can also cause a serious lack of accountability. Who is responsible for making creative or financial decisions? And if that power remains only with a few individuals, again, what's the point?
Crowdsourcing is an easy tool to create that all-important "marketing buzz" - if you're involved in something, then you feel ownership and will become an advocate for a brand, a film, a government... Marketers are well aware of this and coupled with the new endless potential of "social media marketing", it's a goldmine no one is going to ignore.
But the problems begin when the ownership is only imaginary. Is your opinion really going to be taken seriously when it reaches the top?
