{"id":140,"date":"2011-08-22T11:10:49","date_gmt":"2011-08-22T11:10:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/obc.ninety10group.com\/?p=140"},"modified":"2022-07-11T04:31:26","modified_gmt":"2022-07-11T04:31:26","slug":"be-prepared-for-the-coming-war-for-co-creators","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.footballthink.com\/be-prepared-for-the-coming-war-for-co-creators\/","title":{"rendered":"Be prepared for the coming \u201dWar for Co-Creators\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"
The strategic relevance of ethics, commitment and rewards in Co-Creation <\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ethics in Social Media <\/strong>Research \u2013 the privacy debate<\/strong><\/p>\n In the market research community the discussion about data privacy and guidelines for social media research (mainly focused on listening) is peaking right now as ESOMAR, CASRO, MRS and other Market research associations have published their guidelines recently. This debate is crucial as behaviors like that of Nielsen Buzzmetrics scrapping data from patienslikeme.com<\/a>, a closed Online Community on health issues, can create distrust against a whole industry. I think a discussion of ethics in Social Media Research is crucial. But that doesn\u2019t mean I agree with everything written in the recent guidelines. And I am not the only one. A rising number of market research authorities reject and question these guidelines. For example Ray Pointer states in a recent blog post<\/a> that \u201c<\/em>in several areas, \u2018new\u2019 market research is at odds with the traditional guidelines. Examples of where NewMR is at odds with the traditional ethics includes: the brand-related incentives for members of communities, the brand advocacy of community members, the changes wrought by deliberative research, and most of social media monitoring research. <\/em><\/p>\n Other areas where research is drifting away from the classic model of anonymity include a growing amount of customer satisfaction and most of enterprise feedback systems.\u201d<\/em> So Ray is making the point that \u201cIf market research companies abide by the old ethics, in particular anonymity and informed consent, they will not be able to compete for business in most areas where market research is growing. This is because there will be no commercial benefits that will accrue to sticking to rules and ideas that nobody else does<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n While I am really curious to see where the debate is going, I don\u2019t want to concentrate on the privacy debate in this post. For everyone interest in the discussion I recommend to follow the public forum debate on Monday, August 22 at 12:00 EST, hosted on the MRGA 365 Virtual Event Platform http:\/\/www.marketplace365.com\/registration\/mrga365\/<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ethics in Co-Creation \u2013 the exploitation debate<\/strong><\/p>\n I want to share my thoughts and start a discussion about another important area of ethics in Social Media, which I think is the way we integrate and reward people in co-creation and crowdsourcing projects. There is hardly a debate on this yet from an ethical point of view, as \u201cCo-Creators\u201d seem to be willing to share their ideas for free or relatively low money without real commitment from the company running the initiative. But in the long-term this might change! Here is why.<\/p>\n #1 Co-Creators will become more selective and demanding<\/strong><\/p>\n Happily consumers seem to love the new way of participation with companies. Last year Forrester Research asked US online adults if they want to co-create with companies. Here are some results:<\/p>\n So there seems to be a reasonable number of \u201cWilling Co-Creators\u201d. But as the number of companies that involve consumers in the development of new products will continue to grow – as I am convinced that Co-Creation is here to stay \u2013 Co-Creators will become more selective and demanding in choosing the initiatives they want to take part in. Thus attracting Co-Creators will become harder for companies. A \u201cWar for Co-Creators\u201d \u2013 similar to the \u201cWar for Talent<\/a>\u201d might start. Attracting the most creative and\/or skilled \u201cCo-Creators\u201d or Lead Users (see the Lead User Method<\/a>) for co-creation initiatives aimed at creating breakthroughs will become the most competitive area.<\/p>\n The competition will force companies to spend more effort on co-creation advertising\/recruiting as well as to increase the co-creation value they offer in terms of outcomes and interaction\/co-creation experience. According to social exchange theory<\/a>, consumers would only participate in co-creation activities because they expect that doing so will be rewarding. But For individuals, tangibles such as goods or money, as well as intangibles such as social amenities or friendship, are rewarding. Further, not only the outcomes, but also the interaction experience itself may offer a benefit. \u00a0Thus, to make participation in Co-Creation a more rewarding experience companies need to really understand consumers\u2019 motivations to co-create and incorporate this into their campaign design, the interaction\/co-creation experience, the reward system and last but not least the company\u2019s commitment to a co-creation initiative.<\/p>\n Implications:<\/p>\n #2 Monetary rewards as necessary condition and signal for ethics and commitment<\/strong><\/p>\n So if the competition for Co-Creators will be more intense and we will have to increase the rewards to attract the most talented Co-Creators, how should we do that? Of course increasing rewards should include more than simply increasing monetary prices. As stated above it is about increasing the value of co-creation for the participants in terms of outcomes and interaction\/co-creation experience.<\/p>\n But I think monetary rewards are a very important aspect of co-creation in that case as it attracts extrinsically motivated people AND it shows the company\u2019s attitude, recognition and commitment towards collaboration with external stakeholders. Attractive rewards signal that the company doesn\u2019t want to exploit consumers but appreciates the effort that participants invest and the (potential) value that their submissions can create. Furthermore you could argue that a company that spends a reasonable amount of money on a co-creation project is serious about it and really wants to act upon your input.<\/p>\n Non-cash prices, brand-or ideally project-related ones are at least as important as money. Project-related rewards, like for example a visit of the headquarters and a meeting with the team behind the project can even help to build stronger relationships with Co-Creators.<\/p>\n Giving Co-Creators a platform to get feedback, recognition and visibility can be very rewarding for Co-Creators. Companies making their Co-Creators famous and involving them in their communication activities offer an additional value dimension to Co-creators and profit from authentic storytelling and increased advocacy and word of mouth activities.<\/p>\n Mc Donald\u2019s \u201cMein Burger\u201d campaign involved the winners in TV commercials<\/a>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Tchibo Ideas give co-created products that come to market a face by also showing the Co-Creator in their catalogues:<\/p>\n Implications:<\/p>\n #3 No long-term engagement without real commitment<\/strong><\/p>\n I think that in the long-term a company\u2019s commitment for a co-creation project makes a big difference in the \u201cWar for Co-Creators\u201d. I want to elaborate a bit on what I mean by that. I deal with open innovation, co-creation and crowdsourcing for more than 4 years and I think I know most of the prominent crowdsourcing and co-creation cases. But I only know a few products on the market that have been co-created and marketed as such (e.g. Vitaminwaters<\/a>, Dewmocracy, Walkers chips, Tchibo Ideas, Quirky). There might be a number of reasons for that like ideas that weren\u2019t technically feasible or the estimated market potential and\/or profitability didn\u2019t fit internal criteria. But I think one major problem is that companies struggle to open up and to change culture and processes. They still experiment and often have no commitment and no defined follow-up process to bring co-created ideas to market. This might become critical in at least three aspects:<\/p>\n Attracting co-creators and building Long-term relationships can only work if companies move away from \u201ccrowdwashing\u201d and show commitment to their co-creation activities. Especially to build ongoing relationships with the most valuable Co-Creators and Lead users requires commitment, as they won\u2019t continue to invest their time and passion if there is no real commitment by the company and if they think their product will never be on the market.<\/p>\n Implications:<\/p>\n Conclusion: Being successful in the \u201cWar for Co-Creators\u201d by \u201csharing rewards and risks\/efforts\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n