When it comes to most user-contribution systems, there is no financial compensation offered to users. Companies rely on the intrinsic motivation of the consumer. The article posted provides evidence from several "volunteer" translators that some users where quite confused as to why they were not offered any form of pay when they contributed to LinkedIn. LinkedIn says that it was just a misinterpretation. So who is right? Would the translators' willingness to contribute to change if they had asked consumers to "co-create" instead?
As more and more consumers offer their knowledge and innovative ideas to organizations, I would like to predict that more issues like this will arise. I think companies will need to be even more transparent in their motivations for getting users to contribute. Legal issues may occur and companies may find themselves in a dispute over who actually owns the "co-created" product or service.1 comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A great example of the limits and potential downsides of user-based contributions. Although users have the potential to add tremendous value to an organization's innovation and marketing efforts, they can also detract value if not handled correctly. Clarity and transparency are key. Without clear and transparent communication, it is easy for organizations and users to run into the sort of problems that Linked In seems to be experiencing.