The Mass Participation Economy and Your Brand

We-think is a project started by Charles Leadbeater as an exploration of and experiment in collaborative creativity. In fact, mass user-driven innovation is reshaping organizations, with users becoming increasingly involved as co-creators of products and services. We've been talking about it for a couple of days, participation and not consumption or work is the key organizing idea of the present and increasingly the future.

To prove his theory, Leadbeater has made the full draft of his book available for downloading and commenting. The publication date was projected to be this summer. The first concept we encounter is that of the barefoot world, were

demand generates its own supply, because the consumers can become producers, the learners can become teachers,when they are equipped with skills and tools and motivated to help themselves.

You will be happy to know that our educated guesses over new commons were spot on [emphasis mine].

A growing band of organizations in future will resurrect ancient ideas and meld them with new technology. One such resurrection is the idea of the “commons” a feature of village life for centuries: a common resource, like a wood or grazing land, held in loose, self-regulated shared ownership for villagers to graze their flocks on.The likes of Wikipedia and Linux organize their activities around a digital version of the commons. [...]

[...] Innovation is a social, cumulative and collaborative activity; ideas will flow back up the pipeline from consumers and they will share them amongst themselves. That is why the next big thing will be us: our power to share and develop ideas,without having to rely on formal organizations to do it all for us.

To put it with Leadbearer, these barefoot, self-organized and adaptive groups are more akin to rolling creative conversations. Technology has already leveled the playing field for us all, the barriers to entry are almost non existent -- there are many more ears and eyes on the ground now and the tools have given us new voices.

With all these new voices, you might think that there would be cacophony in communication -- noise vs. signal. The opposite is happening. Because there are more voices, there are more conversations that attract more talent and resources in the creative process. In turn, each creator and contributor is taking the opportunity to develop a voice that is distinct and different -- their brand essence. What is your brand essence? That is the subject of my post at The Blog Herald.

Comments

[Drew McLellan]

Valeria,

This is what I think the book/project Age of Conversation is all about. It is a rolling conversation and you can see each author's brand essence in their piece.

I think this notion of rather than noise...we are just attracting more and better voices is what we're seeing in the blogosphere. As bloggers mature in the medium, they find their distinct voice and just hone their efforts.

It's fascinating to watch and participate in as one of the voices, isn't it?

Drew

[Valeria Maltoni]

Drew!

If I knew you were visiting I would have taken my red carpet out ;-) I have been enjoying my copy of The Age of Conversation and savoring each page with delight. Some I have returned to over and over again.

What impressed me is both the breadth and depth of sharing in thinking together.

[Carolyn Ann]

One thing that has (always) bothered me about the "consumer as manufacturer": where is the value for the customer?

Linux is good, but having installed innumerable varieties, I can't say that I've ever gravitated to it. Because it requires an effort over and above what I want, or can, afford. I prefer to pay someone (Apple, Ducati, Vespa, Chevrolet, etc) to produce the product. I have to assume that market forces will ensure that those companies produce something close to my need. But I certainly don't want to be building a Ducati, or a Chevrolet truck! Even the options for the Mini make my head spin: purchasing a car shouldn't that much work!

I go into the motorcycle dealership: they have the bike I want. I hand over my credit card, they take me to the nearest Starbuck's or bookstore, and fetch me when the motorcycle is ready for me to drive home! I'm a customer, pure and simple.

(By the way, I'm authoring two open-source projects. One will be released this year, the other (with a bit of time and luck) next.)

I can help, by my enthusiasm, in creating an image for a brand, though. I can wax endlessly about the joys of my Ducati, or Vespa (or Chevy). I can extol the virtues of the Mac. But I really find myself hesitating when it comes to Linux...

My other concern is with the cooperative authorship idea. I know a writer "quite well" (Hi, Mom), and if anyone suggested that she write cooperatively she actually refuses to write. (I've seen her do it.) In the case of Mr Leadbeater, is he producing his own work, or simply acting as an editor and facilitator? (Does it matter to the writer?) What does that say about individual creativity, and it's role in the future?

Sorry to be nitpicking; your posts are always thought-provoking! (It's why I like your blog so much! :-) ) I do think these are serious questions; the role of the individual is in danger of being usurped if we all contribute to the creation of the products we consume.

Carolyn Ann

[Carolyn Ann]

Duh... Sorry! I must have been more tired than I thought. I missed a principal point. Sorry!

The role of the individual in the creation of something is not usurped. There's still a role for the individually-created item, but there's an expanding role for the community created item, as well.

I'm still bothered by the writer, though. For me, the act of writing is a singularly individual effort. In my experience (as a reader), the collaborative efforts never seem to be as good as the sole-author efforts. Obviously there will be some excellent co-authored works; any field of human endeavor won't adhere to stereotypes!

My concern with Leadbearer's "experiment" is that the community does the authoring - reflecting their concerns, for sure - but we're in danger of learning nothing "new". No insights, no coherence to the points, allowing the author's voice to be heard.

Is it a valid concern? I don't know; maybe I'm just conditioned to that view because of who I know?

I'm still not convinced that the "Village Square" idea works. Collaboration is a little different to the idea of a shared resource; I'm not sure the analogy works to the depth it needs to.

Again, thanks for an interesting blog! :-)
Carolyn Ann

PS My apologies for spelin' Mr. Leadbearer's wrong, first time around!

[Carolyn Ann]

Sorry. I'm harping on something awful. I promise to stop!

I realized that my concern was centered around the vision of the idea, product, whatever. The Ducati Monster was created, essentially, by one guy. The Spitfire fighter, by one guy. The Chevrolet Corvette, by one guy. The classic Ferrari's: one guy. Despite the endless input and influences from others, the end product was primarily the vision of a single person.

An example from Formula 1 might help: The Lotus 72 was an example of an exemplary machine; it had a number of engineers working on it, but it was all Colin Chapman's vision: even the branding (JPS cigarettes).

The creative impulse, genius, that creates such works of art is beyond the collaborative. My concern is that the individual moments of sheer brilliance might get diluted, washed or discarded because of collaboration. Leadbeater's (I will get the spelling of name right!) exercise in collaborative authoring just struck a chord with me: the "wrong" chord, to be sure.

Is his vision that of a collaborative future? To be honest, I can't tell. He undoubtedly has something to say about the contemporary economy, but I'm not entirely convinced the answer lies in collaborative effort; particularly as learning new skills is involved!

Insofar as your point about the "experience" we present; I really do have a problem with that. Maybe I was mixing the two points up? I have never thought of myself as an experience. To be frank, I am more than that: you are more than that. Your blog is not an "experience", but an insight into a keen, intelligent and perceptive mind. As well as a look at a person who strikes me as keen, intelligent and perceptive. ( :-) )

I don't intend any of this as criticism; my apologies for when I was so callous in my wording. I am a little unfair: I used your comments sheet as a bit of a sounding board; and I chatted (at some length) with my Dear Spouse. You make some pertinent and relevant points. In many ways I'm quite old-fashioned; I really do prefer it if my vendors find out what I want, and then actively sell it to me.

A dichotomy, that's for sure. I'm authoring a couple of open-source projects and I'm wondering about the value of collaborative development? (Oh: one's a photo album, the other is a neural network.) But I do perceive a difference between Linux, for example, and Mac OS X. My DS, for instance, wouldn't even look at a machine with a Linux: too hard to learn. To much "stuff" to bother with. I simply can't see my Mom using an Open-Source word-processor to write her next novel. Heck, she's only recently taken to using a computer and not a manual typewriter. Both are equally brilliant in their intelligence, but neither is particularly interested in the tool: as long as it does the job they want.

Collaborative development seems to preclude that level of disinterest. (Me? I really don't care how a bandsaw works, as long as it cuts wood the way I want it to! But I'm more than happy to make a tool when one is not available, or I can't afford it.)

I think my hemming and hawing has highlighted my (obvious) confusion over the concept that Leadbeater advances. I'm making it a point not to download and read his book. I just can't wrap my mind the idea of a collaborative effort of that sort. I find it, frankly, a bit disturbing. A book is a container of ideas; if they aren't his: who's are they? Who owns them? Who is responsible for those ideas? The creator of them? A novel, in particular, is a work of ideas: the novel tells of a world we get to peek into. Collaborative novel-writing seems like a nightmare. Collaborative non-fiction simply seems like a "lets see what we can piece together" project, not a genuine effort to shine a light on a point. And maybe, after all that: that's the single thing that I find annoying, disturbing, whatever.

Is it a conversation, or a cop-out? I can't tell from Leadbeater's website, and only he can say for sure.

I sincerely hope you take these comments in the spirit (of confusion) they are offered in. I'm not one, as you might know, to simply "rah-rah" an idea, but I don't seek fault-lines for the sake of pointing out the state of dress of leading governmental figures. Again, my apologies for any callously worded points.

Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

Carolyn Ann:

You make many very interesting points. Let me see if I can join the conversation from a place of personal experience (not to be confused with experience of your third comment).

In middle school all our academic work was done in groups. The teacher would write up the names of students in groups and the assignments were to be completed as such. We learned to work together and we learned something else, very important -- some did not do the work and shared in the credit. In other words, it was very difficult to test individual contribution -- the teacher couldn't tell, we couldn't measure it ourselves. That was a drawback.

The other thought about group work is that it may lead to group think. I agree that any project worth its salt needs a sponsor and visionary who will drive it to completion.

I see the Village Square as a place to broadcast projects and skills as well as receive and give support. In the past, guilds of practice existed. In Italy, city life still revolves and pulses around the main Piazza.

As for the brand, I intended to speak about essence, which is our story, the sum total of impressions from experience (like this blog, meeting me, talking with me, etc.), my values, and the human qualities. How we weave appearance, personality, competencies and differentiation (thanks to Dan Schawbel for his contribution) into the fabric of our existence and how we communicate the value we bring to the conversation.

When we give up the individual to "disappear" in the group, that's when the confusion begins, in my view. What we have seen with collaborative projects like The Age of Conversation, is that each voice is even stronger and differentiated within the context of a sea of voices. In fact, the other voices contribute to its shining and standing out.

On a side note: so mother is a writer. It would be interesting to find out if this is true of most writers. My mother is also a writer... and that is why I love writing so much. A conversation for another day, perhaps.

[Roger von Oech]

Interesting post. I especially liked this: "One such resurrection is the idea of the “commons” a feature of village life for centuries: a common resource, like a wood or grazing land, held in loose, self-regulated shared ownership for villagers to graze their flocks on."

As you may or may not know, the 25th anniversary edition of my book, "A Whack on the Side of the Head," will be coming out next spring. Over the past six months, there were a few places in my updating and revision where I was able to turn a concept-under-construction into a post and get comments from readers. This was quite worthwhile (and a little similar to what you describe).

[Valeria Maltoni]

Roger,

Now I must have a 25th year anniversary copy of your book ;-) And I believe that Chris Anderson did a lot of that for "The Long Tail". Not writing the book with readers... as you say, fine tuning. As a communicator, sometimes I need to hear myself say something to know what I'm thinking. Writers do the same.

[Joe Raasch]

Hi Valeria,

What should brand essence be? For personal, professional, product, or company: the essence (vision...) should be one of guidance.

I see too many 'brands' try to be 'the answer'. Consumers, or anyone listening to your brand, or anyone you might want to hear you, should see your brand as the 'guide with the flashlight'. Our job is to move people from one place to another - literally or figuratively. As a guide, our audience can self-organize (human systems dynamics!), or blindly follow us - their choice.

Be the 'one with the flashlight' , not the one on top of the mountain!

[Valeria Maltoni]

Joe:

Guidance allows for growth and dialogue. I like to talk talk about stories because they are evolved over time. Every single person who has touched a brand -- personal, professional, product and company, has left an imprint. Mike Wagner at Own Your Brand! had a great post a few weeks back about not completing your brand in the minds of consumers. We all see the world as we are.