Mission Statement

Hi. My name is Jeff Howe. I’m a contributing editor to Wired Magazine, and I recently published an article about a phenomenon I call Crowdsourcing. The article explored the ways in which the amateur – defined as scientists, writers, photographers or anyone else working outside an organizational structure like a firm – has become an increasingly significant economic force in our world. This Web site will primarily continue that mission. Journalists regularly gather far more material than they can use. This was especially true in this case, and so the Web site will allow me to cast some light on the many fascinating people and ideas that didn’t make it into the article.

However, Crowdsourcing.net will take a very different approach to the subject. In the article I wanted simply to show how companies are increasingly taking advantage of a global populace that’s getting more intelligent and more productive and more connected. I declined to pass judgment over whether crowdsourcing is a good or bad thing; nor did I forecast how it might all shake out.

On Crowdsourcing.net I'll encourage the expression of opinion, both foolish and otherwise, starting now: I believe that crowdsourcing’s long-term promise is immeasurable, but I have considerable misgivings about its short-term applications and its implications for the people – like stock photographers – who will be adversely affected by the crowd.

Finally, I’d like Crowdsourcing.net to be more of a forum than a bully pulpit. To that end, the Web site will function more like a single-subject journal than a blog. I intend to solicit and accept submissions to the site. I won’t guarantee publication, but I’ll promise to exercise as light an editorial hand as possible in my selections. If it adds to the discussion without insulting or offending any party, I’ll publish it. The result should be something of a Speaker’s Corner. At first I’ll probably be the only one speaking, pounding on the podium for attention, but with any luck a loud and raucous crowd will clamor to be heard.

Comments

[Russell Kord]

Hi Dave,

I have no doubt there will be many new users of stock because people are willing to sell images for a dollar. The $30-40 you spend will be split 80/20 with the website. So the creators will get $6-8. How many downloads do you pruchase each time? Do you buy $1 downloads or $3? I'm just trying to figure out how much each contributor will earn from your business.

The problem for "professional" photographers with skills and experience is that many of the 30-35,000 regular photo buyers from magazines and graphic design firms that constitute the bulk of the customers in the US are also buying $1 downloads instead of spending $75-150 and up for an
image from a stock agency. That severly limits the earnings of professionals, and their ability to produce new imagery. (I am unaware of how much of the savings designers are passing on to their clients. Maybe some graphic designers can let us know.)

Declining earnings mean a whole generation of stock travel photographers is disappearing. People that would spend days waiting for the best light(airfare,hotel,food,car rental,gas,insurance) are being replaced by people who wouldn't know or care about light, spend a few moments taking the photo and pass on to the next place where the process is repeated. Sometimes they get lucky (as do professionals in all truth) and a great image presents itself. If they post it on istockphoto they will get 20% of not much. And you will get a bargain that cost you a lot less than it really costs to produce.

Professionals could try to drop their prices and make up the earnings on volume, but their are'nt enough clients out there on planet earth to buy sufficient $1downloads to cover their costs, let alone make a profit, even over time, because many images (like people in clothing with hair styles)
get dated quickly.

Perhaps one day in the future you will look at the stock agency websites and buy an expensive $50+ image. But if the istockphoto image looks good enough, why bother to spend so much more money? I don't blame you.

Now, where can a find an trail attorney that will work for $10/hour? Why bother spending the $300+/hour a professional charges when the www.iattorney.com (fictional website - I think..) people work so much cheaper? ...after all most judges won't know the difference. I wonder how those attorneys at iattorney.com pay thier bills with the 20% they get? Hey, who cares, I'm looking for a bargain, and I'm using an attorney. Which I would'nt have done in the past. New markets are being opened up, and talent that was wasted is now being used. If the professional attorneys want my business they can always drop their prices to $10/hour and make up their earnings in volume.

[Ryan Schultz (Quiplash)]

I just found this website today (via my bloglines subscription to Many-to-Many) and just wanted to say: great idea for a blog! Playing catchup in reading the postings but I expect there'll be LOTS of territory to cover as this idea begins to take hold.

[Daren C. Brabham]

In catching up with the postings to this blog, I'm drawn to the rants of Russell Kord the most. His grievances with crowdsourcing are excellent for spurring discussion, and I think he is peeling back some of the glitz associated with this business model, exposing the real human story that happens with professional photographers.

However, Russell complains that "Digital cameras have taken away any skill necessary to expose a decent image, composition is a matter of opinion, and distribution is now cheap and easy." I personally see it as a good sign that technology (digital cameras) has become so diffused to where everyday citizens can have the power to capture high quality images for ourselves. I think it's a good thing, too, that we can all distribute our images--our ideas...the way we see the world--to people around the world so easily. And I'm also very glad we've progressed to a point where good composition is a matter of opinion. Art is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and to shackle "goodness" to the professional/academic notions of "good composition" is to miss out on much more.

These debates have happened in a number of venues, between high brow and popular art. It took us a long time to realize that popular stuff--Monster truck rallies, junk food, game shows--was valuable for our culture, that people found meaning in themselves and purpose in this world from "low brow" moments in life. It was radical to think that ethnic dances were to be appreciated much like ballet, that we should appreciate differing perspectives in this world as equally valuable...just different.

If someone's composition is "bad," then don't look at it, don't purchase it, and write a letter to the editor of your newspaper to talk about how we need to learn to value proper, "correct" composition in photography. If a composition is a matter of opinion--if it's "good enough" for companies to want to buy to represent their products and services--then it has value in this world.

Sticking too closely to the "proper" way to produce "good" photography will certainly silence diversity and prevent new ideas--ideas that could change our world--from making it into the public eye.

If businesses demand the "right kind" of composition in the photographs they choose, then I guess the crowd will have to do some Internet research to learn how to take a "good" photograph. Or the crowd will have to enroll in some courses to learn good photography skill. But, I think what Russell fears most of all is not that "good-enough" photography will mean the collapse of the professional stock photographer, but that someday the crowd will learn all the ivory tower techniques for taking a good photograph and surpass the professional in quality. At least, that's already starting to happen. Power to the people.

db

[Russell Kord]

Revisiting the comments I made over a year ago, they do seem like a rant. Perhaps by the end of this post I will be ranting again...

Seeing the responses is also rewarding. There seems to be little sympathy for professional photographers or their livelihood. Thats the way it should should be. The free market is a truly merciless place, where only the fit survive, and the rest are left to starve in the gutter.

In the year past I have re-learned a few basic truths. A digital camera is a wonderful tool, but it won't tell you what images photo buyers need this Friday afternoon. Quality is not relative, nor in the eye of the beholder. The cold hard truth is that even the most clueless can recognize the difference between great composition and technique, and sloppy rubbish.

Equally, the present variety of distribution methods give the rubbish the same footing and the best.
Many great images are passed by, because they are buried on "page 802 of 2,876 found", whether at giant pro stock websites or community based sites. Resources and technology are not there to separate the wheat from the chaff. Yet. That will change.

Once you can search everywhere instantly, content will as they say "be King".

But, today, many buyers of images don't have the time or fortitude to scroll through 1,867,396 images of a New York City skyline. They're just looking for one image, to blow the socks of their customers and hold their attention for a fraction of a second. They still call one, maybe two photo libraries. Time is in short supply, employees expensive.

We are clearly not done with this digital revolution. I remember working for a photo library in London 20 years ago. Our biggest worry was how to compete with an American agency called The Image Bank. TIB had the best photographers and the best imagery, and the best photo catalogs. Where is TIB today? (it is around, but you do have to look).What are "photo catalogs"? It seems very unlikely that today's current players will be around in the future. Technology and the marketplace have a nasty way of upsetting things.

Whatever way people choose to distribute photography, it will be the great images that people will buy again and again.

I once had a good friend and fellow photographer who I admired greatly. He started working in East Germany, a photo agent in the West saw his work and helped get him out (no details I'm afraid). He worked with a View Camera and produced timeless scenics of the finest quality. He would live in a Camper van and Scout in the same country for a year or more, coming back to the same location, making notes in a small notebook. Eventually, in the right season, on the right day, with the right weather, at the right time he would make the image.

How do we know these were "right"? Because in the merciless eyes of the market place, people would put down good money tens of thousands of times a year to buy these images. Thats how he got to spend years traveling around the world instead of sitting in a cubicle that smells of sweat, typing into a computer, and hating his boss. He of course became a millionaire (EUR/USD). Even today, with scenic images selling for around USD45 his earnings remain substantial.

If you need a definition of the "right" images, that's the only one that counts.

Its not professional photographers who define what is right, its the marketplace. Professionals
just have more of a clue about what it takes to make a living. If they loose that, they're done.
And so they should be.

[rahul]

wonderful work, i like so much,its a phenomenal post.

[Cheap Acomplia]

Hello. Good article )

[adult chat rooms]

Thanks for a marvelous posting! I genuinely enjoyed reading it, you happen to be a great author.I will make sure to bookmark your blog and may come back later on. I want to encourage you continue your great posts, have a nice weekend!

[adult chat rooms]

Thanks for your marvelous posting! I quite enjoyed reading it, you can be a great author.I will make certain to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back down the road. I want to encourage continue your great writing, have a nice morning!

[chat rooms]

Thanks for your personal marvelous posting! I certainly enjoyed reading it, you might be a great author.I will always bookmark your blog and will come back later in life. I want to encourage you to continue your great writing, have a nice morning!

[Ed Shada]

I am the President of CrowdPicks.com, a sports crowdsourcing website where our crowd predicts the outcomes of future sporting events against the oddsmakers of the world. Over the past year our 'smart crowd' correctly predicted the winner of all 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals, 4 out of 6 NBA Finals including the over/under, and 66% of the NFL games picked last season. Clearly, when you isolate those in the crowd who are above average in their picks you increase your odds of winning. We call these people our 'smart crowd'. You can find these smart people across all industries. We believe you can find them through compelling free-to-play-games. We are currently working on 2 other areas where this can be applied.

[BookerMarsha]

It is good that people can get the loan moreover, this opens completely new possibilities.