Chapter 4—Faster, Cheaper, Smarter, Easier: Democratizing the Means of Production

Valued readers old and new: Thanks for your patience. I've recently wrapped up another all-consuming round of edits on the book, confirming—for the thousandth time—the truth in the adage that writing is easy, it's re-writing that's hard. At any rate, I'm jumping in right where we left off on our "Crowdsourcing the Crowdsourcing Book" experiment. For anyone just tuning in, Crown Business and Random House UK will be including an appendix containing the most trenchant comments and criticisms elicted by the pre-publication excerpts posted on my blog. I won't always agree with all of you, but  that's all the more reason to include you in the book. And now onto the book. Here's Chapter 4:

The “consumer” may one day be an antiquated concept. The term implies passivity in a process that is in fact becoming more collaborative every day. If the rise of the amateur provided the crowdsourcing engine with fuel, and the open source software movement provided it with a highly adaptable design, it is the wide availability to the means of production that is blurring the boundary between creators and consumers. Thanks largely to the Internet and the rapidly falling cost of the silicon chip, the ability for the people formerly known as consumers to play a meaningful role in the marketplace—of ideas, as well as more tangible goods—has reached unprecedented levels.

Media—publishing, filmmaking, photography and music—comprise the vanguard in this movement—suddenly given access to cheap equipment, user-friendly software and cost-free distribution, an entire generation of aspiring musicians, filmmakers, writers and other creatives are choosing to bypass the way “product” has traditionally been generated, marketed and sold. And these same dynamics are beginning to affect other fields as well, whether that involves high school students participating in astronomy projects, audiophiles building their own electronic gadgets or craftspeople using the Internet to sell their own handmade goods. So far we’ve looked primarily at the companies doing the crowdsourcing. Here we’ll look instead at the people who make up the crowd, and what—given the means—they’re choosing to produce. People who have eschewed every traditional route to making it in their respective industries. People who are creating new business models simply by virtue of following their instincts and their hearts. People like Mike Belmont.

Belmont isn’t your typical public school dropout. When he was nine he would spend hours exploring the fields on the way to school from the apartment he shared with his mom in San Jose, California. He wanted to study entomology, but classes got in the way of collecting bugs. “I liked school,” he says, “but I figured I could learn more on my own.” Soon he’d leave for school but never arrive, spending his days in the fields instead. This hardly escaped the attention of his mother or the local truant officer. Belmont, however, was nothing if not determined. “My mom was always working so there wasn’t much she could do.” For a while the truant officer would show up every morning to bring Belmont to school, accompanied by the police. So he started covering his arms in Vaseline so he could wriggle away when they tried to grab him. Finally, the school gave up trying to force him to come to class and informed his mother that henceforth he would be home-schooled—though in Belmont’s case self-schooled is a more apt description. Belmont says he spent the next seven years collecting insects and reading books in the local library. When he approached the local high school at age 15, he tested into the eleventh grade.

Wriggling free became a pastime for Belmont, who has since become a somewhat notorious figure in the film industry, though most people know him by his pseudonym, M dot Strange. The 28-year-old self-taught animator has created a movie, entitled We Are the Strange, about a doll and a small girl who search for the perfect ice cream parlor. Along the way they encounter monsters, robots and an unusual hero named Rain. It’s an original, if unusual film. It looks like it was created by someone who has spent his life immersed in video games, the Internet and Japanese pop culture, as indeed is the case. Belmont made We Are the Strange without a cast, crew or budget. But because he video blogged the process of making the movie, he’d developed a sizeable fan base before he’d even finished editing his movie. In 2006 he released a trailer for the movie on YouTube, where it quickly became a cult hit. The notoriety led to a coveted screening at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival.

Soon Belmont had obtained professional management and begun making the rounds to various indie film outfits looking to distribute the film. “It turned my stomach,” he says of the experience. “They wanted everything. I couldn’t have sold the movie on DVDs or over the Internet or anything.” Against his manager’s advice, he wriggled free of those deals as well. “The idea is that you join the system, and it’ll be good for your career, even if you sign away all the rights to your work and wind up poorer,” says Belmont. “Well, excuse me, but fuck the system.”

Ten years ago, for instance, rejecting Hollywood would have consigned a young filmmaker to a lifetime of obscurity. The path to directing feature films started in film school, which was followed by years of working in entry-level production jobs while making low-budget short films for the festival circuit. Eventually, if the aspiring auteur possessed talent and pluck and knew the right people, he might get the financing to make a film that could, if luck happened to strike twice, get picked up by a distributor who would get the movie into a few art house theaters in New York and LA. Only if the film held real commercial appeal would it have a chance to break out across the country. Then the director gets to start the process all over again, this time with a feature to his credit. In other words, the odds were stacked against him.

But the tectonic plates beneath Hollywood are shifting. What’s significant about Belmont’s example isn’t that he elected to reject a studio deal; plenty of artists choose to work in uncorrupted obscurity rather than compromise their vision for mainstream acceptance. What’s significant is that Belmont isn’t opting for obscurity at all. Intelligent, quick-witted and charming, he knows how to work a room, online and off, and says all the right things to a journalist. His YouTube trailer has been viewed nearly one million times, and his movie has been written about everywhere from Variety to The New York Times. For all his self-conscious strangeness, Belmont is also a level-headed, no-nonsense filmmaker with every desire to reach an audience. Having rejected a theatrical distribution deal, Belmont instead released the movie through the file-sharing technology, BitTorrent. He makes his money on merchandizing and DVD sales.

Belmont is Hollywood’s worst nightmare—cheap entertainment that commands millions of eyeballs, yet can be produced and distributed for free, leaving much of the film industry redundant. “I don’t need a studio to distribute or finance my films,” he says, without a trace of defiance in his voice. Unlike generations of independent filmmakers before him, Belmont doesn’t hate Hollywood. He just doesn’t need it.

Comments

[David Andersson]

On my first read I didn't quite realize the point, then I found it again in the "Media-publishing..." paragraph. How about splitting that into two paragraphs, the latter beginning with "So far we've looked..."? To emphasize what the chapter's about; I like the story about Belmont, but I think it could be clearer that this chapter is about the people that make up the crowd, perhaps putting something about that in the beginning of the chapter even? Or is it about something else?

If the chapter's more about the actual means that have become democratized, I think you by this text sort of miss the point of your own chapter title. I agree that he's working his thing, talking to people, blogging, getting a critical mass to get high diggs and relative videos on youtube, but that is not the Means of Production, that's the Means of Distribution!

You start by telling us about no-cost distribution, free software etc. But Belmont's story, is not so much about production than it is about distribution

As I said, I like the story, but would like to see perhaps more facts. I don't know what I mean by that, but there's something that gives me the impression the story's isn't that much about the production.

---

Will there be more examples like Belmont? I would say there certainly are people like Belmont, but there's also a huge chunk of "ordinary" people, who go to school, work, and everything and also are a creative part of the crowd.

[Alan Booker]

“The “consumer” may one day be an antiquated concept.”

Jeff, within the context you have placed the above comment and tied to the word passive you might narrowly scrape by. But, it would certainly be a huge stretch to think that “the consumer” might ever belong to an earlier period!

Materialism and by osmosis the consumer are showing no signs of going the way of the ox and cart, or to keep in within the purely American context, the horse and wagon. In fact, one might turn that phrase on its head and maintain that consumerism in the name of ever-refined technologies like Neuroscience and specialized marketing might possibly push consumerism to a new height, or should I say low?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/05/neuroeconomics-buying-decisions-biz_cx_ee_0105papers.html

The vast majority of the consumer group will most likely be unable to tap into the ability to produce anything anytime soon.

Consumerism is a one-way flood that will completely ignore the drip, or possible trickle that opportunity, through either the Internet or falling costs of technology might offer.

There can be no question that the numbers and relationship thereof to those who are able to create will continue to go through a noticeable metamorphosis though.

I do whole-heartedly agree that in the realm of the brokering of ideas, access to the creation and transformation of goods, services and the producer consumer relationship is huge and has already been trans-formative to that end.

Warm regards, Alan

[Tim Gilchrist]

I would agree with Alan that starting off with "The “consumer” may one day be an antiquated concept" would be a stretch. In order to make an impact on the reader, this statement requires a great example that speaks to the mass market rather than a niche one such as film.

The best example I can think of is the Lifan motorcycle in Wikinomics p.218. They are very close to being virtual, allowing customer needs to simply pass through and become product.

Other examples might come from: Mass customization http://www.emachineshop.com, software www.openoffice.org, the music industry and how it has coped with changes in production and distribution, or possibly some historical example where a community needed an innovation to survive and created a shared/open resource to solve the problem.

You might also look at the movement towards collaboration as a sociological response to: less rewarding corporate work experiences and the emergence of gen "Y" who are "Natural Born Crowdsourcers". I gave a speech on this phenomenon, video is on my blog.

http://microengagement.blogspot.com/2007/07/marketing-executives-network-group-meng_5900.html

Great work Jeff, Can't wait for the book!

[Monica Hamburg]

I also concur with Alan’s comment. While Crowdsourcing (and social media in general) often blurs the line between audience and creator, consumer and producer, it is still reaching to conclude that the consumer may someday be obsolete. (note the 1% rule re online content – 1% will create, 10% will interact & 89% will just view http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianweeklytechnologysection2 )

Otherwise, this excerpt is lovely - very exciting and inspiring.

The statement “fuck the system” (thank you Belmont) is not so much anti-establishment, as a comment on how the system is extremely flawed. As you wisely pointed out, choosing not participate in the system is a far cry from choosing not to participate at all. Many people have made and established their presence and careers online – outside of the mainstream conveyor belt.

OK, I am being a bit harsh and my opinion is, of course, somewhat biased – I am basing it on my own (and some of my friends’) experiences navigating the performance world for many years But it is impossible to ignore the fact that rather than being a potential vehicle to bring in exciting new content and performers into the arena, the system often becomes an obstacle course – stacked strongly against originality in every form. It is less about “what you can do” than weeding people out based on assumptions about what they can’t do and what they are not. It’s a viciously hierarchical system - and what someone can offer is an afterthought, frequently a non-consideration. There’s too much noise for the signal to get through.

What is wonderful about Crowdsourcing (and Social Media, in general) is that a part of the artistic obstacle course is being removed. Certainly this concept began, as you mentioned, with the advent of more accessible means of production (digital cameras, video recorders etc.) but the exposure wasn’t entirely there until Web 2.0. The value is becoming about what you do, rather than “who” you are or who you know. E.g. is your design any good (Threadless)? How about your music (Selleband)? Failing that, is it popular? So, certainly there are pointless cat vids and frat stunts on Youtube (that’s no different than the mainstream which has no shortage of enduring stupidity - “Americas Home Videos” and the like, anyone?) - but the beauty is that a talented creator can get all the exposure he needs with a carefully executed social media plan. A talented and personable filmmaker, who doesn’t have the backing or funds to publicize and get his films into theatres can do what Belmont has so aptly demonstrated: make his work and profit outside of the mainstream. And if you don’t want to go it entirely alone, there are options as well - an unsigned musician can use something like Selleband to fund and record their album with top people, which might have been untenable without the site and the opportunity it provides.

Most aren’t saying “Fuck the System” because that’s cool – they are saying that because they feel left out - and with good reason. For most participating in Crowdsourcing and social media, they aren’t necessarily eschewing the advantages of “a” system – they are advocating the need for more participation, greater openness, less restrictions - and being able to produce and/or watch material that has meaning to them. Amen.

[Monica Hamburg]

And I meant "Sellaband", btw.

[Wayne Perry]

This is an interesting concept. Consumer is a fairly patriarchal term that denotes the one way flow of value. This is what I think you were alluding to Jeff. That the one way value chain or discourse between the creator of a "product" and it's consumer is crumbling in the light of enabling technologies.

If you view the consumer as a passive source of revenue or as a participant group needing a voice - then perhaps that view isn't wide enough.

In light of this chapter, I am thinking about:

1. What is an industry (a protected means of production designed to allow for the accumulation of wealth).

2. What is a company (a vehicle through which goods are delivered within an industry)

3. What is a professional (a specialist who participates in the creation of product within the protected industry).

Question: What happens when professionals, companies and industries are replaced by individuals because barriers to participation in that industry have been removed by technology or access to markets through the internet?

Here is where it gets more interesting…

Q. Who is the individual who will do that?

A. Well it will be someone passionate and knowledgeable about a given topic.

Q. Who was that person before they were enabled by technology to be a producer?

A. Well they were usually someone who loved the topic enough to become a "professional"

- - - - - - OR - - - - -

*** They were a Passionate Consumer ***

We know that all consumers are not created equal, just like all crowd members are not created equal.

When the barriers to industry participation fall, will my consumers become my competitors?

Well YES, because they have a passion for an industry but have been excluded from it.

Well, can't I just buy them when they make it?

No, because the crowd isn't always motivated by money.

Will that potentially undermine my industry?

Yes.

Therefore, the consumer may be an antiquated concept.

[Alan]

Excellent train of thought Wayne and as such is irrefutable! Once applied to Jeff’s lead sentence and the following context it also would make lots of sense and be a great example of a rhetorical coup de grace.

I would still maintain however that, as with all concepts, they are only laid to rest once defined and therein resides the problem. Concepts once laid to rest are, for all intent and purposes, dead. The best concepts are left to breath and thereby an ongoing metamorphosis.

Had Jeff started the paragraph with the last sentence he used, all would have been rosy.

“What happens when professionals, companies and industries are replaced by individuals because barriers to participation in that industry have been removed by technology or access to markets through the internet?”

Your point might be very successfully applied to an individual situation but because you are stating generalizations and assumptions, rather than depending on actual instances, you’re reasoning might prove to be faulty.

You might be making a logical fallacy in maintaining that temporal succession implies a causal relation. A passionate consumer is still a consumer, just as a professional might, in another realm, also be an amateur or vice versa.

Jeff might have made the same mistake, but within the context of a lengthy text it posses less of a problem because one can arrive at the intended point out of the greater thrust of his comments.

Suffice it to say that there is nothing better than a brain stretcher and mine feels twisted!

How do they say, the proof of the pudding is in its eating. I, and most likely my offspring and theirs, will be buying Twinkies, or whatever they might be called in the far distant future, till the cows come home.

Your humble antagonist, Alan

[Wayne Perry]

Alan, sxample provided. I didn't opt for an easy example like Blogging as a threat to publishing. How about Crowd participation as a threat to the banking system alternate suppliers of capital into the ecnomic system :)

The Crowd as Owners & The Falling Barriers to Capital Deployment: Thoughts on “How I Became a Little-Guy Lender”, Amy Feldman (April, 2008) Business Week Magazine,
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_18/b4082000029137.htm?chan=search

I read this article by Amy Feldman shortly after reading Jeff Howe’s latest online installment (http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/cs/2008/04/chapter-4faster.html) in which he thinks critically about the role of the consumer in the in the digital age. He argues that falling barriers – in the form of access to the means of production, are enabling the Crowd. These reduced barriers allow the crowd to migrate from end users in the economic food chain to that of producers of experiences, content and innovations as potential competitors to the existing order of firms within a given industry.

When I think about barriers to participation in an economic system as an owner of the means of production, I naturally gravitate to the Howe version of the Means of Production. What Feldman highlights is that there are other barriers falling.

My view of Barriers Includes:

- The Tool (Means used to directly Produce the Product)
- The Enabling Technology (Means employed to support Production of the Product)
- The Knowledge (Means to identify and capture opportunities to Produce the Product)
- The Capital (Means used fund Production and Commercialization of the Product)

In examining the role of Prosper (www.prosper.com) as a micro loan facilitation portal you would think that it acts as a facilitator for access to The Capital. However, something interesting becomes apparent when you examining the company’s business model and site. Indeed they do arrange for the transfer of Capital. The do also aggregate both the providers of Capital and the seekers of Capital.

It seems to me though, that a principal barrier to Crowd participation as a source of capital deployment in an economic system is two fold. The Crowd may or may not lack the level of knowledge required to make reasoned Capital deployment decisions. However, most individuals in a Crowd will DEFINITELY lack the Enabling technologies that allow for reasonable decision making. Enabling technologies and information such as Credit Score Reporting, Risk Management Analysis Algorithms, Portfolio Analytics, Rate of Return Calculators and the like.

Barriers in this are not insignificant because even though I may have the Means to deploy capital into a loan system as a Crowd member in competition with a Bank, I would more than likely not abandon my role as a Bank consumer because the Bank employs enabling technologies that allow it to use the primary tool (loan making) more efficiently than I can with access to the same tool.

However, when access to the primary tool of production is augmented with similar enabling / support technologies as those enjoyed by professionals within a given industry, then I am free to use my unique knowledge in a the Crowd to jump from my role as a passive consumer to co-industry participant.

[MadelineLevytmeu]

I like this.

...................

Made

Wow, check out this site called http://www.fluc.com
Free SMS and free mobile ads!! Its fantastic

[UK Dissertation]

it's good to see this information in your post, i was looking the same but there was not any proper resource, thanx now i have the link which i was looking for my research.

http://www.mastersdissertation.co.uk/

[Sue Tinder]

The first paragraph of this chapter begins with an opinion I disagree with, that the consumer is passive. I disagree with this because the consumer has a major voice in what they will and will not purchase, have through the years helped businesses realize a profit or meet their doom in the failure which comes from consumers taking their hard earned dollars elsewhere. The consumer is not passive. Smart businesses will market that which they know consumers are wanting. Companies who are arrogant enough to think that they can produce whatever product and the consumer will virtually have no choice but to buy it is worse than mistaken.