October
2014
For this post, I decided to integrate two aspects of this course: application of a tool and external research on social media topics. I found an article in the MIT Sloan Management Review that discussed 7 steps that can help a brand reap greater rewards from their social media campaigns. I have summarized the findings of the report in an infographic, one of the tools discussed by presentation groups in our lecture.
October
2014
Carol Tice, a contributor at Forbes.com’s Entrepreneurs section, observed crowd funding initiatives in today’s marketplace. In order for crowd funding to properly succeed, a greater understanding of how the process works is needed compared to what most people know. Most startup entrepreneurs fantasize, per se, about raising money on sites such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo. Unfortunately, the majority of these potential businesses are only aiming to get lucky and happen upon a large pool of funds. It is important for people to understand that crowd funding platforms are “simply a more efficient way for you to reach many potential backers.” (Tice) There is more to crowd funding than simply putting an idea onto a website.
Tice continues on to list the ways that facilitate crowd funding success. There are five components that all successful crowd funding startups have in common. First, they have an audience that are already aware of the product being offered — prior to it being posted on the crowd funding site. According to Kickstarter’s FAQs, “In most cases, the majority of funding initially comes from the fans and friends of each project.” (Kickstarter) For this reason, entrepreneurs cannot rely on strangers to fund their project without people already on board. Second, the entrepreneur is offering something revolutionary. For example, the article points out one successful campaign from Kickstarter: the 3Doodler, which allows owners to use a pen to draw in three dimensions. I have personal experience with this exact crowd funding project, where I pledged my money toward the creation of this product and now own a 3Doodler of my own. The reason for my purchase was, quite honestly, the groundbreaking nature of the technology.
A third commonality amongst successful crowd funders is using aggressive marketing tactics in order to capture audience attention. Fourth, the creation and distribution of an engaging video will build excitement and cause viewers to share the content. The spread of the video will help lead to an increasing number of potential consumers. Finally, providing worthwhile rewards for contributors will aid in the success of the campaign. People will not want to invest their money without receiving a benefit that they would enjoy. For example, I pledged 99 USD in order to have the actual 3Doodler as my “reward”, along with a certain number of “ink” refills. I had the option to pledge more or less for different rewards, but the 99 USD level had the reward that piqued my interest the most.
A campaign needs at least four of these elements in order to even attempt to pick up traction on funding. Crowd funding requires careful planning and evaluation in order to be successful.
Works Cited
“Kickstarter FAQ.” Kickstarter Basics » Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2014. <https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%2Bbasics?ref=footer>.
Tice, Carol. “The Myth Of Magical Crowdfunding — And What Actually Works.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 20 Oct. 2014. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/caroltice/2014/10/20/the-myth-of-magical-crowdfunding-and-what-actually-works/>.
October
2014
Peer production and open source projects are collaborative means of product creation, typically referring to electronic tasks. The collaborators are members of self-organizing communities that outline individual goals for adaptations to a universal core product. Peer production is the term for the collaborative means of creating a product that stems from multiple members of a community, with goals for a shared outcome.
On the other hand, “open source” typically refers to the electronic project that is worked upon under peer production development. An open source project “shares its source code for free, giving programmers everywhere permission to [alter] it.” (15, Hyatt) In a world of increasing dependence on technology, innovation is vital for development of useful products. There are many aspects of peer production and open source that have been examined, from attempting to understand why it can be successful to researching what limitations may exist.
The articles under examination for the paper that accompanies this post include an interview and three research articles. The interview is between Josh Hyatt, from the MIT Sloan Management Review, and Marten Mickos, senior vice president at Sun. In the interview, they discuss aspects of open source projects from a managing perspective, which is a different view from the majority of those involved in open source software development. The first research article is about innovation models and how to define what type of innovation open source and peer production is considered to be. The authors define a new model from the preexisting models, “private-collective” innovation, where developers use their own resources to privately invest in the creation of code that will then be freely revealed to the public. From there, a research article on Chinese Wikipedia tries to explain the correlation between group size and willingness to contribute to open source projects. The main finding is that there is “a positive relationship between group size and contributors’ contribution levels.” (11, Zhang) Finally, the fourth article uncovers that “open source software development can be modeled as self-organizing, collaboration, social networks.” (1806, Bonaccorsi) This relationship between developers helps to further examine the social benefits associated with peer production.
Many experiments have been done and articles have been written on the topic of peer production and open source software. More research can be done on how group size impacts contribution levels and how having a central authority impacts productivity of the community. The social aspect of peer production is also something that should be further researched. Overall, having open source projects is vital to innovation and creating new, useful products.
Works Cited
Bonaccorsi, Andrea, and Cristina Rossi. “Why Open Source Software Can Succeed.” Elsevier. Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, 2003. Web. Oct. 2014. <http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0048733303000519/1-s2.0-S0048733303000519-main.pdf?_tid=92288c36-53ad-11e4-9e31-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1413296747_e81d0671dd779522b5ffe2e325f09973>.
Hyatt, Josh. “The Oh-So-Practical Magic of Open-Source Innovation.” MIT Sloan Management Review. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fall 2008. Web. Oct. 2014. <http://bblp.eur.nl/bbcswebdav/pid-377831-dt-content-rid-3055341_1/courses/BKBMIN030-14/hyatt_sloan08_oh-so-practical%20magic%20of%20open%20source%20innovation.pdf>.
Von Hippel, Eric, and Georg Von Krogh. “Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science.”Organization Science 14.2 (2003): 208-23. 30 Apr. 2002. Web. Oct. 2014. <http://evhippel.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/private-collective-model-os.pdf>.
Zhang, Xiaoquan, and Feng Zhu. “Group Size and Incentives to Contribute: A Natural Experiment at Chinese Wikipedia.” American Economic Review 101.4 (2011): 1601-615. Web. Oct. 2014.
September
2014
How easy is it to convince people that a story is true on social media? Are people reluctant to believe what they read? How about images? Are they believable?
Dutch student Zilla van der Born spent five weeks traveling through Southeast Asia to answer these questions. At least that is what her friends and family believed, based on what she told them before “leaving” and through her social media communications. In reality, van der Born remained in her room and visited different locations in her city to take photographs that would later be altered to appear as though she was in Asia.
Van der Born planned out her “journey”, faked Skype calls with her parents using different backgrounds to create an Asian façade, and snuck around the city to take pictures that could be easily altered by a graphic designer in order to corroborate her story.
In today’s visual culture, it is not difficult to alter reality via technology. The use of Photoshop is ever-present in photographs and advertisements, creating false versions of reality in consumers’ minds. In the words of Zilla van der Born, “We should be more careful about what we believe, and ask ourselves why a photo is made — how and by whom and with which intention.” The creation of false images is not a new idea, but the acceptance of these images is growing. Deception in advertisement, of a product or of one’s self, is a common issue and van der Born’s mission was to help display this.
People are unaware of the distortion of images they see as they walk down the street, read a magazine, or sit at a bus stop. Does this create an advantage for companies trying to advertise their products? Or does it hinder their ability to deliver on the promises made by their advertisements?
References
