Crowdsourcing Doesn't Guarantee Quality... But It Can Be Great Advertising
from the to-crowdsource-or-not-to-crowdsource dept
Earlier this month, BBC Audiobooks America started an audiobook project based on Twitter messages where Neil Gaiman kicked off an exquisite corpse process of stringing together about 1,000 Tweets to forge a storyline. Dozens of Twitter users contributed tweets to be edited into a coherent plot that will be released as a free audiobook download. From this publicity stunt, an approximately 50-page book (or 2-hr audiobook, actually) has been created from Gaiman's fans. And presumably, the collection of tweets could also be remixed and edited -- and improved -- to possibly gain further participation from Gaiman (who contributed the first line of the story and will read aloud the completed audiobook) and the attention of any number of other authors. It's not exactly a brand-new idea to compose a story in this way, but it's a very interesting way to advertise and connect with fans to whet their appetites for more content to come (and even pay for).However, the crowdsourcing aspect of this particular audiobook has been criticized in detail for exhibiting the worst of literary clichés as well as a meandering plot with too many characters and unresolved arcs. But generalizing this crowd's apparently unsatisfying result to all possible collaborative-author processes seems a bit disingenuous. Perhaps it's one of my pet peeves, but the schadenfreude surrounding crowdsourced works that aren't "as good as Shakespeare" seems to focus too much on some artificial failure, and not the potential or the realized successes. Maybe fiction isn't the best target for collaborative authorship, but the suggestion that collaborative writing won't ever work for good storytelling is far from proven. In fact, many popular stories (TV shows, etc) are written by teams of authors. (So the question could be posed: where does the optimal number of authors arise?) Conversely, the overwhelming number of unsuccessful stories written by single authors should not discourage writers from working alone, either. Bad stories happen.
The real triumph of this crowdwork is that this experiment engaged with its audience and promoted Gaiman and BBCAA for future works. From the BBC's perspective, a ton of content was generated largely for free, and a promotional audiobook was created in just a few days. Had the BBC commissioned a single author to compose a similar work, there wouldn't be any guarantees of a compelling book in the end. And working with a single author might require more complex licensing rights and royalties. So crowdsourcing this project sounds like an advertising coup -- generating a promotion appropriately disguised as free content. It's not Shakespeare, but it's a whole lot better than a banner ad, right?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, crowdsourcing, neil gaiman
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Disingenuous Indeed
I speculate that with more editorial control a more coherent story could be produced. But it's a fine line to dance on, with a bad story on one side and pissed off fans on the other. I have to agree with Techdirt on this one: it's better to have made the fans happy and ended up with a subpar work than the other way around at the end of the day. Not to mention all the attention it's getting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Everyone becomes a creator
The artists who may succeed in the future may not be the best musicians, but the ones who can best engage the audiences. The value of the Gaiman experiment, as you have pointed out, is that it got lots of people involved. The final result is not as important as giving people the feeling that they are part of the process. Karaoke isn't great music, but it's popular because a lot of people can do it. Flash mobs have appeal because lots of people can do them and the final result is quite fun.
Here's something I wrote on the topic.
http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/2009/09/people-formerly-known-as-fans.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Disingenuous Indeed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grantville Gazette
I don't read Shakespeare, so saying that the twitter-generated storyline isn't like it is a pretty good advertisement for me to at least go glance at it :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not as good as shakespeare?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmmm, not sure about this
There are of course, a lot of other important elements of a good story, but those above highlight how difficult crowdsourcing a work of fiction would be. Writing fiction is not easy; in fact, it is shockingly difficult. It is one of the most exclusive careers in the world, and there's a reason for that. The best editor out there will be unlikely to form a good story from cobbled tidbits of non-writers' writing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not art but community
1. Crowdsourcing: Lots of people contribute ideas. Those idea can either be combined, like the above novel. Or someone can pick and choose among them in hopes of finding the best one. People submitting t-shirt designs which can be voted on could be an example here.
2. Community involvement. Lots of people participate, but the idea has been generated by a central entity which maintains an overall vision. A flash mob where everyone does a planned dance could be an example.
All three produce some levels of engagement, but with varying degrees of art quality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artist experiments
Oh, I forgot - those people do something USEFUL - okay, since the only useless stuff around is from "artists", let's continue to devote massive amounts of space to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Artist experiments
You know, you're observation sums up the dilemma for artists these days. Their creations aren't necessary and in many cases can be easily copied, so it is harder to make money at what they do. I think more people are going to create art for their own self-expression and amusement, but relatively few are actually going to make any money doing it.
People will do "real work" for income, and art for fun, for self-expression, and for community.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hmmm, not sure about this
Basically, I think we have to step back and try to recognize where crowdsourced fiction (or crowdwork in general) might have advantages and not try to focus on its shortcomings. Crowdwork may not be good for all things, but it might be very good (or better) for certain tasks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Artist experiments
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hmmm, not sure about this
In any case, I don't think I was setting up goal posts at all, just highlighting that fiction is a pretty unique animal with qualities that make individual or small-group authorship more effective. Quality fiction also requires a level of skill and dedication that is not common. I do not believe that crowdsourced fiction will be able to effectively achieve the essential elements I laid out in my previous post. Few people have the skill to achieve them when they have full control over a story. The more meddlers, the less consistent and more cliched the story is likely to become.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, not sure about this
At any rate, it was a free form example of fictional writing that was better because of all the contributions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmmm, not sure about this
[ link to this | view in thread ]