The 2008 Open Source Convention, Produced by Good Company Communications, Photograph copyright James Duncan Davidson

This week’s readings were categorized under “copyright” and “free software.” However, a critical underpinning of the free and open software movement, as Professor Yochai Benkler points out in his seminal work, “The Wealth of Networks,” are the networks, online communities and social collaboratives that emerge around the labor and production of free software. On the surface, these communities have appeared to be tethered by motivations beyond monetary incentives and remuneration, a phenomenon which has prompted many to search for the the reasons for why people contribute to such projects. One of these folks is the author, Jeff Howe, who studies what he calls “crowdsourcing.” For those unfamiliar with the term, crowdsourcing = wikipedia, basically.  Thus, crowdsourcing often encompasses commons-based peer production and open-source software in that it taps the remote talent of many for tasks traditionally relegated to “experts.”

Since coining the term back in a June 2006 Wired article, Jeff Howe has been busy studying different cases–industries, markets, communities, in which the phenomenon has emerged, and cataloging the activity, reactions and opinions of those involved in the creative destruction that ensues. His most recent analysis has brought him to the graphic design industry, where clouds have been gathering around crowdsourced design sites like Crowdspring.com, 99Designs.com, and eLogoContest.com. At this season’s techie-nerd ragefest, the South by Southwest conference (SXSW) in Austin, Texas two weeks ago, Howe hosted a panel of designers and entrepreneurs on the topic, including Mike Samson of Crowdspring, David Carson of davidcarsondesign, Jeffrey Kalmikoff of threadless, Jerrimiah Owyang of Forrester Research, and Lydia Mann of AIGA (the professional association for design with following views on spec work: http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/position-spec-work).

In the opening remarks Howe poses the questions, “Does spec work democratize the industry? Or is it devaluing the work of highly trained professionals?”  Perhaps the most interesting response comes from Mike Samson, who claims that crowdsourcing and spec work does in fact “give people opportunity and access, who might not have had [them].  The Internet enables people all over the world to compete on a purely level playing field. [All of Crowdspring's creatives] have an equal opportunity and equal access to clients, and that’s democratization.”  He is echoed by Howe, who notes the chasm between established designers and young “journeymen” apprentices when he states that “The younger ones are saying, ‘Hey, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it’s a little tough [when] all the agencies require 3-5 years of experience, and I’m wondering how I’m supposed to get that?’ It’s this sort of catch-22, and then these sites arise…which can give work to these young designers from companies who can’t afford agencies. It seems innocuous, that the market is meeting some sort of [discrete] demand.”  In other words, Crowdspring provides access and exposure for up-and-coming designers through its democratic production mechanism.  Then Samson goes on to note that “there’s all kinds of people working on crowdspring,” such as hobbyists, amateurs, stay-at-home moms, established professionals, art directors from large agencies, “who want to keep their skills sharp in logo design…or just like to compete, or are there to learn, or there to be a member of the community.”  Thus, he highlights two more key incentives: social bonds of community and skill and knowledge improvement.  Even the most seasoned contributors on Crowdspring engage the community to hone their craft and draw from the variation of experiene and perspective, which they cannot get in a studio of 15 or so other designers.

Together, these observations do suggest to me that there are powerful social, communal and intellectual attractions to sites like Crowdspring.  However, financial returns and monetary incentives are never far from the mind.  If you take a closer look, it’s evident that contributors congregate around Crowdspring and other spec work sites in an attempt to gain something–exposure, reputation, cache, credibility or a track record, which at some other date can and will be converted to real cash money.  In other words, participants are attracted by the potential for delayed income streams.  Indeed it appears from the design industry case that Yochai Benkler and Nicholas Carr may both be partially correct in that participants in crowdsourced, open-source and free online environments respond to immediate non-monetary incentives and economic incentives, but in an indirect and delayed form.

What do you’s all think? What are the incentives to participate or refrain from commons-based peer production or open-source communities? Of course, Crowdspring provides cash prizes and rewards. However, these rewards pale in to the sums that traditional graphic designers receive–Crowdspring has significantly undercut the market. Thus, the uproar. Still, are there any meaningful analogies between this case and free, open-source software production? What role do reputation, notoriety, self-improvement or sheer pleasure and sense of belonging play?