Andy on Twitter

  • Amazon announces profits ⅓ of what street expected. Bezos becomes world's wealthiest person. That's just how the Zon roles...,
  • “Be the silence that listens.” — Tara Brach () (thanks ),
  • Wow! ,
  • Everytime I have to go back to the world I think "I just wish this company used for everything". ,
  • Every time I am "forced" to use Microsoft software it is nothing but a major disappointment - think the hardware might be ahead of software,
  • RR points to the sad state of the CMO. Succession is the major issue - aside from the turnover itself ,
  • Of to Christchurch. Brrrrrrrrrrr,
  • Stop whining about Facebook and Google and learn from them - spot bloody on! ,
  • Looking forward to reading this ,
  • Worth a read ,
  • Love this... ,
  • Like how McKinsey frames culture and behaviour together. ,
  • Fed Up with Super Rugby games stopages for criminal investigations. Equaly tired of thuggery ,
  • Quarter final super rugby and the stadium looks pretty empty. Sad state of super rugby in AU,
  • Agree with Mark - don't get it. Don't need to be reminded that my sandwich was a beauty chook. ,
  • Connect

Peerage Production

There has been plenty of talk in the blogosphere about the power of peer (or, community) production. The notion being that by virtue of us all coming together and creating/contributing the product is defined and created.

I’ve often wondered the extent to which this is actually happening. There might be plenty of participants but few contributors. Richard has some sats on Digg that seem to reinforce this notion:

  • Of Digg’s 445,000 registered users, only 2,287 contributed any stories to the site during the last six weeks.
  • The top 100 users contributed fully 55% of the stories that appeared on the site’s front page, and the top 10 users contributed a whopping 30% of the front page stories.

Nick chimes in with a great descriptor: “Peer production? I think a better term for it would be peerage production.” Digg’s stats are here.

All of this points to one of the core questions we ask in building any community – “to pay or not to pay for participation – that is the question”.

Answer – it all depends on the nature of participation. In the realm of those participatory ‘platforms’ that depend on light contribution and content aggregation (ranking things for instance), incentivized networks will ultimately win over those that depend on the enthusiasm of the community to contribute – a group which while sparking the initial flame of enthusiasm often shrinks back to the core over time. Compare that to communities and networks that depend on hardcore participation and engagement – think Java or Wikipedia. Much more stickiness, less incentive required.

Anyway, that’s a theory I’m developing and testing and this set of data seems to point to it. If you want to build a community and keep them engaged, make it sticky and get them engaged.

Speak Up — Add Your Thoughts

Connections

  • Connect
How did you connect?   [?]