Van Dijck, J. and Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media Society 2009. 11. (pp. 855-874). Available:http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/5/855 and e-Reserve database link.
This article critically dissects claims by influential business writers that participatory technologies that encouraged collectivist forms of creating content, as represented by Web 2.0 applications (e.g. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) emancipate the average Internet user, allowing them to take control of production and distribution of their content.
P.855
Web 2.0. Allegedly, peer production models will replace opaque, top-down business models, yielding to transparent, democratic structures where power is in the shared hands of responsible companies and skilled, qualified users.
(Hasn't that been confirmed meanwhile?)
p. 856
[...]initiatives such as YouTube (www.youtube.com), MySpace (www.myspace.com), Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), Flickr (www. flickr.com), Second Life (www.secondlife.com), Linux, InnoCentive
Tapscott and Williams (2006) and Leadbeater (2007) usher their readers into a brave new world of web-based economics where cultural values such as participation, collectivism and creativity are the mantras. [...]
[...]and even the Human Genome Project are all grounded in the same basic principle: they are created by crowds of (mostly) anonymous users who define their own informational, expressive and communicational needs, a process touted as ‘mass creativity’ or ‘peer production’.1 As a result, the conventional hierarchical business model of producer–consumer is rapidly replaced by the so-called ‘co-creation’ model, a term frequently surfacing in business literature (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004b). Mass creativity, peer- production and co-creation apparently warrant the erasure of the distinction between collective (non-market, public) and commercial (market, private) modes of production, as well as between producers and consumers; the terms also cleverly combine capital-intensive, profit-oriented industrial production with labour-intensive, non-profit-oriented peer production.
Indeed, Tapscott and Williams, like many of their colleagues, are first and foremost consultants who are in the business of selling their high-priced advice to (internet) companies.
p. 857
THE RHETORICAL STRATEGY OF WEB 2.0 MANIFESTOS
Lyon defines manifestos as inherently persuasive texts that are used to convince their readers of a profound paradigm shift, or a revolutionary way of thinking that will affect how people go about their everyday life. Most manifestos emphasize concrete transformations of institutions by applauding a spirit of liberation and change, and in a more political context, they urge readers to let the flowers of the revolution bloom.[...] Documents of demand rather than reason (1999: 30)
p. 858
Speaking in multiple registers was not only the clue to understanding the early stages of the internet, it is still key to analyzing contemporary manifestos that trumpet the benefits of Web 2.0 – a world populated by an internet generation that supposedly is defined by users rather than producers.
[...]the internet is ‘crafting tools and communities, new ways of speaking, new ways of working, new ways of having fun’ and ‘people by the millions are discovering how to negotiate, cooperate, collaborate – to create, to explore, to enjoy themselves’ (Locke et al., 2000). The pamphlet urges managers to think twice: many major corporations are changing their organizations already to incorporate formerly countercultural ideals, as a structural makeover is imminent and inevitable. Cluetrain is indeed a document of demand rather than of reason. Its language is short, apodictic, fact-stating rather than fact-finding, matter-of-fact rather than persuasive[...]
p.859
(The following is an essential claim!!!)
In the world ruled by a new generation of web users, businesses adapt to the creativity of its users and common users are taken seriously as content producers. This ideology will be good for business and thus replace business as usual: companies dictating consumer needs and demands. It is interesting to notice how this manifesto, written well before the Web 2.0 wave really took off, needs to resort to ‘imaginary’ imperatives to prove its claims:
Imagine a world where everyone was constantly learning, a world where what you wondered was more interesting than what you knew and curiosity counted for more than certain knowledge. Imagine a world where what you gave away was more valuable than what you held back, where joy was not a dirty word, where play was not forbidden after your eleventh birthday. Imagine a world in which the business of business was to imagine worlds people might actually want to live in someday. Imagine a world created by the people, for the people not perishing from the earth forever. (Locke et al., 2000)
(Does the Web provide for such a place? Is it really all milk and honey?)
Seven chapters of the book are full of casual observations on how ‘Big Business’ has been ignoring the needs of the common people and how the new web economy is now creating the biggest business opportunity ever for corporations.
Cluetrain perfectly illustrates the genre features that Lyon identifies for manifestos in general; in hindsight, it is one of the precursors of Web 2.0 manifestos calling for the unproblematic merger of countercultural ideals and the ‘new’ economy.
p.860
By celebrating a perfect match between producers and users, commerce and commons, creativity and consumerism, the authors smoothly turn the alignment of countercultural ideals with mainstream business interests into a hegemonic ideology supported by the masses.
Users constitute an army of volunteers or amateurs who dedicate their time and energy to developing and sustaining a vast array of networked products and services (from Linux and Wikipedia to YouTube and MySpace)
(referring to OSS)
p.861
If we look at sociological studies mapping actual internet activity, a very nuanced picture emerges. A recent Forrester survey of American adult online consumers distinguishes six categories of users hovering between the two poles of ‘actual creators’ and ‘inactives’ (Li, 2007; Li and Bernoff, 2008). Of those people who use the internet regularly, 52 percent are inactives, another 33 percent are ‘passive spectators’ and only 13 percent are actual creators.3
(Only 13% are creators in 2009 - has this number changed?)
An interesting detail in these figures is the stratification of income among different types of users: the average income of passive spectators of user- generated content sites is significantly higher than the median income of content creators.5 (!!!)
p.862
It is a far stretch to extend the spirit of collectivism to all (commercial and non-commercial) endeavours on the internet by assigning a collective, goal-driven consciousness to all users.
[...]entertainment is an overwhelmingly driving force behind user-generated content sites and most users like to be entertained.
(This is certainly one of the essential thoughts - entertain your audience. Keep them interested)
However, most people who visit user- generated content sites are ‘driven’ there by (viral) forms of social media (‘friends’ networks) or by plain marketing mechanisms. For example, the overnight success of Dutch teenager Esmee Denters as a YouTube popstar can be attributed largely to effective networking strategies via Hyves friends groups and Justin Timberlake’s professional marketers.7 What is designated as ‘collectivity’ or ‘mass creativity’ is often the result of hype from networking activity – a type of activity heavily pushed by commercially driven social platforms and aggregator sites.
p.863
ALIGNING COMMONS AND COMMERCE
Tapscott and Williams describe the new role of digital contributors as ‘the lifeblood of the business’ (2006: 43), a view echoed by an impressive number of experts in business and management journals (Berthon et al., 2007; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a; Sawhney et al., 2005). Typical of manifestos, they do not offer the new model as a choice[...]
p.864
Tapscott and Williams call attention to how industries stand to profit from the new consumer activism:
You can participate in the economy as an equal, co-creating value with your peers and favourite companies to meet your very personal needs, to engage in fulfilling communities, to change the world or just to have fun! Prosumption comes full circle! (2006: 150)
(Prosumption = ??? Presumption = Annahme, Anmassung, Einbildung)
Both the active involvement of the people-formerly-known-as-customers and the formation of communities are celebrated as the best thing since the establishment of worker’s comp and a woman’s right to vote – the long awaited emancipation of the digital citizen who wants to create their own products and be in charge of their own distribution.
[...]the birth of a new business model, ‘co-creation’[...]defining the term, management gurus carefully avoid the language of labour economics and consumer markets.[...] groups of self-selecting individuals who choose to be working on communal projects, whether or not they are mediated by companies (Kozinets, 1999; McWilliam, 2000)
(Definition)
[...]user-generated content simply means that consumers are taking a lot of work out of the hands of producers (de Peuter and Witheford, 2005; Terranova, 2000). As Terranova* observes, the internet ‘does not automatically turn every user into an active producer and every worker into a creative subject’ (2000: 35). Co-creation, she contends, does not yield any power and control over the means of production.
*part of the readings
p.865
[...]letting customers create online brand communities which then serve as marketing niches or free service support. -> Every user who contributes content – and for that matter, every passive spectator who clicks on user-generated content sites (such as YouTube) or social networking sites (such as Facebook) – provides valuable information about themselves and their preferred interests, yet they have no control whatsoever over what information is extracted from their clicking behaviour and how this information is processed and disseminated.
[...](meta)data are more valuable than the content itself. To put it bluntly, rather than being in the business of content, Google is in the business of deriving commercially significant data from users and connecting these data to companies which need them for targeted advertising, marketing and sales management.8
(so does LinkedIn)
‘Relationships, after all, are the one thing you can’t commoditize’ (Tapscott and Williams, 2006: 44)
p.866
Facebook does not want to link friends to friends, it is in the business of linking people to advertisers and products.
David Beer contends in his critique of social networking sites, mass creativity is solidly entrenched in information capitalism:
[W]e can see in SNS [social networking sites] consumers producing the commodities that draw people in – frequently taking the form of the profile operating behind it. We can think then of profiles as commodities both produced and consumed by those engaged with SNS – on other sites such as YouTube it might be the video clip that is the draw with the profile operating behind it. We can see here, if we imagine SNS in this context, the active role of the consumer generating information and offering up information about themselves. (2008: 525)
Metadata are not merely a by-product of content generation, they are a prime resource for profiling real people with real interests – precious information generated unsuspectingly by users.
(You create a profile by expressing your interests - this may happen in forms of comments, page visits,likes etc. Is that actually bad in an open society?)
p.867
As Tapscott and Williams profess: ‘Web companies are realizing that openness fosters trust and that trust and community bring people back to the site’ (2006: 44).
(...but...)
There are several disputable tenets implied in this glorification of private– public entrepreneurship and in the uncritical alignment of producer interests with consumer benefits. Most profoundly, Wikinomics and ‘We-Think’ suggest that the distinction between non-profit and for-profit platforms is made irrelevant by the model of peer-production, as if peer-production were some overarching humanist principle of society’s organization. Hence, they transpose cultural values onto commercial values, thereby creating a circular argument: what is good for culture, is good for business, is good for culture.
MANIFESTOS BEYOND ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS DSCOURSE
p.861
If we look at sociological studies mapping actual internet activity, a very nuanced picture emerges. A recent Forrester survey of American adult online consumers distinguishes six categories of users hovering between the two poles of ‘actual creators’ and ‘inactives’ (Li, 2007; Li and Bernoff, 2008). Of those people who use the internet regularly, 52 percent are inactives, another 33 percent are ‘passive spectators’ and only 13 percent are actual creators.3
(Only 13% are creators in 2009 - has this number changed?)
An interesting detail in these figures is the stratification of income among different types of users: the average income of passive spectators of user- generated content sites is significantly higher than the median income of content creators.5 (!!!)
p.862
It is a far stretch to extend the spirit of collectivism to all (commercial and non-commercial) endeavours on the internet by assigning a collective, goal-driven consciousness to all users.
[...]entertainment is an overwhelmingly driving force behind user-generated content sites and most users like to be entertained.
(This is certainly one of the essential thoughts - entertain your audience. Keep them interested)
However, most people who visit user- generated content sites are ‘driven’ there by (viral) forms of social media (‘friends’ networks) or by plain marketing mechanisms. For example, the overnight success of Dutch teenager Esmee Denters as a YouTube popstar can be attributed largely to effective networking strategies via Hyves friends groups and Justin Timberlake’s professional marketers.7 What is designated as ‘collectivity’ or ‘mass creativity’ is often the result of hype from networking activity – a type of activity heavily pushed by commercially driven social platforms and aggregator sites.
p.863
ALIGNING COMMONS AND COMMERCE
Tapscott and Williams describe the new role of digital contributors as ‘the lifeblood of the business’ (2006: 43), a view echoed by an impressive number of experts in business and management journals (Berthon et al., 2007; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a; Sawhney et al., 2005). Typical of manifestos, they do not offer the new model as a choice[...]
p.864
Tapscott and Williams call attention to how industries stand to profit from the new consumer activism:
You can participate in the economy as an equal, co-creating value with your peers and favourite companies to meet your very personal needs, to engage in fulfilling communities, to change the world or just to have fun! Prosumption comes full circle! (2006: 150)
(Prosumption = ??? Presumption = Annahme, Anmassung, Einbildung)
Both the active involvement of the people-formerly-known-as-customers and the formation of communities are celebrated as the best thing since the establishment of worker’s comp and a woman’s right to vote – the long awaited emancipation of the digital citizen who wants to create their own products and be in charge of their own distribution.
[...]the birth of a new business model, ‘co-creation’[...]defining the term, management gurus carefully avoid the language of labour economics and consumer markets.[...] groups of self-selecting individuals who choose to be working on communal projects, whether or not they are mediated by companies (Kozinets, 1999; McWilliam, 2000)
(Definition)
[...]user-generated content simply means that consumers are taking a lot of work out of the hands of producers (de Peuter and Witheford, 2005; Terranova, 2000). As Terranova* observes, the internet ‘does not automatically turn every user into an active producer and every worker into a creative subject’ (2000: 35). Co-creation, she contends, does not yield any power and control over the means of production.
*part of the readings
p.865
[...]letting customers create online brand communities which then serve as marketing niches or free service support. -> Every user who contributes content – and for that matter, every passive spectator who clicks on user-generated content sites (such as YouTube) or social networking sites (such as Facebook) – provides valuable information about themselves and their preferred interests, yet they have no control whatsoever over what information is extracted from their clicking behaviour and how this information is processed and disseminated.
[...](meta)data are more valuable than the content itself. To put it bluntly, rather than being in the business of content, Google is in the business of deriving commercially significant data from users and connecting these data to companies which need them for targeted advertising, marketing and sales management.8
(so does LinkedIn)
‘Relationships, after all, are the one thing you can’t commoditize’ (Tapscott and Williams, 2006: 44)
p.866
Facebook does not want to link friends to friends, it is in the business of linking people to advertisers and products.
David Beer contends in his critique of social networking sites, mass creativity is solidly entrenched in information capitalism:
[W]e can see in SNS [social networking sites] consumers producing the commodities that draw people in – frequently taking the form of the profile operating behind it. We can think then of profiles as commodities both produced and consumed by those engaged with SNS – on other sites such as YouTube it might be the video clip that is the draw with the profile operating behind it. We can see here, if we imagine SNS in this context, the active role of the consumer generating information and offering up information about themselves. (2008: 525)
Metadata are not merely a by-product of content generation, they are a prime resource for profiling real people with real interests – precious information generated unsuspectingly by users.
(You create a profile by expressing your interests - this may happen in forms of comments, page visits,likes etc. Is that actually bad in an open society?)
p.867
As Tapscott and Williams profess: ‘Web companies are realizing that openness fosters trust and that trust and community bring people back to the site’ (2006: 44).
(...but...)
There are several disputable tenets implied in this glorification of private– public entrepreneurship and in the uncritical alignment of producer interests with consumer benefits. Most profoundly, Wikinomics and ‘We-Think’ suggest that the distinction between non-profit and for-profit platforms is made irrelevant by the model of peer-production, as if peer-production were some overarching humanist principle of society’s organization. Hence, they transpose cultural values onto commercial values, thereby creating a circular argument: what is good for culture, is good for business, is good for culture.
MANIFESTOS BEYOND ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS DSCOURSE
In the past five years there have been several academic conferences held and a number
of popular studies written by media scholars and cultural critics espousing a similar uncritical alignment of producers and users, and of commerce and commons, to the above manifestos (Bruns, 2008; Jenkins, 2006; Reynolds, 2006; Unicom, 2008).
Convergence Culture, written by MIT Professor of Comparative Media Studies, Henry Jenkins.
Jenkins’ book ushers its readers into a brave new world of digital culture in a way that strongly resembles the language of Wikinomics[...]
(so is this just another manifesto?)
p.868
As discussed previously, Wikinomics and ‘We-Think’ assume that all users who contribute content are (equally) creative and articulate the same expressive desire. Jenkins proffers a similar idea, even if his ideas of participatory culture have historical roots in fan culture (Jenkins, 1992).
While he (Jenkins) clearly assumes creative fandom as his guiding principle for hailing Web 2.0, it remains unclear whether he defends a cultural model or a business model; in fact, the distinction between the two is rendered entirely irrelevant because they converge beyond distinction.
However, much as Tapscott and Williams, Jenkins disregards the significance of a large contingent of passive spectators vis-à-vis a relatively small percentage of active creators – a disregard that warrants the definition of all users as contributors to (or participants of) culture.
of popular studies written by media scholars and cultural critics espousing a similar uncritical alignment of producers and users, and of commerce and commons, to the above manifestos (Bruns, 2008; Jenkins, 2006; Reynolds, 2006; Unicom, 2008).
Convergence Culture, written by MIT Professor of Comparative Media Studies, Henry Jenkins.
Jenkins’ book ushers its readers into a brave new world of digital culture in a way that strongly resembles the language of Wikinomics[...]
(so is this just another manifesto?)
p.868
As discussed previously, Wikinomics and ‘We-Think’ assume that all users who contribute content are (equally) creative and articulate the same expressive desire. Jenkins proffers a similar idea, even if his ideas of participatory culture have historical roots in fan culture (Jenkins, 1992).
While he (Jenkins) clearly assumes creative fandom as his guiding principle for hailing Web 2.0, it remains unclear whether he defends a cultural model or a business model; in fact, the distinction between the two is rendered entirely irrelevant because they converge beyond distinction.
However, much as Tapscott and Williams, Jenkins disregards the significance of a large contingent of passive spectators vis-à-vis a relatively small percentage of active creators – a disregard that warrants the definition of all users as contributors to (or participants of) culture.
p.869
In contrast to the manifestos Wikinomics and ‘We-Think’, Convergence Culture does acknowledge the need to make a distinction between producers and consumers, or for that matter, between commercial and communal platforms.
In the interplay between two kinds of media power, the new digital environment of Web 2.0 assumedly renders the ‘old rhetoric of opposition and co-optation’ (2006: 215) irrelevant because consumers are given more power to shape media content.
In the interplay between two kinds of media power, the new digital environment of Web 2.0 assumedly renders the ‘old rhetoric of opposition and co-optation’ (2006: 215) irrelevant because consumers are given more power to shape media content.
p.870
While Jenkins’ cultural theory includes statements acknowledging the relevance of economic and ideological diverging interests, he hardly allows political economy to get in the way of claiming the universal hegemony of convergence culture. In more than one way, his theory peculiarly mirrors the rhetoric of contemporary Web 2.0 business manifestos.
CONCLUSION
Behind the abrasive lingo of these manifestos lie some important basic assumptions about how a new digital infrastructure has come to govern our mediascape as well as our social lives. We particularly questioned these authors’ undifferentiated concept of users and platforms; we have also interrogated the introduction of new concepts such as produsage and co-creation into mainstream economic discourse.
Convergence Culture hinges on the same ideals and deploys similar celebratory rhetoric to Wikinomics and ‘We-Think’. [...] Williams and Leadbeater indiscriminately juxtapose online brand communities to non- profit virtual collectives, both argue the mutual benefits of producers and consumers operating in the same electronic realm.[...] They all claim a brave new world where the spirits of commonality are finally merged with the interests of capitalism.
(Social Capitalism?)
References
Berthon, P.R., L.F. Pitt, I. McCarthy and S.M. Kates (2007) ‘When Customers Get Clever: Managerial Approaches to Dealing with Creative Consumers’, Business Horizons 50(1): 39–47.
Beer, D. (2008) ‘Social Network(ing) Sites ... Revisiting the Story So Far: A Response to danah boyd and Nicole Ellison’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(2): 516–29.
Bruns, A. (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
de Peuter, G. and N. Dyer-Witheford (2005) ‘Playful Multitude? Mobilising and Counter-mobilising Immaterial Game Labour’, Fibreculture 5, URL (consulted June 2007): http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue5/depeuter_dyerwitheford.html
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kozinets, R.V. (1999) ‘E-Tribalized Marketing? The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption’, European Management Journal 17(3): 252–64.
Leadbeater, C. (2007) ‘We-Think. Why Mass Creativity Is the Next Big Thing’, URL (consulted June 2007): http://www.wethinkthebook.net/cms/site/docs/charles%20full%20draft.pdf
Li, C. (2007) ‘Social Technographics Trends Report’, 19 April, URL (consulted May 2007): http://forrester.com/go?docid=42057
CONCLUSION
Behind the abrasive lingo of these manifestos lie some important basic assumptions about how a new digital infrastructure has come to govern our mediascape as well as our social lives. We particularly questioned these authors’ undifferentiated concept of users and platforms; we have also interrogated the introduction of new concepts such as produsage and co-creation into mainstream economic discourse.
Convergence Culture hinges on the same ideals and deploys similar celebratory rhetoric to Wikinomics and ‘We-Think’. [...] Williams and Leadbeater indiscriminately juxtapose online brand communities to non- profit virtual collectives, both argue the mutual benefits of producers and consumers operating in the same electronic realm.[...] They all claim a brave new world where the spirits of commonality are finally merged with the interests of capitalism.
(Social Capitalism?)
References
Berthon, P.R., L.F. Pitt, I. McCarthy and S.M. Kates (2007) ‘When Customers Get Clever: Managerial Approaches to Dealing with Creative Consumers’, Business Horizons 50(1): 39–47.
Beer, D. (2008) ‘Social Network(ing) Sites ... Revisiting the Story So Far: A Response to danah boyd and Nicole Ellison’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(2): 516–29.
Bruns, A. (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
de Peuter, G. and N. Dyer-Witheford (2005) ‘Playful Multitude? Mobilising and Counter-mobilising Immaterial Game Labour’, Fibreculture 5, URL (consulted June 2007): http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue5/depeuter_dyerwitheford.html
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kozinets, R.V. (1999) ‘E-Tribalized Marketing? The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption’, European Management Journal 17(3): 252–64.
Leadbeater, C. (2007) ‘We-Think. Why Mass Creativity Is the Next Big Thing’, URL (consulted June 2007): http://www.wethinkthebook.net/cms/site/docs/charles%20full%20draft.pdf
Li, C. (2007) ‘Social Technographics Trends Report’, 19 April, URL (consulted May 2007): http://forrester.com/go?docid=42057
Li, C. and Bernoff, J. (2008) Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Locke, C., R. Levine, D. Searles and D. Weinberger (2000) A Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual. New York: Perseus Books. (Available online at: http://cluetrain.com/book/apocalypso.html)
Lyon, J. (1999) Manifestos: Provocations of the Modern. New York: Cornell University Press.
McWilliam, G. (2000) ‘Building Stronger Brands through Online Communities’, Sloan Management Review 54(3), URL (consulted June 2007): http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2000/spring/3/
Prahalad, C.K. and V. Ramaswamy (2004b) The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Reynolds, G. (2006) An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government and Other Goliaths. Nashville, TN: Nelson Current.
Sawhney, M., G. Verona and E. Prandelli (2005) ‘Collaborating to Create: The Internet as a Platform for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation’, Journal of Interactive Marketing 19(4): 4–17.
Tapscott, D. and A.D. Williams (2006). Wikinomics. How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin.
Terranova, T. (2000) ‘Producing Culture for the Digital Economy’, Social Text 63(18): 33–58.
Unicom (2008) ‘Social Tools for Business Use: Web 2.0 and the New Participatory Culture’, paper presented at the Web 2.0 and Beyond: Applying Social and Collaborative Tools to Business Conference, London, 5–8 March.
Locke, C., R. Levine, D. Searles and D. Weinberger (2000) A Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual. New York: Perseus Books. (Available online at: http://cluetrain.com/book/apocalypso.html)
Lyon, J. (1999) Manifestos: Provocations of the Modern. New York: Cornell University Press.
McWilliam, G. (2000) ‘Building Stronger Brands through Online Communities’, Sloan Management Review 54(3), URL (consulted June 2007): http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2000/spring/3/
Prahalad, C.K. and V. Ramaswamy (2004b) The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Reynolds, G. (2006) An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government and Other Goliaths. Nashville, TN: Nelson Current.
Sawhney, M., G. Verona and E. Prandelli (2005) ‘Collaborating to Create: The Internet as a Platform for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation’, Journal of Interactive Marketing 19(4): 4–17.
Tapscott, D. and A.D. Williams (2006). Wikinomics. How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin.
Terranova, T. (2000) ‘Producing Culture for the Digital Economy’, Social Text 63(18): 33–58.
Unicom (2008) ‘Social Tools for Business Use: Web 2.0 and the New Participatory Culture’, paper presented at the Web 2.0 and Beyond: Applying Social and Collaborative Tools to Business Conference, London, 5–8 March.
No comments:
Post a Comment