What Is An ‘Online Crowd’?
What’s an ‘online crowd?’ At first glance, the question appears so simplistic that even the dinosaurs of the internet age might feel they have a chance. A crowd of people…that meet online? Yes… but, no. It’s slightly more complex than that Grandpa.
New forms of technological geekspeak emerge with such alarming regularity that it’s hardly surprising when words rapidly lose their original meaning, evolve or simply go out of fashion.
Take, for instance, the transition from the former undisputed heavyweight champion of the internet browsers, ‘Internet Explorer’ to its likely successor, FireFox (and just to be clear, FireFox has absolutely nothing to do with those trumpet blowers from the Countryside Alliance).
For some, the terms ‘internet browser’ and ‘Internet Explorer’ have exactly the same meaning, and best of all, they’re tried and tested- safe. The thought of converting to FireFox shows ambition only likened to the first Anglo-Saxon to encounter a piece of garlic bread.
The definition of the online crowd was the subject of scrutiny last week on Nicholas Carr’s blog, Rough Type, where he insists that within the general term, four, perhaps five or even six forms of online crowds exist:
“Social production crowd”: consists of a large group of individuals who lend their distinct talents to the creation of some product like Wikipedia or Linux.
“Averaging crowd”: acts essentially as a survey group, providing an average judgment about some complex matter that, in some cases, is more accurate than the judgment of any one individual (the crowd behind prediction markets like the Iowa Electronic Markets, not to mention the stock market and other financial exchanges).
“Data mine crowd”: a large group that, through its actions but usually without the explicit knowledge of its members, produces a set of behavioral data that can be collected and analyzed in order to gain insight into behavioral or market patterns (the crowd that, for instance, feeds Google’s search algorithm and Amazon’s recommendation system).
“Networking crowd”: a group that trades information through a shared communication system such as the phone network or Facebook or Twitter.
“Transactional crowd”: a group used to instigate and coordinate what are mainly or solely point-to-point transactions, such as the type of crowd gathered by Match.com, eBay, Innocentive, LinkedIn and similar services. (I would think that contests like the Netflix Prize also fall into this category.)
And the sixth definition, courtesy of a comment reply by Tom Lord on Carr’s blog-
“Event crowd”: A group organized through online communication for a particular event, which can take place either online or in the real world and may have a political, social, aesthetic, or other purpose.
The list is certainly comprehensive and addresses the complexity of using the term ‘online crowd’. Yet Carr only seems to allude to the issue of crowdsourcing through his definition of the ‘transactional crowd’. Crowdsourcing can be used as a forum for single transactions, such as those adopted by the likes of eBay and Match.com, but they can encompass far more.
For instance, blur Group identify talented individuals from a wide variety of fields, organize them into specialist communities and then unite them with potential buyers. The system of crowdsourcing filters product and service providers to match the client’s budget and requirements, ensuring a highly efficient shortlist process. The construction of these specialist communities enables clients to select many individuals, each with their own specific expertise, to work on multiple projects.
Unlike members of so-called ‘transactional crowds’, the relationship between the client and the individual talent sources does not have to terminate at the conclusion of a sale or project. Both parties are retained within their communities and can be called upon time and time again.
It’s a bit like becoming the online version of an east-end market trader on Albert Square, Walford. A strange, reassuring familiarity, plenty of fellow contacts, a steady flow of new cast members and a wide watching audience. Best of all, no-one has to suffer the ignominy of an online death.
So you see Grandpa, there is not a conclusive definition for the term ‘online crowd’. It was a bit of a trick question. Good guess though.
blur Marketing took the FT Digital Media conference social.
It used to be that great design cost the earth. 
People have been commissioning artists for a thousand years. It is one of the earliest forms of trade. 
The marketing services industry is changing. Big agencies are getting it from all sides. 
A quiet revolution is under way in the art world. One that few expected and most missed. Because it’s on the Web; called 
Sparxoo, a US research firm focused on innovation and digital strategy, wrote a cool article yesterday on ‘Building the Crowd.’ 
The western world is still in crisis. Following the financial tsunami of 2008/9 the West faces another emergency. As the dust settles on the economic meltdown it is becoming clear that not only did we strangle our recent start-ups, but there is no capital around for the new ones. Banks are still not lending to new businesses and Venture Capital firms are focusing on later stage investments. There is almost no institutional, early stage, risk capital available but the world needs start-ups now more than ever.
The past few years have seen huge changes in the television, music, advertising and marketing industries. At blur Media we asked ourselves “How will the publishing and writing industries be affected by all these changes? And what new challenges will be created?”
Tina Brown, over at The Daily Beast, wrote a powerful if somewhat negative article last year about 
Sparxoo, a cool US social media blog, published an interview today with Phil at blur Group on 
