Emerging Technologies and the Church: New Opportunities for Ministry
CTTT understands you can not do church the way your pastor did church when you where a child. The whole landscape has changed.
New technologies are redefining the landscape for conducting church ministry. Technology is ushering in rapid, historic, cultural changes that are creating a much different world than existed five years ago.
It's time to rethink ministry strategies. Not only in terms of opening doors. But also in terms of web presence.
The Face of New Leadership
In the coming years, progressive church leaders will be those who are quick to grasp the new opportunities that are emerging from current and near-future technologies. Churches will increasingly be set apart by their ability to utilize these technologies. I see a fresh application of the words of Jesus. “Whoever has [the ability to utilize technology], to them more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what they have shall be taken away from him.” (Mk.4.25)
Technology and Strategy
To take advantage of this technology, it is critical to understand how social media can elevate evangelism and pastoral care. To expand from Rolodex-sized thinking, leaders must become comfortable with digital content and mobile computing. It is time to start developing a strategic technology plan for ministry, because ministry potential will continue to arrive at an accelerated pace.
Technology Revolution
The converging technologies of social networking, digital content and smart mobile computing will redefine the ways we conduct ministry far more than the incremental technological innovations of the past. I remember when PCs replaced typewriters. Can you imagine a typewriter being used in a church office today? The adoption of incremental technologies is far easier than responding to scope of the societal and technological change that is currently underway. This generation has adopted emerging technologies in stride. It will be largely unreached without a church that is prepared to meet them on their turf.
Another thing that has to be understood is How a church deals with social media.
The old anagram of TEAM = Together Each Accomplishes More really is true. Teams hold us accountable to our goals. They spread the work load and allow greater creativity to flourish through collaboration.
We LOVE this idea from the United Methodist Communications online magazine. The author recognizes that a church's social media strategy is more likely to stick and be effective if it is operated by a team. If your church struggles to keep up a steady stream of social media communications, maybe the problem is that it's just too challenging for one person to go it alone.
Read How to create a social media volunteer dream team to learn the 5 team roles you'll need and the 7 criteria team members need to meet in order to establish and maintain a successful social media presence.
How to create a social media volunteer dream team
Social Share
More Share Options
For many churches, social media can be a great tool for outreach, but managing it is a big job. If your church, like many, cannot afford a social media manager, consider a volunteer team to work with the staff. To create a team, you will need to recruit volunteers – and be sure the members have the skills, experience and time needed.
Whether it’s through the bulletin, announcements in worship, your e-newsletter or a combination of media, let church members know you are seeking dedicated help. If your church has a volunteer page on its website or a contact for people who are interested in serving, you may already have a list of potential volunteers. If you already have social media set up, post for help from your Facebook or Twitter account. You also may seek out members who already engage with your social media pages.
The people behind the tools and social media outlets make the difference! The success of your social media marketing will depend on what is presented, how it is presented and if the audience is engaged enough to interact.
Look for the following team members:
Team leader: Because this person will be the most involved with the project, it is important to find someone who has marketing knowledge and experience. The leader will organize and coordinate the social media work with the other team members. He or she will develop a strategy, give the team direction and make sure branding and messaging are consistent. Whoever leads the team must understand that it will be a major time investment. Social media management is a lot of work, even with help, so try to find someone with who can commit at least 10 hours a week.
Writers: These team members will write content to promote, engage and encourage your audience.
Mediators: These people are active on social media and can monitor the page and answer user questions. They should be knowledgeable about your church and good listeners.
Photographers: While you can collect photographs from members, it is a good idea to have a dedicated and skilled volunteer photographer who is willing to attend many church events.
Graphic designers: Unless you create a strong first impression for your YouTube channel, Twitter background, website or e-newsletter, people may not take the content seriously. It’s important for your church both to be present and to be presented well. While it is best to be able to budget for a designer who is consistent and dependable, you may find a designer in the church who is willing to serve as a volunteer. Having someone on the team with knowledge of HTML is also a huge plus, especially if you have a blog or need design work done on your Facebook page.
Now that you have candidates, you will need to interview and discuss expectations. Once someone shows interest in volunteering with social media, you will need to discuss the job with him or her. Look for people who:
Think strategically. Your social media plan must complement your big picture for ministry. It does not stand alone. Your social media plan should be strategically integrated into your overall church plan. Your social media team leader must understand this big picture and make sure the team shares this vision.
Have a marketing background. Social media is only a marketing tool to engage people. A social media manager should have an in-depth knowledge of marketing, outreach, public relations, communications and search engine optimization.
Embrace the “social” of social media. Social media is today’s preferred tool for “word-of-mouth” communication. Your social media team should understand how people socialize online, analyze behavior patterns and see how people communicate and interact with one another. Check out how they respond on social media channels. They should reach out actively and engage people in conversation.
Understand and are active on social media platforms. Social media and online marketing are always changing, so look for people who are eager to continue learning and evolve with technology.
Are responsive, efficient and purposeful. As church leaders, your social media manager and team should focus on customer service and building relationships. The team works in tandem with the staff to be their voice! You don’t want someone to be thoughtless or careless with responses. That could ruin your reputation!
Are creative. Your writers, photographers and graphic designers hold the key to the success of your social media marketing as they create compelling, relevant and creative content.
Have time: Do they have the time to be dedicated and serve consistently?
You have identified your dream team. However, can all members commit the time required to make this effort successful? The best way to find out is to start with a test project. Ensure that the team clearly understands the project goals and set realistic expectations about outcomes. Share guidelines for brand and message consistency. If your church does not present itself and its events in a consistent manner, it can cause confusion and not promote well.
Provide this background information for your project:
Who – Audience
What – Event, ministry, service project
When, where?
Why – Should your audience care?
Call to action
Additional information such as resources and ministry contacts
Sample posts for Facebook and Twitter
Project deadlines
Evaluate and thank your team
After you complete the work, give team members individual feedback. Evaluate the project and look together at what to do differently next time and what went well. This is also an opportunity to ask volunteers if the role is a good fit for them. Ask them about the amount of time they spent on the project. Was it in line with what they expected? Are they comfortable committing to that going forward? THANK your team for their efforts and encourage them.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Monday, February 3, 2014
Church Technology could help the future of all type of Churches
We have all heard Jesus’ words quoted and misquoted a thousand times: “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matthew 18:20, TNIV). But can two or three gather together if they are hundreds or thousands of miles apart? Can multiple believers fully and truly commune with each other electronically with the help of technology? And, more importantly, can a group of Christ followers gather via the internet in a way that would build the type of community Jesus intended for a New Testament church?
Some would give a qualified “yes” to all of these questions; many of these same individuals now regularly gather together over the Internet through online churches. Some of these churches are established, most have sizable congregations, many have healthy budgets and a few are backed by major denominations. LifeChurch.tv has been an American pioneer in this arena, while i-church.org has existed since 1994. Alphachurch.org has about 6,000 regular online participants. Church on the Net, or “CotN” (www.church-on-the-net.com), is a joint initiative between the Methodist Church and the Church of England. In fact, every major religious tradition, including theAmish, now has an online presence.
We have all heard Jesus’ words quoted and misquoted a thousand times: “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matthew 18:20, TNIV). But can two or three gather together if they are hundreds or thousands of miles apart? Can multiple believers fully and truly commune with each other electronically with the help of technology? And, more importantly, can a group of Christ followers gather via the internet in a way that would build the type of community Jesus intended for a New Testament church?
Some would give a qualified “yes” to all of these questions; many of these same individuals now regularly gather together over the Internet through online churches. Some of these churches are established, most have sizable congregations, many have healthy budgets and a few are backed by major denominations. LifeChurch.tv has been an American pioneer in this arena, while i-church.org has existed since 1994. Alphachurch.org has about 6,000 regular online participants. Church on the Net, or “CotN” (www.church-on-the-net.com), is a joint initiative between the Methodist Church and the Church of England. In fact, every major religious tradition, including theAmish, now has an online presence.
We can all agree that internet communities are a phenomenal resource for those who are not physically able to attend church. For the bedridden, for missionaries in closed countries with no access to a local body or for individuals who are frequently abroad, this is a valuable alternative to a local, physical church body. It is hard not to be intrigued by these Internet phenomena, but are they New Testament churches?
It is difficult to determine the validity of a body of believers accomplishing a wonderful work like those mentioned above. Any Christian work that is building community, discipling believers and encouraging theological discussion should be applauded. Yet it is imperative that we speak of these communities in a way that is appropriately congruent with the scriptures.
The Greek word for church, ekklesia, helps illuminate the issue, and it’s where any proper discussion of the nature of church will begin. Though it is translated “church” in English, it is an amalgamation of Greek words meaning “assembly.” Though the New Testament allows for some elasticity with this word, ekklesiaoverwhelmingly refers to a group of people who actually, physically assemble together. So is it in keeping with the biblical meaning of “church” to apply it to a group of people, even a group of Christians, who never actually assemble?
But is David falsely equating the ability to worship with the existence of a Biblical church? And is she overlooking the usage of the word? Ekklesia is found 114 times in the New Testament. Although it has become quite popular to emphasize the invisible, universal Church at the exclusion of the local body, it seems Scripture paints a different portrait. Only 13 times does this word refer to the universal Church, while at least 90 times it is used to describe a local church or churches. Although geographical lines do not define the Church, it is clear that the New Testament emphasizes the existence of a local, regularly assembling body.
There are other problems with calling an online community a “church” apart from dusty, ancient language. Protestants historically have affirmed several distinctives or essential marks of a church. In Theology of the Reformers, Timothy George notes that the years leading up to the Reformation saw “an explosion in ecclesiology,” as it was becoming increasingly difficult to determine what a true church looked like. In general, the Reformers agreed that the two essential marks of a true church were preaching of the Bible and right administration of the sacraments.
While some online communities give gospel preaching a strong push, most online churches neither attempt to perform the sacraments electronically nor defend their inability to do so. They simply de-emphasize their importance or suggest that members take them physically at a standing church if they so desire. Some internet churches strangely attempt to offer them online, but it is difficult to see how a virtual church can meaningfully celebrate them. After all, in the most extensive teaching on the Lord's Supper in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11), Paul uses the term "come together" five times. It is difficult to properly perform a corporate act when you never corporately assemble.
Moreover, certain aspects of church life and ministry seem to require face-to-face meetings. Accountability and church discipline, providing help to the sick and poor, offering hospitality to one another and many other commands seem to require a physical assembly. Ultimately, we must understand that the speed of communication does not change the nature of communication. It seems that internet churches havecommunication, perhaps even communion, but not the optimal community necessary to function as a New Testament church.
But perhaps most discouraging for those who gather online are those pesky “one another” passages. These verses emphasize the importance of physical community. As a local church, we are to serve one another (Gal. 5:13), bear one another (Eph. 4:2), speak to one another (Eph. 5:19), admonish one another (Col. 3:16), come together with one another (Heb. 10:25), offer hospitality to one another (1 Pet. 4:9), and have fellowship with one another (1 Jn. 1:7). It’s difficult to see how any community could fit this description without ever meeting together.
I'm careful not to discourage any Gospel-minded community. We should seek to both learn from this movement and affirm its positive qualities. After all, there has always been an interesting interface between technology and church life. During the Reformation, the printing press—a technological wonder in the 15th century—played an important role in the widespread dissemination of knowledge. It is hard to imagine the impact Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses would have made on society without the ability to propagate them. But in the end, promoting an internet community as a “church” is problematic. An important part of church is sharing common life with spiritual siblings, and it’s hard to see how this can happen with little more than a laptop.
-----
Have you had any experience with an internet church? In your opinion, are these actually "churches?"
-----
Editor's note: The artwork featured above is quoted from here.
Some would give a qualified “yes” to all of these questions; many of these same individuals now regularly gather together over the Internet through online churches. Some of these churches are established, most have sizable congregations, many have healthy budgets and a few are backed by major denominations. LifeChurch.tv has been an American pioneer in this arena, while i-church.org has existed since 1994. Alphachurch.org has about 6,000 regular online participants. Church on the Net, or “CotN” (www.church-on-the-net.com), is a joint initiative between the Methodist Church and the Church of England. In fact, every major religious tradition, including theAmish, now has an online presence.
We have all heard Jesus’ words quoted and misquoted a thousand times: “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matthew 18:20, TNIV). But can two or three gather together if they are hundreds or thousands of miles apart? Can multiple believers fully and truly commune with each other electronically with the help of technology? And, more importantly, can a group of Christ followers gather via the internet in a way that would build the type of community Jesus intended for a New Testament church?
Some would give a qualified “yes” to all of these questions; many of these same individuals now regularly gather together over the Internet through online churches. Some of these churches are established, most have sizable congregations, many have healthy budgets and a few are backed by major denominations. LifeChurch.tv has been an American pioneer in this arena, while i-church.org has existed since 1994. Alphachurch.org has about 6,000 regular online participants. Church on the Net, or “CotN” (www.church-on-the-net.com), is a joint initiative between the Methodist Church and the Church of England. In fact, every major religious tradition, including theAmish, now has an online presence.
We can all agree that internet communities are a phenomenal resource for those who are not physically able to attend church. For the bedridden, for missionaries in closed countries with no access to a local body or for individuals who are frequently abroad, this is a valuable alternative to a local, physical church body. It is hard not to be intrigued by these Internet phenomena, but are they New Testament churches?
It is difficult to determine the validity of a body of believers accomplishing a wonderful work like those mentioned above. Any Christian work that is building community, discipling believers and encouraging theological discussion should be applauded. Yet it is imperative that we speak of these communities in a way that is appropriately congruent with the scriptures.
The Greek word for church, ekklesia, helps illuminate the issue, and it’s where any proper discussion of the nature of church will begin. Though it is translated “church” in English, it is an amalgamation of Greek words meaning “assembly.” Though the New Testament allows for some elasticity with this word, ekklesiaoverwhelmingly refers to a group of people who actually, physically assemble together. So is it in keeping with the biblical meaning of “church” to apply it to a group of people, even a group of Christians, who never actually assemble?
But is David falsely equating the ability to worship with the existence of a Biblical church? And is she overlooking the usage of the word? Ekklesia is found 114 times in the New Testament. Although it has become quite popular to emphasize the invisible, universal Church at the exclusion of the local body, it seems Scripture paints a different portrait. Only 13 times does this word refer to the universal Church, while at least 90 times it is used to describe a local church or churches. Although geographical lines do not define the Church, it is clear that the New Testament emphasizes the existence of a local, regularly assembling body.
There are other problems with calling an online community a “church” apart from dusty, ancient language. Protestants historically have affirmed several distinctives or essential marks of a church. In Theology of the Reformers, Timothy George notes that the years leading up to the Reformation saw “an explosion in ecclesiology,” as it was becoming increasingly difficult to determine what a true church looked like. In general, the Reformers agreed that the two essential marks of a true church were preaching of the Bible and right administration of the sacraments.
While some online communities give gospel preaching a strong push, most online churches neither attempt to perform the sacraments electronically nor defend their inability to do so. They simply de-emphasize their importance or suggest that members take them physically at a standing church if they so desire. Some internet churches strangely attempt to offer them online, but it is difficult to see how a virtual church can meaningfully celebrate them. After all, in the most extensive teaching on the Lord's Supper in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11), Paul uses the term "come together" five times. It is difficult to properly perform a corporate act when you never corporately assemble.
Moreover, certain aspects of church life and ministry seem to require face-to-face meetings. Accountability and church discipline, providing help to the sick and poor, offering hospitality to one another and many other commands seem to require a physical assembly. Ultimately, we must understand that the speed of communication does not change the nature of communication. It seems that internet churches havecommunication, perhaps even communion, but not the optimal community necessary to function as a New Testament church.
But perhaps most discouraging for those who gather online are those pesky “one another” passages. These verses emphasize the importance of physical community. As a local church, we are to serve one another (Gal. 5:13), bear one another (Eph. 4:2), speak to one another (Eph. 5:19), admonish one another (Col. 3:16), come together with one another (Heb. 10:25), offer hospitality to one another (1 Pet. 4:9), and have fellowship with one another (1 Jn. 1:7). It’s difficult to see how any community could fit this description without ever meeting together.
I'm careful not to discourage any Gospel-minded community. We should seek to both learn from this movement and affirm its positive qualities. After all, there has always been an interesting interface between technology and church life. During the Reformation, the printing press—a technological wonder in the 15th century—played an important role in the widespread dissemination of knowledge. It is hard to imagine the impact Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses would have made on society without the ability to propagate them. But in the end, promoting an internet community as a “church” is problematic. An important part of church is sharing common life with spiritual siblings, and it’s hard to see how this can happen with little more than a laptop.
-----
Have you had any experience with an internet church? In your opinion, are these actually "churches?"
-----
Editor's note: The artwork featured above is quoted from here.
Friday, January 31, 2014
How to get it done in the future! Crowdsourcing
What is ‘Crowdsourcing’?
Crowdsourcing can be defined as enlisting the services of a number of individuals for a particular cause usually via the internet. It is also very reflective of common community organizing techniques where you trust the established network or community has all the experts it needs to accomplish a goal. Additionally, crowdsourcing, as with community organizing, allows a community to come together for the purpose of working towards a common goal using their own skills and their own ideas. Most importantly, it can be a method of empowerment, albeit a digital enfranchisement.
You’ve probably heard of ‘Crowd funding’, a fundraising side to crowdsourcing. Websites such as Kickstarter, Crowdtilt, IndieGoGo, and others exist to pool funds from many people to create something- a new product, a realized idea, t-shirts for a community center, or whatever else. There are even nonprofits that exist solely on this crowd funding model: Benevolent, Watsi , and others.
How Does this Apply to Nonprofits?
Nonprofits use crowdsourcing in many ways to accomplish the same goals in the digital world that they would have otherwise used in more traditional methods. The upside of crowdsourcing is that it’s free and requires much less time and effort to track down the experts or resources you need. The only requirement is that you must have access to an online community infrastructure ready to call upon. In this digital age, many (should be all) nonprofits have some sort of online presence. Websites such as VolunteerMatch or Idealist also help with gathering people who have very particular skills and knowledge.
How Can You Start Using Crowdsourcing?
The simplest way to get what you need is to ask for it. The fundraisers in the audience will know exactly what I’m talking about. If you want people to donate $500, you don’t have a default option on your mailing cards to donate $5. You start at $500 and work your way up. You have to ask people for exactly what you want if you want to get it. Read more click the link below?
In a follow-up to our most recent article about crowdsourcing Tony Weimer has pulled together another 10 examples of how crowdsourcing is being used today.
The power of the crowd is already being utilised by many businesses. For some, the service delivery shift is well underway and is redefining existing customer service models.
Effectively, some companies are outsourcing their first line support and service function to the crowd or are using them to focus product development initiatives.
Even more radical is the crowdsourcing of sales, marketing and service.
Here are ten real-world examples of how crowdsourcing is being used:
1. giffgaff – is a SIM-only mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), positioned at people who want more interaction and involvement with the brands they choose. Users (or “giffgaffers”) provide ideas (functionality, pricing bundles), market the company (word of mouth, member get member) and provide support to the community (customer service).
They are rewarded by their contribution in terms of activity in the community support forum, ratings on answers provided and activations of free SIMs. With no call centres or big advertising campaigns to fund, marketing and customer service budgets can be slashed and redistributed to the most active and best users.
2. Microsoft’s most valuable professionals (MVP) programme – the MVP Award recognises technical community leaders who voluntarily share their knowledge about Microsoft technologies with others.
MVPs answer more than 10 million questions each year and provide vital feedback, reflecting the needs of Microsoft customers. MVPs are not paid, they do it to share their knowledge and for the recognition they receive.
3. TripAdvisor – relies on the opinions and reviews of its members to provide information to people interested in a flight, trip or vacation. With over 40 million reviews, it has become the first port of call for many travellers.
4. Catwalk Genius – based in Ireland, Catwalk Genius is a crowd funding fashion site. People buy a small share of a collection enabling struggling designers to showcase their work. Each share costs £10 and when 5,000 have been sold the designer is commissioned to create a collection.
Those who bought shares are then given a proportion of the profits from the collection based on the number of shares they purchased.
5. Apple – world class net promoter scores and brand advocacy, but many people will have limited interaction with the company. Much of the product information and support required is found in forums where people share their knowledge.
For example, Googling “iPhone 3GS frozen” returns a multitude of answers (including YouTube videos), only one of which is from the official Apple support site.
6. Walkers Crisps “Do us a flavour” campaign – Walkers brand regard was eroding and competition was increasing. Through their “Do us a flavour” campaign they handed over creation of their next crisp flavour to the public.
They launched 6 of the flavours suggested and asked people to vote for their favourite. They generated over 1.2 million flavour suggestions and 1 million votes, with Builder’s Breakfast being the winning flavour. The winner received £50k and 1% of future sales. Sales increased by 14%.
7. Starbucks – an ideas forum where customers are invited to share, vote, discuss and see – “You know better than anyone else what you want from Starbucks. So tell us. What’s your Starbucks Idea? Revolutionary or simple – we want to hear it. Share your ideas, tell us what you think of other people’s ideas and join the discussion. We’re here, and we’re ready to make ideas happen. Let’s get started.”
8. uTest – provide software testing services. They have a global community of over 30,000 professionals providing software companies with a new way to test their applications.
Testing covers standard test phases such as functionality, usability and load testing as well as Agile methodology-related testing. Clients include the Met Office and Microsoft.
9. Air New Zealand – Air New Zealand’s Aviation Design Academy set out to design the best long-haul flying experience. They turned to passengers to design parts of the flying experience on their new 777-300 aircraft – the cocktail, in-flight food, eye mask and one “freeform” idea.
The winners have the opportunity to take a flight from Auckland to London to sample the implementation of their ideas. The competition itself attracts people with a level of engagement with the company and has generated more interest in Air New Zealand’s online marketing initiatives.
10. Wikipedia – perhaps the pioneers of crowdsourcing. The not-for-profit Wikipedia Foundation launched its free, web-based, multilingual and collaborative encyclopaedia in 2001. It has over 17m articles written collaboratively by the community and is the most popular reference site on the internet.
So, why are businesses so interested in “crowdsourcing”?
We know that an engaged community can drive down operating costs by reducing the need for conventional support models. Just as important is that support communities are often able to provide more first-contact resolution (FCR) in the customer service environment. Improvements in FCR can often be attributed to the community unearthing problems and fixes that the company are not aware of. In traditional customer service models this often results in out-of-date knowledge bases, longer more frustrating support calls and ultimately creates more customer frustration and dissatisfaction.
But what interests business even more is the emerging picture that suggests community members are more loyal and less likely to churn. Intuitively, you would say this is no surprise. If people are willing to spend the time to participate in the community, sharing their knowledge or experiences, there is likely to be an emotional attachment to it and the company – reinforced by recognition and rewards programmes for the best community members.
Forrester research undertaken in 2009 shows community users are more satisfied customers, more likely to recommend products to others and are less likely to defect to competitors. They also tend to buy more often and for longer periods.
But typically, not all community members are engaged in providing support or content. Research undertaken by Jake McKee and Jakob Nielsen provides an insight into the 90-9-1 principle that explains participation models in communities:
- 90% of users are the “audience”, or lurkers. These people tend to read or observe, but don’t actively contribute.
- 9% of users are “editors”, sometimes modifying content or adding to an existing thread, but rarely create content from scratch.
- 1% of users are “creators”, driving large amounts of the social group’s activity. More often than not, these people are driving a vast percentage of the site’s new content, threads, and activity.
Additional support to this argument is provided by the experience of Wikipedia where, when reviewed, over 50% of edits were done by 7% of users and Amazon where 167k book reviews were contributed by a few of the “top 100” reviewers.
Tony Weimer
So what about the peripheral community members – the vast majority of lurkers, those people that use the community for support but don’t participate in contributing to the “knowledge base”? Are they any more likely to remain loyal when company X undercuts prices or company Y have a not-to-be-missed promotion?
We believe an important parameter in customer loyalty is customer effort – simply put, the amount of work a customer has to do to get what they want. We know that there is a high correlation between low customer effort and positive commercial outcomes and believe that the “friction free” nature of the community is a key driver in building customer loyalty.
Tony Weimer is a consultant at Budd (www.budd.uk.com)
The rapid exchange of data necessary to maintain competitive enterprise operations demands access to multiple, fluid sources of information. Crowdsourcing uses the input of individuals external to an organization to resolve strategic problems or complete tasks once assigned internally to an explicit corporate individual or department. Widely-dispersed contributors acquired through an open call for participation pinpoint data or offer opinions essential to achieving a specific objective for a designated problem. Open innovation for new products is also encouraged. Crowdsourcing participants encompass a population from everywhere, with all backgrounds; today’s mobile functionality has made the potential assembly of contributors truly global in scope (see Figure 1).
Five companies using crowdsourcing to their advantage.
Anheuser-Busch (AB)– The world’s leading brewer, AB has made sizable inroads in crowdsourcing. While its Budweiser is easily America’s best-selling beer, AB sought customer input to develop a brand more attuned to craft-beer tastes. Development of Black Crown, a golden amber lager, combined a competition between company-brewmasters with consumer suggestions and tastings; this project had more than 25,000 consumer-collaborators. In Brazil, where AB markets the leading brand, Skol, it has opened PopTent, a crowdsourced video-production company specializing in TV-commercials, utilizing a social network of 35,000 videographers from 120 nations. AB’s site offers potential collaborators open innovation opportunities with the firm.
Coca-Cola– Well-known for keeping secret the formula of its most famous beverage, Coke now uses a more open business model, assuming an increasingly prominent position in corporate crowdsourcing. Its open-sourced “Shaping a Better Future” challenge asks entrepreneurs to create improvement-ventures for the project-hubs of youth employment, education, environment and health. In addition, its“Where Will Happiness Strike Next?” series of short films and TV-commercials relies on the social media-input of Coke customers, contributing ideas about creating happiness. Coke also seeks crowdsourced online suggestions for marketing its products more effectively, once again tying social media to co-creation.
General Mills (GenMil)– This major food-processing firm has created the General Mills Worldwide Innovation Network (G-WIN) to vigorously generate innovative concepts from crowdsourced partners in a variety of merchandise, commodity, or service categories. Included are:
(1) products fitting the GenMil-brand concept,
(2) packaging of those products,
(3) improvements to manufacturing, service or marketing processes,
(4) ingredient-suggestions for food products,
(5) technology-suggestions for GenMil’s IT-processes, and
(6) concepts for improving the firm’s digital efficiencies and performance.
GenMil seeks ideas that help the firm deliver breakthrough innovation in any of these operational areas. The G-Win open call is sufficiently accommodating that anyone can go to the website, and click the“Submit a Novel Proposal“ tab to suggest product or technology innovation useful to GenMil and its businesses.
(1) products fitting the GenMil-brand concept,
(2) packaging of those products,
(3) improvements to manufacturing, service or marketing processes,
(4) ingredient-suggestions for food products,
(5) technology-suggestions for GenMil’s IT-processes, and
(6) concepts for improving the firm’s digital efficiencies and performance.
GenMil seeks ideas that help the firm deliver breakthrough innovation in any of these operational areas. The G-Win open call is sufficiently accommodating that anyone can go to the website, and click the“Submit a Novel Proposal“ tab to suggest product or technology innovation useful to GenMil and its businesses.
Nokia– Like most crowdsourcing ventures, Nokia’s Ideasproject defines itself as a global community devoted to open innovation. It focuses on consumer-derived collaboration across 210 nations to improve the viability of Nokia products in all markets. The Ideasproject is valuable because it draws on the consumer-experiences of participant-innovators to generate new ideas about the kind of products they seek from Nokia. Crowdsourcing participants are enabled, becoming their own agents of product-design. Current crowdsourced innovations can be examined, and new ideas offered. Nokia shares revenues generated from crowdsourced ideas with Ideasproject participants.
Unilever– Despite its globally-recognized and respected research staff and facilities, Unilever understands the value of collaboration with innovative partners from outside the firm. It seeks external contributions from anyone with useful input into such diverse project challenges as storing renewable energy, fighting viruses, reducing the quantity of sodium in food, creating cleaningg-products that pollute less, and changing consumer behavior to encourage enhanced sustainability, among many other projects. The firm invites crowdsourced, open innovation submissions at its “Challenges and Wants: Submit a technical solution to us via our Open Innovation“ portal.
Calling for crowdsourced ideas, information, opinions and analyses has emerged as a viable and enriched resource of enterprise-data. It is rapidly becoming a procedure of choice for generating innovative solutions issues for a vast range of corporate and societal issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)