[Question 9] Distinction between producer and consumer

Errr... Could this be a link to Open-Source ? Like consumers acquiring codes and developing software etc ? I think this trend is definitely going to evolve as Internet is creating a global community, with everyone looking to fulfill their needs. If you can fulfill the need of someone because you develop an open-source software, or an online game (who knows!), you become producer in a way, don't you ?

Florent is right. We already discussed this point somehow in Form "Willingness to pay in an open source...environment" and we will discuss about that in the last in-class session "The Contribution Revolution". I think in every company where the company itself just work as an intermediary for services, the consumer becomes a producer. We already discussed the examples YouTube, Wikipedia, Ebay and more.

Sure enough, Wikipedia and Ebay are great examples. But I'm a bit more
sceptical that this would become the norm for all activities,
especially when quality becomes a top concern and that the activities
that are performed need higher skills.

For example: although I'm quite an "addicted" user of Wikipedia, I bear
in mind that the information I get from it could have been posted by
anyone, even non specialists. If the information I need is essential to
me, I might consider getting it from a more "conventional" channels
(encyclopaedias, scientific or technical websites...), even if I need
to pay for them.

Another example: a company providing online translations. If
this company wants to provided reliable translations, it needs to work
with qualified translators, even if costs are much higher. This would
be opposed as just providing a platform where anyone can post and
anyone can translate.

I believe consumers participating in production is the future for "low-cost" providers, but not really for all market segments, especially higher ones.

i agree with jeremie. The line between consumers and producers is surely vanishing, for example, a Florent said, for open source softwares, but for some segments it is a real proof of quality to distinguish clearly between professional producers and customers.

Examples:



Consumer--->Producer

Take music industry for example, in the past one young, talented composer needs to go through layers of layers controls by the existing media industry to get his song published. But now, with a tiny computer and some free software, he can do editing, remixing and publishing his music to many websites at his will.

Producer--->Consumer
Well, I think it's pretty obvious. The young, talented compser, he, himself is a producer now, and if he pays to support other music
friends, he then becomes a consumer.



I think the secret is the "affordablility" of doing something. In the past, no one can have his own radio station unless he is so rich and has a very good connection with the gov. since the electric wave is controlled by each gov. But now with the new and cheap technology, he can have as many online radio channels as he wishes.

@Jeremie & Edith:

Even though I agree with that, we should be aware that we are searching for areas, where the contribution of consumers is really useful, and not for areas where the professional producers should be completely replaced by consumers.

Of course we should not talk again just about open source, i.e. softwares and so on.
We were more wondering in some other activities, if the border could really keep on vanishing, or it consumers and producers would face some resistance from the customers. the text deals with smart offerings, which is not just internet based.

Janick_Edinger wrote:@Jeremie & Edith:

Even though I agree with that, we should be aware that we are searching for areas, where the contribution of consumers is really useful, and not for areas where the professional producers should be completely replaced by consumers.

I agree with Janick. I'd like to add some points with a technological perspective. Information communication technology (ICT) has been recognized as " the poor man's publication." That is to say, the entry barrier in participating in the co-creation is much lower than the tradictional product design which requires a rigid logistic. The ICT faciliates a peer-to-peer networking logic, becoming the material base of the infromation society, as well as digital economics. It enables participation of grassroots, rather than a top-down model of governance. That is way, I think the existing producers need to think differently. They no longer control the production tool, instead, they need to be humble to cooperate with the users, and learn from the users, because the users/customers might be a better producer than they do.

Hard question actually. I think the text wanted to mean that now, consumer can as well create products, especially in the virtual universe.

However, I'm convinced that there is still an urgent need of specialists, because all the basis of this new enhanced and user friendly technology still require a very strong level of computer knowledge.

That's a trap modern society will have to dodge: the easier it becomes to create some contents/software/products, the easier it will be to forget that we need specialists.

Vincent_Alliaga wrote:Hard question actually. I think the text wanted to mean that now, consumer can as well create products, especially in the virtual universe.

However, I'm convinced that there is still an urgent need of specialists, because all the basis of this new enhanced and user friendly technology still require a very strong level of computer knowledge.

That's a trap modern society will have to dodge: the easier it becomes to create some contents/software/products, the easier it will be to forget that we need specialists.

So you think that the quality of future products / softwares may also be affected by this new role played by the consumer?

Also, lets not forget that many of these things that end users are coming up with and changing, are only possible because the 'specialists' who design the software let the users modify after. For instance, web portals that users customize, music programs that come with pre-programmed mathematical models to alter your music, are examples that demonstrate how the specialist gives the user what they want. So even though the user can become a producer, it is the originating producer that is the specialist and will always be needed first.

jeremie_francois wrote:Sure enough, Wikipedia and Ebay are great examples. But I'm a bit more
sceptical that this would become the norm for all activities,
especially when quality becomes a top concern and that the activities
that are performed need higher skills.

For example: although I'm quite an "addicted" user of Wikipedia, I bear
in mind that the information I get from it could have been posted by
anyone, even non specialists. If the information I need is essential to
me, I might consider getting it from a more "conventional" channels
(encyclopaedias, scientific or technical websites...), even if I need
to pay for them.

Another example: a company providing online translations. If
this company wants to provided reliable translations, it needs to work
with qualified translators, even if costs are much higher. This would
be opposed as just providing a platform where anyone can post and
anyone can translate.

I believe consumers participating in production is the future for "low-cost" providers, but not really for all market segments, especially higher ones.

Well, well, well... So many mistakes in translated texts should make people aware that it is not a place for beginners. However, I remember a French version of one of the book of Harry Potter done by a 16-year old boy. The quality was not that bad for the official translator had to take action with French courts. Risky but fruitful indeed ! One of the fan of the young wizard became an unofficial translator of the series.

I agree with Jeremy and the others who say that there's a quality/price trade-off when choosing an open source service or product - like we discussed in previous forums. However, seeing that this trend of openness is so recent, this trade-off might disappear, or at least be less evident in the future, when the trend is more developed so that companies could learn from experience and improve the mechanisms for consumer co-creation, consequently leading to a final offering that embodies the advantages of both open-approach and quality rather than their disadvantages. For example, while Wikipedia for a long time had been a good source of free, accessible information but with the cost of quality issues and inaccuracies, it has recently improved this aspect by screening the information users enter in different values, as well as require citations/sources for every statement, thus making Wikepdia a much more reliable source while still being a free service that users can improve and expand.

Florent_Blanchard wrote:

Vincent_Alliaga wrote:Hard question actually. I think the text wanted to mean that now, consumer can as well create products, especially in the virtual universe.

However, I'm convinced that there is still an urgent need of specialists, because all the basis of this new enhanced and user friendly technology still require a very strong level of computer knowledge.

That's a trap modern society will have to dodge: the easier it becomes to create some contents/software/products, the easier it will be to forget that we need specialists.

So you think that the quality of future products / softwares may also be affected by this new role played by the consumer?

I'm convinced that quality of future products will be affected by the lack of specialists, triggered by some "desecration" of the role of the base programmer.

The quality/price tradeoff is less relevant to the discussion of "customers as producers" because customers co-create offerings to better suit their needs. Unlike developers in the open source cases, customers do not create the offerings for other people to use. Hence, the purpose of participation is to make the quality better, not to make it cheaper (unless what the customers want are cheaper offerings).

It is true that in open source, customers participate in the "production process".
In the case of smart offerings, customers will perceive the product as a better-added-value product, which will make its life easier (exemple in the hospital with the diabetes). It does not necessarily imply customers' participation in the product elaboration.
In the case of open source, just a few people are going to participate in the production process.
Would you have some examples concerning e-commerce? (except Ebay).

An example most of us use on a daily basis, and more specifically relating to e-commerce would be online banking services: the customer doesn't participate in production/development, but the concept clearly is of great utility to him:
-much more convenient
-more autonomy (can process money transfers without contacting his bank)

I'm sure there are much more better examples....

Yann_Gerardi wrote:

~~~~

In the text we can find the sentence: “The line between producers and consumers is vanishing”.
How do you think this trend is going to evolve?

~~~~

I'm maybe wrong but I was thinking about Dell. Could we consider that the consumer becomes the producer? The consumer designs his or her own computer and Dell makes it real, Dell just assemblies different components to match with the customer's order. Could we consider Dell like a kind of supplier?

I totally agree with Julie, and I think that there will be more and more companies offering the same kind of services in the future. Most consumers dont have the means and the knowledge to manufacture the products they want (and even if they had, it would be often more costly to produce them by themselves). Going back to the example you've just given we could argue that people aren't really looking for a computer in particular but for the services a computer can supply to them.

I totally agree. I think everyone will agree that mass personalisation (the customer is involved at the final assembly stage, typically selecting additional options from a standard base product or service) is the new trend. Consumers may not be the only producers, the fact that they can personalize their purchase makes the boudary between producers and consumers unclear.

Yes, and the next step will be for companies to offer a wider range of possibilities to customize those consumers' products. Until now they mostly offered a really defined catalogue of available options and dont really allow consumers to get exactly the features they want. The challenge will be to offer really individualized products.

That s indeed true for already existing products. Computers can be personalized because now everybody knows more or less what would attract him / her.
But what about on real innovations of products, and not just improvements?

Let's take Facebook, I know it's not really a product but still there are many ways to personalize your home page. It's the same with the Iphone, every user has the possibility to add applications... I am sure it is possible to find ways to personalize every product

In the text we can find the sentence: “The line between producers and consumers is vanishing”.
How do you think this trend is going to evolve?

One way this will evolve is in the interaction between consumers and producers using smart phone handheld devices and Augmented Reality software. Augmented Reality interface allows you point your smartphone at any place and it can provide you instant information on it (eg: location of nearest McDonalds, a link to the Louvre on Googlemaps, restaurant recommendation on Zagats).

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/24/tech.augmented.reality.apps/index.html

At some point in the near future, these web enabled PDAs will inevitably replace the standard cell phone. The creation of information regarding tourist sites or restaurant reviews will likely mostly be user generated.

In this case, the consumer is co-creating it's value and the line between producer and consumer is further blurred.