While
Harness Collective Intelligence focuses on users being the ones who
contribute and improve on the Web 2.0 application, there's a side that the
business must focus on. A variety of blogs coin it as
Data is
the Next Intel Inside, but I believe its easier understood through the idiom:
knowledge is power. Having data on a
user or a subject enables the ability to act with that data in mind. If you
knew your friend liked orange juice, you'll be more likely to look for orange
juice should you both stop for a drink. Businesses have discovered this potential in data, resulting in
Data Mining.
A business has to get data first. Though there are two general paths one can
take: generate the data or acquire the data from an outside source. Generating data can
be an expensive task, especially if the business covers an undeveloped topic. Acquiring
data typically comes from two different sources: other businesses or the consumers themselves (the collective intelligence).
The hardest part of data collection and processing is knowing how
accurate it is. If you were told your friend liked orange juice, but in
reality they had allergies, the resulting situation could be catastrophic. Trying prove
generated data to be accurate can be one of the factors why generation can be
so expensive. On the other hand, this is where Harnessing the Collective
Intelligence can really shine. It was established in my previous post that the
collective intelligence generally brings more to a business than its own staff.
Users implementing and criticising
their
own data frees the business' hands and allows them to focus on what to do
with the data.
But before the business can act, it must address the concern of "who actually owns all the data?"
While a business who generated their own data could claim it as all as theirs, one
that relied on a collective intelligence may find this to be a stickier problem.
Depending on the End User Licence Agreement, a user may take down their
information at any time, or it will continue to be stored within the business
databases even after deleting their account. There are some instances where the
data belongs to nobody in particular, and the business simply organises it for
easier use.
Once a business has organised their data, recognised its source and what
they can or can't do with it, it must then decide how to utilise
the data, whether it be shared to other businesses, analysed to provide better
products. What the business decides to do with the data depends on whether it aims to be a supplier, consumer or even a combination of the two.
One such business that works with its data is
YouTube. The video
streaming website has been around for years because it understands just how
vital information can be. To start with, YouTube gathers users' view history,
likes, dislikes and favourites. With this data, YouTube can cater to advertisers and users alike.
Advertisements can be attributed to the right videos and users receive
advertisements and recommended videos more relevant to their own interests. User activity can be an indicator to what's
currently popular and how often each channel updates. Furthermore, if a YouTube
user is popular and active enough, YouTube can reward the user by offering them
a
partnership.
But who owns what data?
Grant Cowell summarised it up as "the user will always have the ownership of their content, but by signing up and using the website, they grant YouTube to do whatever it wants with the videos." Implicitly, users are putting their trust in YouTube to not do anything nefarious with their videos and data. But YouTube is
required by law to monitor the videos it distributes. If a user uploads content that is offensive or infringes copyright, YouTube may remove it in order to protect itself and its users. Being granted the freedom to do what they want implies to users that YouTube expects them to obey the rules. This circle of trust between YouTube and its users allows the site to prosper whilst dealing with the technicalities of data ownership.
References: