Cognitive surplus and why people like wikis....

source: weheartit.com

Preface: If introductory economics bored you to tears, I can assure you I've done my best to take the dryness out of the subject. I myself was never drawn to harsh economic subjects like econometrics. Instead I soaked up behavioural and information economics. Both of which are very relevant to online media and the change in the way we now consume news.

It may not come as much of a surprise to you, but I am somewhat of a geek. I studied economics for five years and worked as an economist for the QLD Treasury once I graduated. Becoming a co-founder of a wiki has not really helped my cause, although I hope the fashion side of that has at least redeemed me a little.

One of the most fascinating things with economics is its ability to explain the way people behave. Why do they contribute to one forum and not the other? Why do people tweet? Where did all the wikipideans come from and why do they while their hours away editing pages?

After coming across Clay Shirky's "Cognitive Surplus", it jogged my memory about intrinsic motivators and the idea that one is not enticed by external factors such as money or rewards. Instead people are far more motivated to complete tasks due to the warm and fuzzies they feel once they are done. Curiouser and curiouser, if a person were offered an extrinsic reward for something that satisfies them nonetheless, they are far more likely not to complete the task.

Clay talks about a person's cognitive surplus, basically this is a fancy way for saying, one's spare time. He explains that with the rise of consumerism in the 1920s and the subsequent adoption of television, people's cognitive surpluses were once spent mostly on staring at the black box.

With the rise in online media, twitter, facebook et al, cognitive surplus has now evolved into participatory surplus. People now have choices, while TV is a one way street, the internet can be akin to getting lost in New York. It's a busy hub, an avalanche of information is thrown at us everyday. People are not only consuming this information, but they are now sharing it, discussing it and adding it to wikis. There is no shortage of ways in which you can disperse of information.

Due to the sheer volume of information that we are exposed to online, we are seeing a shift from professionalism to mass amateurization. A group of people learn bite size pieces and add them to the the puzzle. The social networks that are now popping up, have brought down the barriers to entry, allowing everyone to share and produce a higher aggregate value. This slow pull away from consumerism is changing society and will in the long term create a higher production value.

Technology is causing a fundamental shift in society and dissolving the dichotomy between professionals and amateurs. Anyone who is interested or would like to learn something new regardless of their education or skill level can join in on the conversation. That's what's so fantastic about technology and online media, it endorses the "more the merrier" notion.

This is exactly why I created Wikifashion, with so many barriers to the industry, fashion is in a sense the last of the impenetrable fortresses. Almost impossible to peek inside, one has to "pay their dues" before being invited to the party. I am hoping to bring down the walls so that those who simply like to flick through Vogue once a month can edit alongside those who write for Elle magazine. Anyone is welcome and we certainly believe the "more the merrier".

The Economics of Tavi 101

A lot has been discussed in the past week about the antiquated debate of fashion bloggers versus fashion journalists. My general feeling, is that it's basically a game of the pot calling the kettle black. Fashion journalists have accused some of online's most publicised bloggers of being "sell outs" and mouth pieces for public relation consultants. To me this is the height of hypocrisy, magazines have long been chained to advertising dollars, journalists' words at the beck and call of their editors and editors scramble to feed their readers advertisements disguised as genuine articles and so the cycle continues.

For the most part I think journalists have their Stella McCartney knickers in a knot because they do not understand the online world, the free flow of information and user generated content. For too long they have controlled the ship, they liked their absolute advantage over fashion content, now they too must navigate the murky waters. Magazines once operated under monopolistic competition, they understood one another and knew the game like the back of their hands. They can see fashion bloggers forming a comparative advantage over the online narrative and did not anticipate their own slip.

The print media are suffering from what is called adaptive expectations, this basically denotes that ones views of the future are depicted by assuming past trends and errors will continue. If only journalists could be more dynamic and understand that if they let go of the golden rope, they would be able to change and grow with the online world. By holding onto their tried and true methods they are risking defeat. The online world has opened up a raft of new opportunities, the barriers to entry are extremely low and so a lot of new players have entered the game.

It seemed that both bloggers and journalists were playing nice, until a simple bow construed the view of certain editor. The bow in question belonged to none other than Tavi of Style Rookie, a seemingly unstoppable force in the fashion world. I would liken Tavi to that of an asymmetric shock. Her establishment into the online world created a minor stir, but once she stepped over that invisible line into the tangible fashion industry, her bow acted like a satirical noose to the print media and editors alike. The bevy of bloggers now vying for their precious advertising dollars have caused a raucous.

No longer will the two be divvied up like first class and economy. Both forms of media serve different and very important purposes. It's high time the market and readers had access to a wider variety of content. Although in the short term a flood of information may decrease quality, the market will correct itself and return to a fashionable equilibrium. Until then, why can't the two enjoy a friendly oligopoly?