Civil Litigator Danielle Aidala tries to make the argument in this O'Reilly Factor interview that VoteForTheWorst.com and Howard Stern are actionable because they are "maliciously interfering with the operations of American Idol". She's lucky that Papa Bear took a shining to her, as he never did take off the kid gloves during the interview.
On a more serious note, what do people like Howard Stern and sites like VoteForTheWorst.com do for crowdsourcing? I think they do three things:
- They encourage debate: Is American Idol a show that pokes fun at bad singers or a show that launches undiscovered talent? Does the show actually allow the voting audience to make the best choices?
- They encourage voting: While fans of Howard Stern will vote for the worst contestant, other fans have more incentive to vote for their favorites.
- They encourage passion: All of the sudden, people actually care about who gets voted off, and who stays on. Check out the hate mail on VoteForTheWorst.com, and you'll see what I mean.
The lessons in this for crowdsourcing are clear. First, voters love a dichotomy: it's not fun to vote for french vanilla vs. regular vanilla, but it's fun to debate the merits of vanilla vs. chocolate. Second, voters love a little controversy: show that a "fair" system is being messed with, and you'll get people talking about lawsuits and first amendment rights. And finally, when voters want more input into your business than you originally planned to give them - embrace it! It simply means that you've struck a chord.
In the end, American Idol's producers can only be thankful that the judges put Sanjaya Malakar, the subject of this debate, into the final group of contestants. He has sparked debate and controversy, but will not ultimately win. According to the Skytower Sportsbook, the odds are still in Melinda Doolittle's favor (the judges' choice) - bet $150 on her and get only $100 if she wins. Bet $100 on Sanjaya to win, and get $1,500 if he does!!
No comments:
Post a Comment