Attracting More Participants to Google Prediction Markets

Prediction markets are only effective if a lot of people participate.  What are the best ways to encourage more traders and trading within internal company prediction markets?

In Google’s case, awards such as t-shirts and cash prices were given to those who participated and made correct predictions.  I was reading this case and wondered how many employees were skeptical of participating in a program where t-shirt prizes were given and predictions revolved around sporting or political events.  If Google wants to increase their participation rates within their GPM program they need to offer more trading involving Google’s business decisions as well as business related incentives.  With incentives such as an extra day of PTO or the ability to leave two hours early on a Friday as well as involving more Google related predictions employees will feel more comfortable participating during their work hours. 

Executives within Google should participate and then make conversation with employees during breaks or lunch regarding the GPM.  This will encourage both increased interaction and discussion about the GPM as well participation.  Another idea would be the ability to trade Goobles in for paid vacations.  For example, employees who obtain a previously determined amount of Goobles could trade them in for a family vacation in which they could choose from a few different vacation options or packages. 

The Trend towards Crowd Sourcing ...

What are the similarities and differences between a community-driven product development process and a traditional product development process within a firm?

Community-driven product development is different than traditional product development within a firm because community processes lack most of the hierarchical structure and costs that exist within a firm’s development process.  Firms usually pay highly educated professionals to research, solve problems, and develop new products.  Because of the large salaries required for these types of positions and the physical aspect involved with commuting to the job itself, these firms can only hire so many people for such tasks.  Community development on the other hand can be done by just about anyone.  Websites, internet, and other technologies make it extremely simple for mass groups of people to contribute their input and knowledge.  The ease of use and large base of non experts who contribute their innovative ideas allows for inexpensive product development.  While a traditional firm uses standards and a limited number of executives to decide the final outcome, crowd sourcing companies can ask for answers, utilize criticism, and determine favorites from a limitless number of people.  What could be any better than obtaining feedback directly from a company’s customer base?  Of course, most companies involved in community-based development must utilize a set of standards in order to streamline the generated content, but the system is not nearly as bureaucratic as with traditional systems.  As ecommerce continues to grow, I think many companies will see the positive impact crowd sourcing will have, thus driving us to a much more community driven economy.   

Adding Value to LinkedIn

LinkedIn recently hit 100M users. If you were in charge at LinkedIn, what would be your strategic goals for the next several years?  How would you achieve them?

LinkedIn is the number one PNS in the US and Europe for several reasons including the ability for professionals to connect and learn from each other.  Despite the high switching costs involved, LinkedIn needs to continuously develop their features in order to keep active users.  For example they need to:

Further Develop the Job Search Aspect

Since this is a social media site for professionals I believe, LinkedIn should offer their job application free of charge for users.  Why not make this site similar to Monster or other job search engines where consumers can search jobs for free but employers pay a fee to have their open job opportunities listed.  To me it makes sense that the opportunity to advance your career on a professional networking site be free of charge for consumers. 

Further Develop the Recruiting Process

I think it would also benefit LinkedIn to begin marketing to college Juniors and Seniors who are looking for internships or entry level positions.  Although this market may not yet be professionals most of them are starting their careers and beginning to develop their networks in order to eventually become professionals. 

Do not dramatically blend the line between having a professional or social media site

Professionals often face consequences and issues balancing their social lives with their professional lives.  For example, co-workers who go to happy hour together or spend time outside of work together may have trouble keeping the social aspect of their relationship outside of the office.  The same could be true if LinkedIn continues to increase the social portion of their website.  Professionals usually like to keep their personal and professional lives separate which happens to add a large part of the attraction and value to LinkedIn.  I do not believe a social addition to this site will add value to the end user. 

Wikipedia - Can they keep out the Bad?

How do Wikipedia’s processes for creating and modifying articles ever lead to high-quality results? In other words, since anyone can easily edit Wikipedia, how is it that good (and usually accurate) content emerges?

                Had Wikipedia kept its business model from Nupedia the site would not be as prominent and as expansive as it is today.  I say this because people love to post videos, articles, and reviews regarding their knowledge and interests.  One reason may be for bragging rights and the other because I believe people genuinely care to share their knowledge with others.   If Yelp, YouTube, and Wikipedia are not enough examples for you to believe me then remember that we also have sites like Google Maps where users can make reviews and many different blogging sites where users can generate and post their own information. 

                With any user generated information site there will of course be information and content that is added that is either below average, completely wrong, inappropriate, or offensive.  Wikipedia in fact has seen and had to deal with examples of each, but the fact that most people take pride in their research, knowledge, and writing will keep most of the generated information accurate.  The majority of people who take the time to share their information through Wikipedia probably have a passion for the information they are sharing and do not want to jeopardize their reputation or the experience of other users.    This Wikipedian system where users can edit articles allows for articles to become accurate overtime.  Wikipedians usually feel strongly enough about a topic to make changes to an article that is inaccurate or inappropriate if a bad apple justso happened to share misguided information.  Wikipedia’s system of editors, administrators, and bureaucrats acts almost like a checks and balance system which can ensure the stabilization and accuracy of articles.  Although this process of adding, deleting, and editing user generated information may be a slow process, I think overtime the accuracy of articles will prevail.