Prediction Markets at Google

I have to say that this is the first time I've been exposed to prediction markets, so my knowledge is somewhat limited. The case gets to be a little confusing after a while, but I think I got the general idea. Reading through this case, however, I was more intrigued by the effect of the GPM activity within the employees as compared to how Google could further use the prediction markets within the company.

I really like the idea of engaging your workforce in a company, and the use of the GPM tool with rewards was a great way in which Google had done this. I believe that there are many people in a company that only know what their current department is working on and take very little interest in the company as a whole. Through the use of GPM, Google was able to engage its workforce in ideas and projects that existed outside of an individual's work group. It was very interesting to me that the participants in the program were more interested in prestige and recognition, as compared to financial incentives. I think this goes a long way to tell companies that monetary compensation is not everything. So many companies fail to recognize employees who do a good job on more than an annual performance basis. Sure, it's nice to receive a $1,000 bonus in your paycheck, but there is also a large amount of personal satisfaction in being seen as a strong and respected employee within your company. I think managers and executives fail to understand this and think that giving employees more money will always be a solution to their dissatisfaction. I know I am starting to go off on a tanget about general employee compensation, so I will end it at that.

Moving forward, I think Google does need to work to engage more of its employees in the GPM program. Building it up through emails, signs, and countdowns would offer a great way for this to be done. I mean, most people know when NCAA March Madness is coming around for college basketball because there are communications sent out at many levels. The funny thing is.....this game isn't even related to your job! Google needs to continue promoting the GPM program as a fun way to interact between coworkers. I agree that bigger prizes might draw more people, but Google should not lose site of the value of the recognition the employees receive for making good trades. I like the idea of allowing employees to share their trading information with others, or keep it entirely confidential. That is an option that should be in the employee's hands though.

Once Goggle has developed a larger user base for its prediction markets, I think it then has the opportunity to decide how it could leveage this information to increase its bottom line. I do believe it could be a valuable tool if applied correctly.

Threadless

In my opinion, the Threadless business plan is all about the online community. If Threadless decides that it wants to begin selling its shirts to large retailers, it is going to have to justify and clear this with its online community first. While selling to large retailers could heavily increase the revenue potential of Threadless, it could do so at the expense of its community. My guess is that a lot of the users of the website derive value from having access to shirts that are not available at normal retail stores. Selling to retail outlets would remove this value. Furthermore, Threadless shirts at retail stores would have to compete with other larger brands, such as Nike, Champion, Lee, etc. These are extremely large operations which are able to compete largely on brand and price. Threadless is not known in the retail sector, so it might end up having to sell its retail shirts for a cheaper price than what it does on the website. This could cause a lot of the non-designers to forego purchasing on the website and turn their attention to retail outlets.

In the end, I would not simply tell Threadless to drop the idea of selling to large retailers. I think the company needs to communicate with the online community and receive feedback if it decides to make this move. After all, Threadless understands that all of its decisions in the past directly affected its online community, and attempted to reach out as much as possible to get the community's input. It should do the same thing in this case. If the online community is largely against the idea, then it may not be wise for Threadless to move forward. Without the support of the community and designers, Threadless would lose the value of the website.

If the online community supports the selling of shirts to retailers, I would suggest that Threadless limit the shirts that the retailers have access to. This would ensure that some designs are strickly available via the website, and would also reduce the need to Threadless to greatly increase the capacity of its production facility. It should also move forward cautiously with this venture, first testing the waters to see if the shirts actually sell in the retail sector. If they do not sell, Threadless could simply forego the selling of shirts to retail outlets and focus back on the online community. This is a tricky, yet welcomed decision that Threadless is faced with. It needs to consider the interests of all stakeholders before making a final decision on how to move forward.

LinkedIn/Facebook

I'm not a user of LinkedIn and have never actually visited the site, so my knowledge on this social media outlet is very limited. That being said, I think there is a ton of opportunity for professionals to network on this site and is something that I will probably check out when I get some free-time after grad school (if that free time ever happens). I like the concept, but I don't think I'd really fully comprehend it until I started using the site. The case tries to describe the process, but it gets a little overwhelming after a bit.

Even though I don't use the site, I still think it would be advantageous for LinkedIn to provide the first option for revenue recognition; specifically, providing a bundle of eight new services for a monthly charge of $15. This would create a tiered system on the site that would allow premium services for those users willing to pay. Not everyone would be affected, so those happy with the site as is should not have any complaints. I would be hesitant to remove the intermediaries as a link between the members. Although a fee would be paid for this service, I still think relationship managers would get hit with loads of requests that they would not have considered in the current scenario. That would lead to potential for a large drop in these users. So my overall recommendation is for LinkedIn to move forward with the additional premium services, but to be careful and move slowly if they try to implement the removal of the intermediaries.

As far as Facebook goes, I see loads of opportunity for targeting advertising based on the profiles created by the users. However, I'm worried that this could infringe on privacy rights and lead to more public apologies by Facebook. If Facebook developed an opt-in program for the specific advertising, I think it would help to bypass this issue. I'm sure there are some people out there who would prefer to receive advertisements that relate directly to their interests (I would be one of them). I also think Facebook needs to continue to focus on the Facebook Connect ability to link with other sites in order to increase its revenue stream. As the largest online social community, Facebook needs to leverage itself in every way possible.

Wikis/Wikipedia

I think wikis are an interesting concept, but I've always been reserved from using sites such as Wikipedia, due to the fact that I can't be sure that what information I'm receiving is correct. The idea that anyone is allowed to edit postings causes me to have some reservations with this type of system. Granted, the readings from this week note that Wikipedia's error rate in its articles is only slightly larger than that of Encyclopedia Britannica. That single statistic helps to alleviate my fears of using information on the site, but I will still always hold some level of mistrust with what I find. I'm also very interested to see what the academic world thinks of using Wikipedia as a source in a research paper. I know in the past I've been told to avoid Wikipedia for the reasons I stated above. However, do most teachers allow Wikipedia to be used as a credible source, now that it has grown to a size where the information is highly reviewed and edited if found to be incorrect? That may still be the preference of the teacher, but thinking as a high school student, it is a question I would ask before starting any new class.

Everything I wrote above is specific to Wikipedia, but I do want to comment on wikis in general for corporation use. My opinion is that wikis could potentially help a business, but only if it develops a culture where wikis are found to be highly valuable and people wish to share their ideas through this medium. I'll be honest and say that I would rather pick-up the phone or send an email, rather than use a document with the wiki feature. I also think that there are still quite a few baby boomers in the work industry who would be confused with the wiki format. Furthermore, many people in the work industry are not proficient typists, so using wiki documents could have a negative effect on their productivity. Even beyond this, some people are better off expressing themselves through phone or personal conversations. Ideas may lose their luster if they are transmitted through a wiki format.

Although there appear to be some downsides of this technology, I also think there are certain general situations where it may be successful. I think two main things have to be considered before a company would consider using wikis. First, there has to be a high level of trust among the employees of the business. If employees do not trust each other and think they have valuable things to offer, the wiki documents will be constantly changing as people attempt to assert their opinions over others. Second, I think a company needs to have a structure that could take advantage of wikis. At this point in time, it isn't something that any business could just pick-up and start using. For instance, a highly decentralized business with little interaction between an older population of co-workers could find this quite difficult. However, a company that utilizes small teams familiar with technology- working together to find solutions- could see a huge benefit from this technology. Again, I believe it all comes down to what type of interactions occur at your business and whether your people trust each other. Sure....everyone writes e-mails at work.....but there is a huge gap between writing an e-mail and expressing all your ideas through a constantly evolving online document. My belief is that wikis will eventually work their way up in corporations......I just think they may be about 10 years ahead of their time for many corporations and businesses.