Building for the community by listening to the community

A short history of the community which is Stocktwits; many of its community members participated in the recent VC funding round, which also echoes the theme of a recent post in IT Counts on member funding of online ventures, Is web 2.0 enabling a new kind of financing?. Here’s what Roger Ehrenberg, founder and Managing Partner of IA Ventures, said:

“Since we started with a blank slate we were able to be intensely customer-focused from Day 1, and it is a culture that runs through everyone that is formally or informally affiliated with Stocktwits. I draw this distinction because there are lots of bloggers and community participants that have been incredibly helpful as we’ve built the platform, and while they are neither investors nor employees have had a profound impact on the product and our roadmap. Building for the community by listening to the community: makes sense, but I’ve seen it done other ways, usually to that company’s detriment. At Stocktwits, Soren, Phil (@ppearlman) and the team are doing it right.

“Stocktwits massively leverages the power of the long tail, but the reason followers are able to rapidly identify value is because of reputation. THE STOCKTWITS COMMUNITY IS A MERITOCRACY. Those that hem and haw and say little don’t get followed. Those who are insightful, sharp and decisive command large readership. And this is the way it should be. We’ve only just seen the tip of the iceberg of what the Stocktwits community can and will become.  But the power of the platform is clear.”

Crowdsource the world baby!

Funny how I was just thinking about using the likes of Twitter to use the jargon ‘crowdsource’ answers to issues and needs. I recall no less a Twitterati than Laura Fitton saying how a request posted on Twitter quickly received a bunch of useful timely replies. And today Dennis Howlett has blogged on the same theme, with an example which provide ‘Proof that crowdsourcing works’.

But I’m left with one question that sounds pretty trivial I admit but surely this network effect works so well for these two notables because they are well known ‘names’? If I were to put out a similar ‘crowdsourcing’ request it simply would not work. The context then of being known is key.

As a larger point it does make me smile sometimes when web 2.0 thought leaders acclaim certain products, without this contextual awareness. In fact you could say you get a better idea of the pros and cons of web 2.0 tools for ordinary users when you’re not a ‘name’ as the bias of noterity does not apply. Hey, I’ll keep on keeping a low profile and see what that brings/does not bring as both results are useful — to compare my observations against the reported results from web 2.0 leaders.

That said after I posted this issue to the UK community manager group e-mint I had a useful response from Mecca Ibrahim underlining the value of Twitter for crowdsourcing, including the following great point on why people often use Twitter rather than Google for finding what they want: “In fact a number of friends say they use Twitter rather than Google sometimes as they know they’ll get an answer from people they “know” rather than an SEO’d response.”

PS: Please don’t comment or highlight this post in any significant way or I’ll lose my hard-earned lack of profile in the world of social media!