Banks and Humphrey’s article “The Labour of Co-Creators” discussed the use of the term “labour” in the context of commercial and non-commercial social networks and markets, and particularly in the Auran case study Trainz. They ask, “At what points do the actors themselves start to deploy the rhetoric and discourses of labour and work? How do these discourses contribute to the construction and meanings of these co-creation relations?” (403). The purpose of this study is to expand the research on the economic benefits of social capital.

It’s interesting for sure to think about not only the willingness but the eagerness in which a public will contribute to a company without necessarily being rewarded by it. This study does reveal that fans contributed to receive something in return in a few different ways: “Many of the fan creators were attracted to the content creators program by Auran’s promise that they would enjoy early access to builds of Trainz and, more importantly, to direct support from members of the Trainz development team. They also viewed it as an opportunity to provide feedback to the development team that may then influence the design of future versions of Trainz. The creators who were pursuing commercialization of their content also viewed it as a valuable promotional opportunity” (409). However, such compensation isn’t guaranteed, and it seems like building a game takes a lot of work on the chance that one may be rewarded for it.

While I understand the purpose of this study—to analyze co-creation, audience participation, social/corporate capital, and the exploitation of an audience all in the context of new media—I wonder if the implications of the study are limited to the circumstance in which this study was realized. Can we see the results of evaluating audience feedback, its ambition to participate, and a company that invites audience participation in other scenarios, or are the implications generated by this study strictly confined to the conditions by which the study took place?

I would like to see a survey study in which many different kinds of companies are examined and tested to see if the same results of the Trainz experiment are found to be true. My thought is that only a select number of companies lend themselves to the conditions necessary to financially benefit an organization if those benefits are based on user participation. In other words, I think there are only so many kinds of companies that can exploit their audience, and the implications of this study should only be viewed in the context of this study. What we might ultimately gain from this study is general principles that reinforce theories about audience participation and social/corporate capital.

The results of the study, to me, are based on a few factors that separate this company and the ability to exploit its audience from other companies: 1) some products are more suited to audience participation and co-creation, 2) some products have a certain kind of fan base that is more apt to participate, 3) the audience must have the means and tools to participate. (e.g. it’s much easier for gamers to participate than fans of companies devoted to medical advancements).

The nerds who work for Google have innovated the company beyond what they’re paid for because they are contracted nerds. They add to the company in ways they aren’t expected to. Also, fans who are able to engage with a product is different than fans who are the recipients of a product. It is the difference between reacting to a product and acting upon a product. Products like energy drinks don’t avail themselves to audience engagement like video games do. You “plug yourself in” to video games (how far can you plug yourself into a Red Bull?). Ultimately, I’d like to see a study that surveys products, fans, and companies and the different levels of participation and exploitation.