Coined by Jeff Howe, the term Crowdsourcing – a composite of Crowd and Outsourcing, describes outsourcing to the crowd. Afar from cost, advantages and opportunities for a company can be considerable. It can outsource the risk of failure and it only pays for products or services that meet its expectations. This phenomenon covers various situations. Seeking to mobilize external competencies, it has interested a large number of businesses. However, this concept has reach its maturity and its limits seem to be pointed out as bad from professionals of different industries. Crowdsourcing is lacking a general and synthetic view of this concept. The purpose of our paper is to characterize Crowdsourcing in its various aspects. First we describe of Crowdsourcing, and offer examples illustrating the diversity of Crowdsourcing typology, practices, business models and we present comparisons between Crowdsourcing and established theories (Open Innovation, User Innovation). Relying upon a group of persons (crowd) can be an adequate method, because of its unique characteristics that are made possible by the Internet. Crowdsourcing offers extraordinary potential for resolving tasks efficiently by tapping into the skills of large groups of people. To illustrate so, we explain how Capseo, a crowdsourcing based company, works with freelancers from around the world to make online marketing campaigns. Finally, we present some potential benefits and pitfalls of Crowdsourcing and explain how to bypass its obstacles to offer a strong value proposition to customers.

1.
“Stakes,
limits
and
opportunities,
how
to
take
advantage
of
the
crowdsourcing
to
offer
a
strong
value
proposition
to
your
customers?”
The
Case
of
DOZ
Carine
Esteves
Thesis
submitted
for
completion
of
Master
of
e-­‐Business
Innovation
Idrac
Business
School
Lyon,
2013

2. 2
INTRODUCTION
5
1.
LITTERATURE
REVIEW
7
1.1.
Understanding
Main
Concept
7
1.1.1.
Definition
7
1.2.
Business
Model
Typology
15
1.2.1.
Quantitative
crowdsourcing:
15
1.2.2.
Qualitative
crowdsourcing:
15
1.2.3.
Innovation
20
1.2.4.
Open
Innovation
21
1.2.5.
User
innovation
23
1.3.
Formulating
Hypothesis
26
1.3.1.
Traditional
In-­‐House
management,
as
a
stand-­‐alone
strategy,
is
no
longer
enough
26
1.3.2.
Crowdsourcing,
is
an
effective
business
model
for
any
type
of
business
26
1.3.3.
Crowdsourcing
guarantees
quality
work.
27
1.3.4.
Crowdsourcing,
is
suitable
for
any
type
of
business
28
1.3.5.
Every
task
can
be
crowdsourced.
29
2.
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
30
2.1.
Introduction
30
2.2.
Methodology
Selection
30
2.2.1.
Qualitative
research
30
2.2.2.
Presentation
of
the
Case
Study
31
2.2.3.
Data
collection
32
2.2.4.
Problem
definition
33
2.2.5.
Research
Objectives
34
3.
FIELDWORK
35
3.1.
Capseo
35
3.1.1.
What
does
Capseo?
35
3.1.2.
Customers
35
3.1.3.
Influencers/Suppliers
35
3.1.4.
Different
roles
36
3.1.5.
Capseo
Crowdsourced
System
37
3.1.6.
Industry
Analysis
Summary
39
3.1.7.
Capseo
new
vision
43
4.
VERIFYING
HYPOTHESIS
46
4.1.
Traditional
In-­‐House
management,
as
a
stand-­‐alone
strategy,
is
no
longer
enough
46
4.2.
Crowdsourcing,
is
an
effective
business
model
for
any
type
of
business
48
4.3.
Crowdsourcing
guarantees
quality
work
50
4.4.
Crowdsourcing,
is
suitable
for
any
type
of
business
53
4.5.
Every
task
can
be
crowd
sourced
53
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS
58
5.1.
Prosourcing
platform
59
5.1.1.
Advantages
of
Prosourcing
60
5.1.2.
Starting
the
Prosourcing
Trend
62
5.2.
CONCLUSION
63
6.
CONCLUSION
65
7.
APPENDIX
66
8.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
69

3. 3
TABLE
OF
ILLUSTRATION
Figure
1
:
Outsourcing
Vs
Crowdsourcing
8
Figure
2:
Store
Model
16
Figure
3:
Request-­‐to-­‐Proposal
Model
17
Figure
4
:
Data
Model
18
Figure
5:
Collaborative
(Peer)
Model
19
Figure
6:
Closed
Innovation
20
Figure
7:
Crowdsourcing,
Open
Innovation,
User
Innovation
and
Open
Source
21
Figure
8:
Open
Innovation
22
Figure
9:
The
four
ways
to
collaborate
24
Figure
10:
Crowdsourcing
Industry
Revenue
Growth
28
Figure
11:
Scheme
of
Capseo's
Organization
36
Figure
12:
Traditional
Organizational
Structure
46
Figure
13:
Prosourcing
System
59
Figure
14:
Prosourcing
Difference
61
Figure
15:
Prosourcing
63

4. 4
ABSTRACT
Coined
by
Jeff
Howe,
the
term
Crowdsourcing
–
a
composite
of
Crowd
and
Outsourcing,
describes
outsourcing
to
the
crowd.
Afar
from
cost,
advantages
and
opportunities
for
a
company
can
be
considerable.
It
can
outsource
the
risk
of
failure
and
it
only
pays
for
products
or
services
that
meet
its
expectations.
This
phenomenon
covers
various
situations.
Seeking
to
mobilize
external
competencies,
it
has
interested
a
large
number
of
businesses.
However,
this
concept
has
reach
its
maturity
and
its
limits
seem
to
be
pointed
out
as
bad
from
professionals
of
different
industries.
Crowdsourcing
is
lacking
a
general
and
synthetic
view
of
this
concept.
The
purpose
of
our
paper
is
to
characterize
Crowdsourcing
in
its
various
aspects.
First
we
describe
of
Crowdsourcing,
and
offer
examples
illustrating
the
diversity
of
Crowdsourcing
typology,
practices,
business
models
and
we
present
comparisons
between
Crowdsourcing
and
established
theories
(Open
Innovation,
User
Innovation).
Relying
upon
a
group
of
persons
(crowd)
can
be
an
adequate
method,
because
of
its
unique
characteristics
that
are
made
possible
by
the
Internet.
Crowdsourcing
offers
extraordinary
potential
for
resolving
tasks
efficiently
by
tapping
into
the
skills
of
large
groups
of
people.
To
illustrate
so,
we
explain
how
Capseo,
a
crowdsourcing
based
company,
works
with
freelancers
from
around
the
world
to
make
online
marketing
campaigns.
Finally,
we
present
some
potential
benefits
and
pitfalls
of
Crowdsourcing
and
explain
how
to
bypass
its
obstacles
to
offer
a
strong
value
proposition
to
customers.
Key
Words:
Crowdsourcing,
Collaborative
Innovation,
Open
Innovation,
Web
2.0,
problem
solving,
co-­‐creativity

5. 5
INTRODUCTION
Crowdsourcing
is
a
neologism
for
a
business
model
in
which
a
company
or
institution
takes
a
job
traditionally
performed
by
a
designated
agent
(usually
an
employee)
and
outsources
it
to
an
undefined,
generally
large
group
of
people
in
the
form
of
an
open
call.
(Howe,
2006).
Crowdsourcing
is
a
disruptive
business
model
where
customer
engagement
with
a
company
is
at
a
much
higher
level
than
seen
in
any
previous
business
model.
This
level
of
consumer
interaction
makes
it
vulnerable
to
malicious
behavior.
It
brings
out
several
major
concerns
that,
for
a
better
understanding
of
how
companies
can
leverage
crowdsourcing,
need
to
be
discussed
and
analyzed.
Evaluating
and
understanding
the
key
challenges
and
the
stakes
of
this
new
disruptive
business
model
is
necessary
to
avoid
its
pitfalls
and
take
advantages
of
its
benefits.
Crowdsourcing’s
impact
can
be
seen
by
observing
the
numerous
successful
examples
of
crowdsourcing
startups
and
large
old
economy
companies.
Even
thought
it’s
not
a
technology,
many
utilize
this
technique
to
harness
the
‘wisdom
of
the
crowds’.
From
conventional
business
to
new
business
to
innovate,
differentiate
and
compete.
However,
new
businesses
render
this
principle
insufficient
and
in
some
cases
even
completely
inappropriate.
In
an
era
when
great
ideas
can
emerge
from
anywhere
in
the
world
and
IT
has
considerably
reduced
the
cost
to
getting
access
to
it,
it
is
now
very
usual
that
virtually
companies
shouldn’t’
innovate
on
their
own.
With
the
facility
of
accessing
new
technology,
potential
partners
and
ways
to
collaborate
with
them
have
both
expanded
considerably.
However,
greater
choice
has
made
the
choice
of
the
best
management
options
much
more
difficult.
Should
companies
share
intellectual
property
with
a
community?
Should
it
foster
collaborative
relationships
with
a
few
partners,
wisely
selected?
Should
it
harness
the
“wisdom
of
crowds”?
There
is
no
great
approach
to
leveraging
the
power
of
outsiders
unless
the
companies

6. 6
consider
each
aspect
around
open
models
of
collaboration
such
as
crowdsourcing,
and
accept
the
fact
that
choosing
a
different
mode
of
collaboration
involves
different
strategic
trade-­‐offs.
Picking
the
wrong
model
could
cause
falling
behind
in
the
constant
race
to
develop
new
technologies,
designs,
products,
and
services.
Too
often
the
growing
eagerness
of
companies’
not
withstanding
to
crowdsoucing
makes
them
jump
into
relationships
before
even
analyzing
if
their
structure
and
organizing
principles.
Considering,
how
open
or
closed
a
firm’s
network
of
collaborators
should
be?
This
paper
was
developed
to
give
a
simple
framework
to
help
firms
make
decisions
about
the
type
of
collaboration
to
adopt
by
first
going
over
all
type
of
existing
crowdsourcing
business
models.
This
analysis
review
together
with
an
in-­‐depth
study
of
Capseo’s
business
type
brought
out
a
few
issues
on
how
crowdsourcing
is
perceived
by
both
unconcerned
people
and
involved
actors
of
crowdsourcing.
First
quality
control
seams
to
one
of
the
biggest
issues
for
crowdsourcing
and
the
reliability
of
the
crowd
recruited
comes
in
second
position.
Also,
considering
different
aspects
of
a
business,
like
its
organization,
partnership
possibilities
will
differ
considerably
in
the
degree
to
which
membership
is
open
to
anyone
who
wants
to
join.
So,
given
a
business’s
strategy
how
should
it
decide
which
problems
the
crowd
will
tackle
and
which
solutions
could
be
adopted?
The
final
purpose
was
to
explore
what
were
the
options
available
for
Capseo
to
set
up
to
take
advantages
of
what
is
best
from
crowdsourcing
and
improve,
or
rather,
remove
what
is
are
limits
of
it.
And
begin
to
investigate
what
Anji
Ismail,
Capseo’s
SEO,
coined
as
“prosourcing”
options
that
can
improve
the
quality
of
a
“crowd
workforce”.

7. 7
1.
LITTERATURE
REVIEW
1.1.Understanding
Main
Concept
By
analyzing
and
extracting
common
elements
we
will
first
establish
a
unified
definition
of
the
term
crowdsourcing
and
the
basic
characteristics
of
crowdsourcing
initiatives.
Based
on
existing
definitions,
an
exhaustive
and
consistent
definition
for
crowdsourcing
will
be
presented
and
contrasted
in
different
cases.
1.1.1. Definition
The
name
crowdsourcing
is
formed
from
two
words,
crowd,
making
reference
to
the
people
who
participate
in
the
initiatives,
and
the
word
sourcing,
which
refers
to
a
number
of
procurement
practices
aimed
at
finding,
evaluating,
and
engaging
suppliers
of
goods
and
services.
It
is
a
recent
concept
with
blurring
definitions.
In
this
usage
the
term
crowd,
refers
to
any
group
of
people,
from
corporation,
group
of
researchers
to
the
entire
general
public,
which
itself
does
not
have
to
be
cohesive.
A
group
of
people
answering
questions
on
Quora.com
(Quora
is
a
question-­‐and-­‐answer
website
created,
edited
and
organized
by
its
community
of
users,
wikipedia.com)
may
not
know
each
other
outside
of
that
website,
or
a
group
of
people
betting
on
a
football
game
may
not
know
each
others’
bets,
but
nevertheless
they
form
a
crowd
under
this
definition.
Commonly,
and
mistakenly,
associated
to
any
type
of
Internet-­‐based
collaborative
activity,
such
as
co-­‐creation,
open
innovation
or
user
innovation,
the
existing
definitions
vary
from
an
author
to
the
other.
“Some
authors
present
certain
specific
examples
of
crowdsourcing
as
paradigmatic,
while
others
present
the
same
examples
as
the
opposite”
(Estellés-­‐Arolas
&
Gonzales-­‐Ladron-­‐de-­‐Guevera,
2012)

8. 8
Crowdsourcing
is
a
form
of
outsourcing
not
directed
to
other
companies
but
to
the
crowd
through
an
open
call
mostly
via
an
Internet
platform.
Surowiecki
(2004),
Nambissan
and
Sawhney
(2007)
state
that
the
said
crowd
can
be
defined
as
a
large
set
of
anonymous
individuals.
Figure
1
:
Outsourcing
Vs
Crowdsourcing
Source
:
Schenk
E.
and
C.
Guittard
(2009).
There
has
been
discussion
around
whether
or
not
the
term
“crowdsourcing”
came
from
Jeff
Howe,
a
contributing
editor
at
Wired
Magazine.
He
was
supposedly
the
first
to
coin
the
term
but
in
fact
Jeff
Howe
credits
Steve
Jurvetson
with
the
term
from
an
earlier
post
on
flick.
See
Appendix
[1]
Regardless
of
Jeff
Howe’s
deferred
credit,
he
posted
the
first
real
definition
of
"crowdsourcing"
in
a
companion
blog
post
to
Wired
magazine
in
June
2006
“the
Rise
of
Crowdsourcing”.

9. 9
This
short
definition
of
the
term
would
be
as
follows:
“Crowdsourcing
is
the
act
of
taking
a
job
traditionally
performed
by
a
designated
agent
(usually
an
employee)
and
outsourcing
it
to
an
undefined,
generally
large
group
of
people
in
the
form
of
an
open
call.”
While
some
might
depend
upon
active
collaboration
within
a
virtual
community
of
individuals,
others
might
benefit
from
the
opposite.
Howe
goes
deeper
into
the
definition.
According
to
him
there
are
multiple
approaches
to
crowdsourcing.
In
his
book
“The
power
of
Crowd”
J.
Howe
breaks
crowdsourcing
into
four
primary
types,
laying
out
examples
of
how
businesses
can
tailor
crowdsourcing
to
each
of
their
own
circumstances.
In
the
first
type,
wisdom
of
crowd
companies
asks
people
inside
and
outside
the
company
to
help
solve
problems
and
suggest
new
products.
The
second
type,
crowd
creation
is
used
by
businesses
to
create
content
such
as
news
segments
and
video
ads.
People
voting
for
their
favorite
photography
or
product
design
at
apparel
maker’s
website,
thereby
illustrates
crowd
voting
and
finally
startups
use
the
last
model,
crowdfunding
to
raise
money
and
fund
microloans
to
individuals.
These
for
types
will
be
outlined
afterwards.
We
will
go
from
Open
Innovation
to
User
Innovation,
which
are
used
in
different
ways
by
different
authors.
Also
each
type
of
crowd-­‐sourcing
will
leads
us
to
questioning
ourselves
about
the
difference
between:
Crowdsourcing,
Co-­‐Creation
and
Collective
Intelligence:
some
might
use
these
terms
as
opposite
while
others
treat
them
as
synonyms
of
crowdsourcing.
1.1.1.1. Crowd
Wisdom
For
Paul
Sloane
it
is
“simply
gathering
ideas
from
the
crowd”.
Basically
this
concept
refers
to
“the
process
of
taking
into
account
the
collective
opinion
of
a
group
of
individuals
rather
than
a
single
expert
to
answer
a
question.”
(Surowiecki,
2004)

10. 10
First
approached
by
Howe,
this
process
in
the
business
world
was
then
approached
in
detail
by
Suroweiski
in
his
book
the
“Wisdom
of
Crowds”.
It
is
attempt
to
harness
many
people’s
knowledge
in
order
to
solve
problems
or
predict
future
outcomes
or
help
direct
corporate
strategy.
Social
information
sites
such
as
Wikipedia,
Yahoo!
Answers,
Quora
and
other
web
resources
that
rely
on
human
opinion,
have
pushed
crowd
Wisdom
into
the
mainstream
spotlight.
(Baase,
2008)
The
most
famous
example
of
company
using
the
Crowd-­‐
Wisdom
is:
• Innocentive
–
Connects
research
organizations
with
a
global
community
of
scientists
It
is
common
to
reciprocally
use
the
terms
“Collective
Intelligence”
and
“Wisdom
of
Crowd.
Buecheler,
Sieg,
Fuchsil
&
Pfeifer,
2010’s
publications
the
terms
have
been
used
interchangeably
for
“using
a
large
group
of
individuals
to
solve
a
specified
problem
or
collect
useful
ideas.”
However
there
is
real
difference
between
those
two
terms.
Collective
intelligence
The
term
collective
intelligence
is
credited
to
Pierre
Lévy
in
his
book,
dated
of
1994,
“L’Intelligence
collective.
Pour
une
anthropologie
du
cyberspace”.
MIT
C.I.
Center
gives
a
general
but
simple
and
clear
definition
“collective
intelligence
makes
reference
to
groups
of
individuals
doing
things
collectively
that
seem
intelligent.”
E.
Estellés,
in
its
article
“Crowdsourcing
and
Collective
Intelligence”
dated
of
April
2012,
clarifies
the
relationship
between
both
terms
giving
8
elements
that
should
be
meet
for
something
to
be
qualified
as
Crowdsourcing:
1. Crowd
(the
gene
who)
2. Task
to
perform
for
a
specific
purpose
(the
gene
what),
3. Reward
for
the
crowd
(the
gene
why),

11. 11
4. Participative
process
(the
gene
how),
5. Crowdsourcer
that
launches
the
activity,
6. Reward
for
this
crowdsourcer,
7. The
existence
of
an
open
call
8. The
use
of
Internet.
E.
Estellés
adds,
“although
crowdsourcing
is
a
case
of
collective
intelligence,
not
all
cases
of
collective
intelligence
are
crowdsourcing.”
Advantages
of
Wisdom
of
Crowd:
J.
Howe
states,
“Given
the
right
set
of
conditions
the
crowd
will
almost
always
outperform
any
number
of
employees”
Studies
by
Caltech
professor
Scott
E
Page
confirm
that
crowds
consistently
outperform
even
concentrated
groups
of
highly
intelligence
people.
Examples
of
crowd
wisdom
include
idea
jams
and
prediction
markets.
1.1.1.2. Crowd
Creation
As
described
in
Steve
Keifer’s
blog
post
“Four
Types
of
Crowdsourcing”,
“crowd
Creation
is
contemporarily
the
most
popular
form
of
pooling
knowledge
from
the
masses”.
Often
confused
with
the
crowd
wisdom,
which
is
simply
gathering
ideas
from
crowd,
crowds
create
original
works
of
knowledge
or
art,
such
as
individuals
filming
TV
commercials,
performing
language
translation
or
solving
challenging
scientific
problems.
The
crowd
contributes
to
a
movement
and
then
the
company
performed
it.
Paul
Sloane
in
his
book
“A
Guide
to
Open
Innovation
and
Crowdsourcing:
Advice
From
Leading
Experts”
he
complete
the
description
by
stating
the
following:
‘the
action
of
A
group
of
individuals
has
more
knowledge
for
solving
a
problem
than
any
single
individual.
Collective
intelligence
creates
a
quilt
of
knowledge
that
many
people
can
distribute.

12. 12
creativity
must
be
broken
down
into
very
small
individual
pieces
that
can
be
performed
in
“spare
circles”.
The
most
famous
examples
of
companies
using
the
Crowd-­‐Creation
are:
• Threadless.com
–
Creative
consumers
propose
new
T-­‐Shirt
ideas
for
sale
on
the
site
• iStockPhoto
–
Amateur
photographers
contribute
high
quality
stock
photography
images
• Linux
–
Open
source
operating
system
developed
by
community
of
avid
programmers
Since
both
“Crowd
Creation”
and
“Co-­‐Creation”
involve
some
kind
of
collaboration,
the
separation
line
between
the
two
terms
can
be
blurred
at
times.
However
there
is
real
difference
between
both
terms,
which
will
be
outlined
afterwards.
1.1.1.3. Co-­‐Creation
Operating
like
crowdsourcing,
Co-­‐creation
is
a
considered
a
collaborative
initiative,
by
seeking
information
and
ideas
from
a
group
of
people.
However,
one
crucial
difference
between
the
two
lies
with
the
call,
which
is
not
put
to
an
open
forum
or
platform
but
to
a
smaller
group
of
individuals
with
“specialized”
skills
and
talents.
“It
captures
the
ideas
of
the
many
and
work
with
them
through
different
steps
to
ultimately
create
a
better
experience
for
the
consumer.
It’s
about
working
collaboratively
with
a
group
of
people
with
specialized
skills
or
talents.
Crowdsourcing
focuses
on
quantity
and
results
in
incremental
changes,
co-­‐creation
focuses
on
quality
and
produces
innovative
solutions.
Also
co-­‐creation
is
not
about
picking
one
from
many
but
about
working
together.
So
the
main
difference
is
that
co-­‐creation
depends
on
the
skills
of
a
specialized
group
to
work
on
one
solution.
”
(Teng,
2011)
Co-­‐creation
perceived
as
a
tool
in
the
open
innovation
toolkit.
Co-­‐creation
is
a
joint
effort
of
the
producer
and
the
customer
to
develop
new
products
or
services
(Prahalad,

13. 13
2000).
It
involves
a
two-­‐way
interaction
between
customers
and
companies,
as
well
as
peer-­‐to-­‐peer
communication
among
customers.
In
marketing,
co-­‐creation
is
seen
as
a
new
branding
paradigm
(Schultz,
2010)
1.1.1.4. Crowd
Voting
It
consists
in
openly
asking
questions
and
collecting
answers
through
mechanisms
such
as
polls
or
elections.
It
is
a
way
of
using
the
crowd’s
judgment
and
leveraging
it
to
organize,
filter
and
stack-­‐
rank
vast
quantity
of
information
such
as
newspaper
articles,
music
and
movies.
A
great
example
of
crowd
voting
includes
Google’s
search
result,
which
search
engines
are
based
on
algorithms
that
Google
uses
to
give
relevance
to
their
results
via
links
and
page
reviews,
that
is
to
say
give
the
site
popularity.
By
definition,
Google
search
engine
is
built
upon
the
principle
of
Crowd
Voting.
This
form
of
crowdsourcing
generates
the
highest
levels
of
participation.
J.
Howe
cites
the
1:10:89
Rule,
which
states
that
for
every
given
100
people
• 1
will
create
something
valuable
• 10
will
vote
and
rate
submissions
• 89
will
consume
creation
For
the
10
that
vote
and
rate
content
“the
act
of
consumption
was
itself
an
act
of
creation.”
Voting
and
ratings
have
been
made
possible
thanks
to
the
Internet.
Performed
by
end-­‐
users
or
computer-­‐driven
algorithms,
the
mechanism
that
assesses
popularity
via
links
and
page
views
are
numerous.
“In
Real
Life”
a
great
example
of
Crowd
Voting
is
Reality
TV
shows.
According
to
J.
Howe
“American
Idol
is
the
largest
focus
group
ever
conducted”.
Threadless.com
classified
as
Crowd
Creation
also
uses
Crowd
Voting
to
decide,
from
all
the
T-­‐shirt
submitted
on
the
website,
which
ones
to
manufacture
and

14. 14
sell.
Consequently,
Threadless.com
is
able
to
measure
end-­‐consumer
demand
for
new
products
before
making
further
investment.
1.1.1.5. Crowd
Funding
The
term
basically
describes
participation
by
the
crowd
in
micro
lending.
Also
considered
as
“fundraising
the
social
way”
it
is
a
“collective
cooperation,
attention
and
trust
by
the
people
who
pool
money
or
other
resources
to
finance
or
help
a
project”.
Steve
Keifer
in
his
article
Four
Types
of
Crowdsourcing
states
that
“Crowd-­‐Funding
circumvents
the
traditional
corporate
establishment
to
offer
financing”
(Keifer)Indeed,
it
gives
individuals
or
groups,
that
cannot
get
credit
or
opportunities
to
obtain
a
loan
by
the
traditional
system,
the
financing
opportunities
that
might
otherwise
be
denied.
Typically,
under-­‐funded
populations
would
include
individuals
or
groups
with
creative
projects
and
ideas
such
as
amateur
musicians.
Well
known
for
the
music
industry,
it
is
quite
famous
for
creative
project
as
film,
and
business
ideas.
MyMajorCompany.com
is
a
great
example
of
crowd
funding.
Its
music
website
connects
investors
and
artists
in
one
place
through
its
online
platform.
Within
the
community,
users
are
able
to
invest
in
artists
they
pick
for
a
return
in
album
sales
(Rupert,
2011)
while
artists
raise
money
to
record
their
albums.
The
platform
fully
operates
as
a
functioning
record
label
headed
by
industry
professionals.

15. 15
1.2.Business
Model
Typology
With
the
intent
to
go
further
into
crowdsourcing,
M.
Arfaoui,
writer
of
“Understanding
a
new
typology
of
crowdsourcing
business
models”
paper
(Arfaoui),
developed
a
typology
of
crowdsourcing
that
allowed
him
to
identify
four
different
models
of
qualitative
crowdsourcing.
Out
of
these
four
models,
which
will
be
defined
afterwards,
he
identifies
2
types
of
Crowdsourcing:
Quantitative
and
Qualitative.
1.2.1. Quantitative
crowdsourcing:
This
type
of
crowdsourcing,
calls
on
the
crowd
to
fulfill
quite
simple
and
short
tasks
in
relatively
high
quantities.
Generally,
these
tasks
will
not
need
a
high
level
creativity
and
are
99
%
of
the
time
financially
rewarded.
It
is
most
commonly
called
“micro-­‐tasking”
or
“cloud-­‐labor”.
1.2.2. Qualitative
crowdsourcing:
In
opposition
to
quantitative
crowdsourcing,
the
qualitative
crowdsourcing
requires
more
complex
skills
and
competencies
from
the
crowd
as
companies
use
it
to
resolve
larger
and
complicated
projects.
“The
crowd
is
sourced
to
bring
either
an
opinion,
a
reflection,
an
intellectual
or
an
artistic
work,
or
a
solution
to
a
sophisticated
problem.
Rewards
can
be
financial
or
not.
“
To
better
understand
the
following
figures
of
Crowdsourcing
Business
Models
the
following
legend
is
needed.

16. 16
Crowd
Customer
Company
Symbols
&
Colors
Synonyms
User
-­‐
Submitter
-­‐
Creator
-­‐
Contributor
-­‐
Consumer
–
Client
Company
-­‐
Buyer
Business
-­‐
Model
-­‐
Platform
-­‐
Intermediary
-­‐
Website
1.2.2.1.
Store
Model
The
members
of
the
crowd
(group
or
individuals)
sell
their
products
or
service
(mostly
creations)
to
a
crowdsourcing
company.
Present
as
an
outlet.
Companies
using
this
model
mostly
provide
repeatedly
financial
rewards
to
the
actors
of
the
outlet.
M.
Arfaoui
adds
that,
to
be
sustainable,
companies
tend
to
implement
a
““few-­‐to-­‐many”
relationship
(ratio
crowd/uses
<
1)
and
that
the
companies
make
revenue
out
of
the
Figure
2:
Store
Model
transactions
between
crowd
and
customers”.

17. 17
1.2.2.2.
Request-­‐to-­‐Proposal
Model
Members
of
the
crowd
are
competitors
to
each
other.
The
Crowdsourcing
company,
acting
here
as
an
intermediary,
provides
the
crowd
with
the
required
material
to
compete.
The
crowdsourcing
company
operates
as
a
“hub”
to
customers,
most
of
the
time
corporations
and
business.
They
gather
the
information
and
make
a
request
in
the
form
of
an
open
call.
Figure
3:
Request-­‐to-­‐Proposal
Model
The
significant
difference
with
the
above-­‐described
model
(Store
Model)
is
that
this
model
requires
a
“many-­‐to-­‐few
relationship”
to
be
profitable
(ratio
crowd/customer
>
1).
Businesses
processing
this
model
of
crowdsourcing,
promptly
offer
financial
incentives,
in
order
to
attract
many
proposals
but
reward
only
a
very
limited
part
of
them.
“Independently
or
not
from
that,
the
company
will
earn
a
revenue
from
selling
the
access
to
the
crowd-­‐base
itself.”
1.2.2.3.
Data
Model
The
core
of
the
Data
Model
is
the
community.
Social
or
not,
the
crowd
community
will
grow
around
the
company’s
network
system.
The
company’s
challenge
is
to
attract
as
much
users
as
possible
to
create
the
maximum
amount
of
data,
from
contact
information
to
random
content
as
media
and
photos,
out

18. 18
of
the
crowd.
This
content
will
be
valuable
for
both
corporate
accounts
(interested
in
massive
data
exploitation)
and
for
premium
users
(interested
in
the
direct
usage
of
the
data
or
the
platform
itself)
Figure
4
:
Data
Model
1.2.2.4. Collaborative
(Peer)
Model
This
model
gives
priority
to
the
creation
through
a
collaboration
platform.
The
crowd,
here
considered
as
collaborators,
works
on
particular
parts
of
a
product.
Collaborators
progressively
propose
a
finalized
version
of
it.

19. 19
The
finalized
product
will
either
be
sold
to
the
crowd
itself
or
to
real
customers
/
end
users.
Figure
5:
Collaborative
(Peer)
Model
As
it
is
quite
complicated
to
crowd-­‐source
the
full
process
of
creation,
this
model
is
a
“few-­‐to-­‐few”
relation,
or
at
best
“few-­‐to-­‐many”
relation.
The
set
of
characteristics
built
from
incentives
and
crowd’s
role
allow
a
better
understanding
of
the
factors
of
crowdsourcing
business
models,
which,
well,
chosen,
lead
to
a
more
efficient
implementation
and
a
positioning
on
the
markets.
These
four
crowdsourcing
business
models,
allow
us
to
determine
that
by
extension,
crowdsourcing
is
a
collaborative
process.
Developing
a
typological
approach
on
the
elements
of
crowdsourcing
leads
us
to
questioning
ourselves
about
the
related
concept
of
“innovation”.
We
previously
developed
that
the
concept
of
collective
intelligence
(Surowiecki,
2004)
and
co-­‐creation
(Prahalad, 2000)
were
different
but
still
closely
related.

20. 20
Also,
the
paradigm
of
collaborative
innovation,
which
includes
open
innovation
(Chesbrough,
2006)
and
user
innovation
(von
Hippel,
2005)
overlaps
with
the
notion
of
Crowdsourcing.
1.2.3. Innovation
Before
going
any
further
into
analyzing
each
of
these
paradigms,
it
is
important
to
take
a
step
back
to
the
description
of
Innovation,
strictly
speaking.
Figure
6:
Closed
Innovation
Source:
Paul
Sloane
Innovation
as
we
know
it,
is
closed
to
any
outside
company’s
contribution.
Meaning
that
everything
is
created
within
the
company.
Ideas
are
generated,
then
developed,
built,
marketed,
distributed,
financed,
and
supported
internally.
“Closed
innovation
exploits
existing
internal
infrastructure
and
capabilities”
(Sloane,
2012).

21. 21
Many
authors
tend
to
identify
the
crowdsourcing
with
Open
Innovation,
treating
both
as
synonyms
(CHANAL,
2010),
identifying
crowdsourcing
as
a
particular
type
of
Open
Innovation
(Nambisan)
(Sawhney,
2007),
(Burger-­‐Helmchen,
2010)
Aitamurto,
Leiponen
and
Tee,
inspired
by
Schenk
and
Guittard
’s
figure
of
Crowdsourcing,
Open
Innovation,
User
Innovation
and
Open
Source
(Aitamurto,
June
2011),
distinguish
each
of
the
following
paradigms
with
the
following
figure.
Figure
7:
Crowdsourcing,
Open
Innovation,
User
Innovation
and
Open
Source
Jeffrey
Phillips,
in
his
chapter
“Open
Innovation
Typology”
of
the
book
“A
Guide
to
Open
Innovation
and
Crowdsourcing”,
distinguishes
the
crowdsourcing
as
a
way
of
implementing
Open
Innovation.
(Sloane,
2012)
Within
the
open
innovation
paradigm,
crowdsourcing
can
be
perceived
as
a
tool
to
gather
ideas,
innovations,
or
information
for
certain
purposes.
It
can
thus
be
viewed
as
a
method
of
open
innovation.
Also
“co-­‐creation”
combines
user
innovation
and
crowdsourcing
and
is
additionally
a
subset
of
the
open
innovation
concept
1.2.4. Open
Innovation
Henry
Chesbrough
coined
the
term
open
innovation.
He
defines
it
as
a
paradigm
that
assumes
firms
can
and
should
use
ideas
both
internal
and
external,
and
internal
and
external
channels
to
market.
Open
Innovation
Co-­‐Creation
User
Innovation
Crowdsourcing

22. 22
It’s
“the
use
of
purposive
inflows
and
outflows
of
knowledge
to
accelerate
internal
innovation
and
expand
the
markets
for
external
use
of
innovation.”
Considered
as
“a
new
research
and
development
model”
it
shifts
away
from
the
traditional
closed
innovation
system,
as
defined
previously,
where
innovation
processes
are
mostly
generated
inside
the
organization
and
ideas
from
outside
of
the
organization
are
often
treated
with
“not-­‐invented-­‐here”
mentality.
(Aitamurto,
June
2011)
Open
innovation
establishes
new
paths
to
commercialize
the
innovation
done
within
the
company,
both
by
using
informal
and
formal
ties
to
partners,
for
example
through
exploiting
the
possibilities
for
revenue
streams
by
using
open
application
programming
interfaces.
(Chesbrough,
2006)
(Aitamurto,
June
2011)
Source:
Paul
Sloane
Figure
8:
Open
Innovation
The
similarity
between
the
crowdsourcing
and
open
innovation
is
because
they
are
both
based
on
the
same
paradigm:
knowledge
is
distributed
and
its
use
(in
the
R&D
processes,
for
example)
can
be
a
competitive
advantage.

23. 23
Despite
the
similar
elements
and
characteristics
(i.e.:
reducing
risk,
increasing
the
speed
in
product
development),
there
are
author,
such
as
Brabham
and
Schenk
&
Guittard,
which
tend
to
separate
the
two
concepts.
The
two
main
differences
that
prevent
the
full
and
unambiguous
identification
between
the
two
types
of
processes
are
as
follows
(Schenk
&
Guittard,
2009):
(Schenk,
2009)
1. “Open
Innovation
focuses
only
on
the
innovation
process,
while
crowdsourcing
can
pursue
other
goals:
funding
through
crowdfunding,
discover
use
opinions
through
crowdvoting,
etc.
2. Strictly
speaking,
Open
Innovation
describes
the
interaction
between
firms
(through
patents,
joint
adventures,
et),
while
crowdsourcing
describes
the
interaction
between
a
crowdsourcer
(whether
a
company,
institution,
individual,
etc.)
and
the
crowd.”
We
can
surely
conclude
that
there
are
common
areas
between
crowdsourcing
and
Open
Innovation
since
both
can
use
the
same
business
model.
However,
not
all
crowdsourcing
initiatives
involve
Open
Innovation,
not
any
Open
Innovation
activity
has
to
be
carried
out
though
a
crowdsourcing
initiative.
(Estellés-­‐Arolas
&
Gonzales-­‐Ladron-­‐
de-­‐Guevera,
2012)
1.2.5. User
innovation
In
the
manufacturer-­‐centric
model,
manufacturers
develop
products
and
services
in
a
closed
way,
by
using
patents,
copyrights,
and
other
protections
to
prevent
imitators
from
free
riding
on
their
innovation
investments.
Also,
the
user’s
only
role
is
to
have
needs,
which
manufacturers
then
identify
and
fill
by
designing
and
producing
new
products
(von
Hippel,
2005)
In
opposition,
user-­‐centered
innovation
processes
are
very
different
from
this
traditional
model.
Indeed,
users
are
active
contributors
to
the
innovation
process.
(von
Hippel,
2005).
Lead
users
facing
specific
needs
(and
possibly
anticipate
market
needs),

24. 24
ready
to
bear
some
of
the
costs
and
risks
associated
with
innovation
drive
the
User
Innovation.
User
Innovation
represents
the
“non-­‐linear”
dimension
of
the
innovation
process:
users
and
market
feedback
are
source
of
novelty
for
the
innovating
firm.
(Schenk,
2009)
The
possible
confusion
between
User
Innovation
and
Crowdsourcing
stems
from
the
fact
that
end
users
are
likely
to
be
found
within
the
crowd.
However
these
concepts
describe
very
different
phenomena.
Crowdsourcing
suggests
that
the
crowd
can
provide
firms
with
resources
under
specific
conditions,
but
it
does
not
imply
customer
feedback
in
the
innovation
process.
(Schenk,
2009)
As
potential
innovation
collaboration
opportunities
proliferate,
it’s
compulsory
understanding
how
best
to
leverage
crowd’s,
thus
collaborator’s
power.
From
crowdsourcing
to
open
innovation,
opportunities
are
numerous
when
using
“collaboration”,
however
to
ensure
its
sustainability,
it
is
necessary
to
study
its
applicability
in
terms
of
governance
and
extent
of
participation
and
define
the
boundaries
of
collaboration.
Each
Mode
of
collaboration
requires
different
dynamics
and
strategies
and
outcomes
vary
from
one
each
other.
Figure
9:
The
four
ways
to
collaborate

25. 25
To
select
the
right
type
of
collaboration
options
for
a
business,
Pisano
and
Verganti,
in
their
paper
“Which
Kind
of
Collaboration
Is
Right
for
You?”
recommend
understanding
basics
of
the
four
collaboration
modes.
These
modes
differ
along
two
dimensions:
openness
or
Participation
(can
anyone
participate,
or
just
select
players?)
and
hierarchy
or
Governance
(who
makes
key
decisions—one
“kingpin”
participant
or
all
players?).
There
are
four
basic
modes
of
collaboration
developed
by
Pisano
and
Verganti.
“The
Four
Ways
to
Collaborate”
concept,
defines
the
following
modes
for
user
participation:
• Elite
circle:
a
closed
and
hierarchical
mode,
o The
company
selects
certain
participants
and
decides
which
ideas
get
developed.
• Innovation
mall:
an
open
and
hierarchical
mode,
o Anyone
can
offer
ideas
but
your
company
de-­‐
fines
the
problem
and
chooses
the
solution.
• Innovation
community:
an
open
and
flat
mode,
o Anyone
can
solicit
and
offer
ideas,
and
no
single
participant
has
the
authority
to
decide
what
is
or
isn’t
a
valid
innovation.
• Consortium:
a
closed
and
flat
mode.
o A
select
group
is
invited
to
offer
ideas.
But
participants
share
information
and
intellectual
property
and
make
critical
decisions
together.

26. 26
1.3.Formulating
Hypothesis
As
exposed
earlier,
Internet
usage
has
changed
the
way
business
think
and
work.
Customers
are
demanding
more
customized
products,
and
to
meet
this
need,
companies
may
need
to
use
crowdsourcing
to
build
on
the
tacit
knowledge
from
customers’
experiences.
Today's
ultra-­‐competitive
environment
makes
it
difficult
to
be
successful
with
just
great
products,
services
and
traditional
marketing
alone.
Gaining
awareness
requires
great
communication
skills,
in
this
sense
getting
the
customer
to
be
notified
about
one
company's
product
or
service
makes
it
obvious
that
using
new
technologies
help
to
make
them
informed
purchasers.
The
evolution
related
to
the
technologies
leads
us
to
the
following
hypothesis
1.3.1. Traditional
In-­‐House
management,
as
a
stand-­‐alone
strategy,
is
no
longer
enough
Managing
business
processes
and
keeping
them
under
control
are
critical
for
companies
across
all
industries.
However,
for
many
companies
from
various
sectors,
redesigning
business
processes
and
management
often
leads
to
costs
savings
and
increased
efficiencies.
Crowdsourcing
appears
as
an
alternative
to
the
traditional
approach
as
it
takes
advantage
of
the
crowd’s
potential
available.
Under
some
circumstances,
crowdsourcing
is
a
powerful
tool
for
innovation
process.
However,
one
cannot
claim
firmly
that
crowdsourcing
can
always
lead
to
success
since
there
are
still
need
for
research
to
improve
the
process
and
consequently
the
outcome
of
the
crowdsourcing.
1.3.2. Crowdsourcing,
is
an
effective
business
model
for
any
type
of
business
Crowdsourcing
offers
unprecedented
potential
for
solving
tasks
efficiently
by
tapping
into
the
skills
of
large
groups
of
people.
Crowdsourcing
expands
a
company’s
ability
to

27. 27
be
innovative,
customer
friendly
and
create
new
levels
of
customer
involvement
that
has
never
been
seen
before.
Products,
whether
traditional
goods
or
services,
rapidly
become
standards,
and
companies
can
find
competitive
advantage
by
differentiating
their
products
in
a
crowdsourcing
process
with
users
and
customers.
Furthermore,
customers
are
demanding
more
customized
products,
and
to
meet
this
need,
companies
may
need
to
use
crowdsourcing
to
build
on
the
tacit
knowledge
from
customers’
experiences.
Crowdsourcing
platforms
appear
to
be
interesting
organizational
forms
that
combine
community
dynamics
and
market
relationships,
internal
and
external
human
resources,
non-­‐financial
and
financial
rewards,
contribution
by
both
experts
and
amateurs,
etc.
It
may
be
that
these
organizations
are
the
prototypes
of
major
evolutions
in
ways
of
doing
business
in
the
near
future.
1.3.3. Crowdsourcing
guarantees
quality
work.
The
principle
of
crowdsourcing
is
that
“the
Many
Are
Smarter
Than
the
Few”.
By
canvassing
a
large
crowd
of
people
for
ideas,
skills,
or
participation,
the
quality
of
content
and
idea
generation
will
be
superior.
Crowdsourcing
actually
increases
the
quality
and
decreases
the
price,
compared
to
in-­‐house
management
or
online
freelancing.
It
can
also
be
a
lot
faster
and
lead
to
higher
quality
work
as
people
are
competing
against
each
other
(as
humans,
we
all
want
to
win
after
all).
The
amount
of
responses
leads
to
larger
choice
of
work.
However,
quality
can
be
difficult
to
judge
if
proper
expectations
are
not
clearly
stated.

28. 28
Figure
10:
Crowdsourcing
Industry
Revenue
Growth
Millions
of
$US,
based
on
a
sample
of
15
leading
crowdsourcing
service
providers
(CSPs)
1.3.4. Crowdsourcing,
is
suitable
for
any
type
of
business
Crowdsourcing
brings
together
people
from
different
parts
of
the
world
and
different
sectors
of
business
to
work
together
on
a
project.
This
is
effectively
a
collection
of
different
fields
and
levels
of
expertise
that
would
not
otherwise
be
available
to
any
business.
Companies
of
all
shapes,
sizes
and
business
genres,
individuals,
non-­‐profit
organizations
and
even
government
groups
can
benefit
from
the
crowd
engagement.
Procter
and
Gamble,
IBM,
Dell,
Lego,
Starbucks,
Coca-­‐Cola,
and
Nokia
that
are
large
companies
are
among
the
big
adopters
of
crowdsourcing
practices.

29. 29
It
has
helped
these
firms
develop
new
products
at
lower
cost,
brainstorm
new
ideas
and
emerging
trends,
solve
technical
problems,
design
logos
and
packaging,
gather
feedback
and
business
ideas,
and
design
advertising
campaigns.”
See
appendix
[2].
1.3.5. Every
task
can
be
crowdsourced.
Just
about
any
step
in
a
product
development
and
product-­‐marketing
model
can
be
crowd-­‐sourced.
You
can
crowd-­‐source
one
step
or
multiple,
including
fundraising,
naming,
conception,
development,
Q&A,
and
pricing,
depending
on
the
company
resources,
needs
and
goals.
The
biggest
benefit
is
that
crowdsourcing
is
a
very
cost-­‐
effective
way
to
resolve
business
issues.
The
biggest
disadvantage
is
that
if
not
properly
managed,
the
process
can
lose
control
and
spiral
into
a
time-­‐consuming
disaster.

30. 30
2. RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
2.1.Introduction
This
chapter
focuses
the
methodology
adopted
in
undertaking
this
research
and
begins
with
the
description
of
the
method
adopted
in
this
survey.
It
follows
the
four
step
sequences:
methodology
selection,
case
study
analysis,
problem
definition,
and
research
objectives.
2.2.
Methodology
Selection
2.2.1. Qualitative
research
To
gain
a
deeper
understanding
and
to
gather
an
in-­‐depth
understanding
this
thesis
will
be
driven
by
a
qualitative
research
methodology
on
accordance
with
exploratory
research
type.
Exploratory
data
analysis
We
find
ourselves
in
a
context
where
we
seek
to
understand
a
phenomenon
of
substance,
for
which
a
qualitative
study
proves
to
be
the
best
solution.
The
quantitative
study
did
not
seem
relevant
in
this
context,
because
the
phenomenon
in
question
seems
difficult
to
quantify
or
generalize.
Beyond
the
explanatory
function
that
is
the
qualitative
study,
it
will
help
to
develop
knowledge
about
issues
that
have
little
or
no
research
so
far
been
treated.
Therefore,
it
will
have
an
important
exploratory
function
in
order
to
better
understand
the
phenomenon
on
which
it
is
directed.
As
this
study
relies
on
secondary
research
such
as
reviewing
available
literature
and/or
data
and
more
formal
approaches
through
in-­‐depth
analysis
of
the
Capseo
Business
Model
the
exploratory
research
approach
is
the
most
appropriate.
These
data
have
been
analyzed
for
the
purpose
of
formulating
hypotheses.

31. 31
We
will
identify
patterns
and
relationships
thanks
to
literature
review
and
Capseo’s
Process.
Problem
>
Data
>
Analysis
>
Model
>
Conclusions
2.2.2. Presentation
of
the
Case
Study
Capseo
is
a
startup
launched
in
France
(Lyon)
in
September
2009.
The
startup
appears
to
represent
a
original
case
of
crowdsourcing
with
high
potential
as
it
offers
a
platform
for
a
community
of
SEOers
and
web
marketing
professionals
to
manage
an
entire
project
management
process,
from
hiring
freelancer,
content
creation,
link
generation
and
eventually
to
payment
of
the
freelancers.
The
case
of
Capseo
is
also
particularly
interesting
in
that
its
aim
is
to
apply
crowdsourcing
to
web
marketing
projects
development
through
a
platform
that,
thanks
to
its
algorithms,
allowing
a
perfect
match
between
what
the
customers
expects
and
the
freelancers
skills
and
knowledge.
The
customer
keeps
an
eye
on
his
project
without
being
directly
in
contact
with
the
freelancers
working
or
even
knowing
who
they
are.
In
the
initial
Capseo
business
model,
humans
through
a
platform
internally
developed
managed
the
projects.
Meaning
that
when
a
new
project
came
in,
the
project
manager
was
in
charge
of
choosing
who
were
the
most
suitable
and
qualified
freelancers
for
a
given
project.
Freelancers
would
submit
their
work
in
that
platform
and
project
manager
would
review
and
approve
the
work.
Following
this
paper
Stakes,
limits
and
opportunities,
how
to
take
advantage
of
the
crowdsourcing
to
offer
a
strong
value
proposition
to
your
customers?
a
new
platform
was
developed
and
built
internally
too,
it
was
publicly
launched
in
the
US
market
and
investors
have
potentially
shown
their
interest
in
financing
the
future
of
Capseo.
The
business
model
was
based
on
the
idea
that
Capseo
would
fully
manage
the
process
management
through
the
platform.
From
customer
order
to
task
management,
an
even
online
payment
and
in
this
way
be
more
cost
effective.
It
became
clear,
however,
that
the
original
model
was
too
time

32. 32
consuming
and
Capseo
is
progressively
abandoning
it.
Capseo,
thought
its
platform
is
more
of
an
intermediate,
whilst
continuing
with
the
concept
of
collective
work
done
by
a
community.
The
following
concept
was
adopted:
the
collective
created
work
could
still
be
managed
and
above
all
directly
be
reviewed
by
the
community
leaders.
The
hierarchy
would
establish
itself
with
thanks
to
the
evaluation
of
the
freelancers.
Capseo
would
earn
revenue
on
additional
services
for
firms
such
as
the
use
of
the
platform
for
agencies.
For
example,
web
agencies
would
be
granted
special
access
to
the
platform
and
use
Capseo’s
resources
and
full
database
to
manage
their
own
projects,
content
creation
and
other
requirements
in
collaboration
with
the
communities.
We
will
look
at
the
evolution
of
the
company’s
business
model
in
more
detail
later
on
in
the
company
section
of
this
paper.
2.2.3. Data
collection
The
collaborative
research
process
described
here
covers
a
18-­‐months
period
between
September
2011
and
May
2013.
Over
this
period,
the
research
covered
a
personal
work
managed
project,
customer
feedbacks,
the
comments
of
Capseo’s
staff,
including
the
CEO
of
the
company,
Anji
Ismail,
and,
somehow
the
third
parties
as
the
freelancers
and
the
customers.
This
period
can
be
split
into
two
main
phases.
Phase
1
focused
on
the
management
of
the
project
with
the
first
platform,
that
we
can
consider
as
elaboration
of
the
first
business
model,
the
launch
of
the
platform
and
the
appraisal
of
the
first
results.
After
a
few
months
of
business
activity
with
results
that
could
obviously
be
improved,
Capseo’s
founders
decided
to
rearrange
the
business
model,
giving
it
a
somewhat
different
orientation.
Phase
2
corresponds
to
the
design
and
development
of
this
new
platform,
which
required
the
development
of
a
algorithm
and
a
full
restructure
of
the
platform
as
it
was
thought
initially.
Considerable
modifications
were
brought
when
compared
to
the
first
platform.
The
data
collected
is
as
follows:
-­‐
The
empirical
material
of
the
projects

33. 33
-­‐
The
theoretical
material
introduced
by
the
staff:
formal
presentations
and
brought
in
new
ideas
to
be
tested
by
the
CEO
and
to
help
him
in
his
analysis.
The
framework
used
to
guide
the
strategic
reflection
is
inspired
by
other
research
(Chesbrough
&
Rosenbloom,
2002;
Chesbrough
2006a:
109;
Osterwalder
&
Pigneur,
2005;
Schweizer,
2005;
Lecocq
et
al.,
2006;
Warnier
et
al,
2004).
Our
analysis
focused
on
value
creation
and
value
capture,
and
more
specifically
examined
the
three
following
building
blocks
that
characterize
a
business
model:
the
value
proposition
(including
the
offer
based
on
the
technology,
the
choice
of
market
segments
and
the
customer
interface
process),
the
business
model
infrastructure
(including
the
firm’s
resources,
competencies
and
capabilities,
the
structure
of
the
value
chain
and
the
positioning
and
relationships
of
the
firm
within
the
value
network),
and
the
revenue
model
(including
both
cost
structure
and
revenue
model).
2.2.4. Problem
definition
As
developed
previously
in
the
literature
review
marketers
used
to
rely
solely
on
what
has
been
working
for
them
in
the
past
using
industry
standard
approaches,
unwilling
to
explore
new
options.
Many
researchers
have
first
seen
the
crowdsourcing
as
a
competitor
to
traditional
in-­‐
house
management
rather
than
considering
it
as
a
complementary
process
that
could
enhance
mutual
growth
across
multiple
processes
by
building
synergies.
Research
question
Stakes,
limits
and
opportunities,
how
to
take
advantage
of
the
crowdsourcing
to
offer
a
strong
value
proposition
to
your
customers?

34. 34
2.2.5.
Research
Objectives
This
study
aims
at
understanding
what
the
stakes
and
limits
of
having
a
crowdsourcing-­‐
oriented
strategy
and
the
impact
of
implementing
as
a
business
model
are.
In
light
of
the
previous
literature
analysis,
the
objective
will
be
to
set
up
a
scalable
strategy
combining
both
social-­‐media
and
traditional
marketing.

35. 35
3. FIELDWORK
3.1.Capseo
Capseo
was
founded
in
2009
by
two
EMLyon
Alumni;
Anji
Ismail
&
Faouzi
Elyagoubi.
Though
originally
based
in
Lyon
at
EMLyon’s
incubator,
this
small
start-­‐up
has
expanded
to
the
United
States
by
opening
an
office
at
the
Plug
and
Play
Tech
Center
in
Sunnyvale,
California
in
April
2011.
3.1.1. What
does
Capseo
do?
Capseo
is
the
service
provider
of
an
innovative
e-­‐marketing
platform
based
on
the
power
of
crowdsourcing.
Capseo
acts
as
an
intermediary
between
the
“customers,”
or
the
companies
subscribing
to
their
e-­‐marketing
services
and
the
“influencers”
hired
to
expand
the
company’s
presence
on
the
web.
Capseo
oversees
the
coordination
of
marketing
efforts
generated
by
their
influencers
throughout
their
assignment.
3.1.2. Customers
Capseo
customers
may
be
individual
businesses
with
limited
resources
or
marketing
agencies
seeking
additional
assistance
for
a
project.
Relying
on
Capseo’s
resources
produces
higher
quality
results
in
a
faster
period
of
time
at
a
lower
cost.
Once
subscribing
to
the
Capseo
service,
customers
can
monitor
their
progress
through
the
online
portfolio.
3.1.3. Influencers/Suppliers
All
of
Capseo’s
influencers
are
hand
selected
for
each
task
by
the
staff
based
on
their
special
interests,
number
of
followers,
geographic
location
and
language
skills.

36. 36
Influencers
must
meet
qualifications
and
undergo
rigorous
testing
in
order
to
qualify
to
meet
the
Capseo
standard
implemented
to
guarantee
quality
in
their
service.
3.1.4. Different
roles
The
main
process
of
Capseo
is
based
on
an
exchange
on
three
different
levels:
• Capseo
and
its
team,
which
is
the
intermediary
between
the
two
entities
that
follow
• Clients
and
Prospects
who
usually
come
to
Capseo
to
ask
how
do
their
performances
work
and
explain
their
needs
in
improving
their
ranking
in
Search
Engines,
and
at
the
end
possibly
increase
rather
their
conversion
rate
(if
they
own
a
e-­‐commerce
website).
• Influencers,
SEOers,
professional
internet
marketers
recruited
by
Capseo
by
the
intermediate
of
blogs
and
websites
for
their
skills
in
writing,
but
also
their
interests,
place
of
living
(…)
Figure
11:
Scheme
of
Capseo's
Organization
Capseo
intermediate
and
organization
Influencers
&
Partners
have
the
skills
Clients
&
Prospects
needs

37. 37
3.1.5. Capseo
Crowdsourced
System
When
contacted
by
prospects,
a
dedicated
person
of
the
team
establishes
a
proposal,
or
commercial
proposition
and
a
planning
according
to
strategies
and
goals
with
the
concerned
project
manager
(or
other),
Capseo
concentrate
on
the
different
goals
that
it
has
fixed,
which
also
can
be
subdivided
into
two
main
categories
of
actions:
• SEO
(Search
Engine
Optimization)
or
natural
referencing
• SMO
or
Social
Media
Optimization
The
SEO
part
can
be
subdivided
into
three
other
categories
that
are:
the
technique
(all
that
implies
coding
properly),
the
contents
and
texts
that
need
to
be
improved,
and
finally
the
links
that
redirect
web
surfers
on
their
website
and
counted
by
the
number
of
“clicks”.
Natural
referencing
is
a
concept
referring
to
the
fact
that
websites
are
classified
on
search
engines
“naturally”
or
“organically”
(Google
is
the
major
search
engine
in
the
market,
and
throughout
the
world).
It
is
quite
easy
to
check
whether
or
not
a
website
is
well
structured
and
valuable
to
Search
Engines
such
as
Google.
Upon
that
a
website
will
be
well
ranked
on
search
engines
thanks
to
different
tools.
The
two
metrics
that
are
commonly
used
more
often
are
the
Alexa
Rank,
and
the
Page
Rank.
It
is
not
necessary
to
go
into
further
explanation
of
these
two
metrics.
Both
are
numbers,
the
first
one
telling
the
general
ranking
of
the
website
globally
and
in
its
country
of
origin
depending
on
the
number
of
“clicks”
generated,
and
the
Page
Rank
is
about
the
credibility
and
relevance
of
it.
The
lower
the
Alexa
Rank,
the
better.
The
higher
the
Page
Ranke
the
better.
The
SMO
part
is
on
another
hand
the
management
of
one
or
more
accounts
of
the
client’s
brand/website
on
different
social
medias
personal
or
professional,
from
Facebook
to
Twitter
and
LinkedIn
most
of
the
time.
This
is
often
asked
because
companies
are
aware
that
nowadays,
the
majority
of
the
prospects
and
clients
are
a
lot
more
influenced
on
the
web
than
by
the
TV.
That
comes
from
the
fact
that
our
principal
correspondents
are
people
from
our
siblings,
fellows,
school
or
work,
which
mean

38. 38
people
“like
us”
that
can
easily
make
us
consume
what
they
have
because
we
trust
them
more
than
TV
commercials.
The
next
step
for
Capseo
is
to
search
for
adapted
and
qualified
influencers/writers/bloggers
to
have
matching
skills
and
expertise
to
clients
according
to
their
needs.
Most
of
the
time,
the
participation
of
influencers
is
about
articles
published
and
remunerated
that
are
called
sponsored
posts,
which
provide
more
backlinks
to
the
clients
in
the
SEO
section.
Freelancers
are
all
evaluated
to
be
part
of
the
Capseo’s
members.
To
prove
their
level
is
acceptable
freelancers
should
get
certified
by
first
answering
a
questionnaire
and
then
by
doing
assigned
tasks.
They
are
also
evaluated
all
along
their
membership.
Each
accomplished
task
is
evaluated
and
provides
points.
The
more
point
they
get,
the
higher
they
are
paid.
However,
if
a
task
is
refused,
the
freelancers
will
loose
points.
In
order
to
provide
clients
and
partners,
such
as
freelancers
with
a
real
interface
to
communicate
more
rapidly,
Capseo
created
and
is
monitoring
a
platform.
It
allows:
• Capseo
to
submit
the
tasks
to
the
selected
freelancers,
• The
customer
to
monitor
his
own
campaign
• The
freelancers
to
process
their
task
Figure
13:
Capseo
Crowdsourcing
System
Capseo
PROJECT
Customer
Country:
USA
Task
1:
SEOer
Task
2:
Blogger
Country:
France
interacts
interacts
never
interacts
but
see
each
other

39. 39
The
issue
is
that
everyone
could
see
information
that
was
sometimes
meant
to
be
confidential.
For
example,
Capseo
didn’t
want
the
customer
to
see
the
contact
details
of
the
freelancers
working
on
his
campaign
because
the
customer
could
get
in
contact
with
the
freelancers
and
ask
him
to
work
directly
for
him
rather
than
letting
Capseo
manage
the
campaign.
.
3.1.6. Industry
Analysis
Summary
Search
Engine
Marketing
(SEM)
and
Search
Engine
Optimization
(SEO)
are
some
of
the
most
common
ways
of
advertising
for
Internet-­‐based
companies.
Both
SEM
and
SEO
are
used
to
increase
the
visibility
of
websites
on
search
engine
page
results.
Google
continues
to
close
in
on
70
percent
market
share,
moving
up
0.1
percent
again
this
month
to
take
a
U.S.
record
67
percent
of
all
search
traffic
in
November,
comScore
reported.
An
expected
growth
of
16%
will
come
from
an
increase
in
spending
on
SEO,
social
media
marketing
and
mobile
advertising
while
another
54%
of
businesses
are
planning
to
increase
their
SEO
budget,
compared
to
10%
who
are
planning
to
decrease
it
(Brent
Rangen,
2011).
Another
study
shows
that
88%
of
US
marketers
are
increasing
their
social
media-­‐marketing
budget
in
US.
("88
percent
of,"
2011)
If
the
SEM
industry
follows
the
current
trends,
it
will
be
a
$26
billion
industry
by
2013.
This
industry
analysis
is
based
on
the
model
of
Porter’s
five
forces.
3.1.6.1. Customer
Power
Over
90%
of
the
U.S.
companies
use
SEO
and
SEM
for
website
optimization.
SEM
has
become
essential
for
website
optimization
regardless
of
size
of
company.
As
demand
for
SEO
and
SEM
has
grown
over
the
past
10
years,
suppliers
have
also
steadily
increased
to
maintain
place
in
the
market.
However
there
is
a
more
need
of
SEM
marketers
as
the
budget
is
increasing.

40. 40
As
a
result,
the
customer
has
a
moderate
bargaining
power.
3.1.6.2. Supplier
Power
We
can
consider
two
types
of
suppliers
for
Capseo:
Search
Engines
&
Influencers
For
search
engine,
Google
is
the
strongest
supplier
to
Capseo
as
Google
already
dominates
the
search
engine
market
share.
Search
engines,
such
as
Google,
Yahoo!
and
Bing
etc.,
as
well
as
social
media
sites,
such
as
Facebook,
Twitter
etc.
Google
dominates
the
American
search
engine
market
with
over
65.5%
of
the
market
share
(Brian
Womack,
2011)
and
Facebook
is
a
social
media
giant.
Also,
other
main
suppliers
are
the
influencers,
web
marketer
professionals,
bloggers
and
content
writer
for
which
the
bargaining
power
is
low.
If
freelancers
refuse
to
work,
there
are
thousands
of
people
can
replace
them.
If
content
writers
or
bloggers
that
supply
content
increase
price,
there
are
other
content
writers
and
bloggers
in
the
same
space
that
do
the
same
exact
work.
Capseo
can
hire
any
content
writers
and
bloggers
it
chooses
to
accomplish
tasks
and
can
bring
the
work
in
house
or
hire
new
contractors
or
new
companies
to
complete
the
work.
Therefore
the
bargaining
power
of
the
suppliers
in
this
industry
is
moderate.
3.1.6.3. Threat
of
New
Entrants
Capital
Requirement
and
Time
If
we
consider
the
competitive
advantage
of
Capseo:
its
algorithm
and
platform,
it
needs
goods
developers
and
engineers
to
develop
an
algorithm
and
site
(platform)
similar
to
Capseo
for
a
new
entrants.
And
it
takes
a
efforts
to
build
up
the
company
and
attract
users.
It
is
not
likely
that
competitors
will
enter
the
market
on
a
similar
platform.
However
a
big
company
with
millions
dollar
available
could
easily
develop
such
a

41. 41
service.
Economies
of
Scale
The
threat
of
new
entrants
in
search
engine
market
is
relatively
low
because
competitors
are
all
over
the
world
and
has
captured
so
many
skills
about
search
engines,
a
new
entrant
would
have
easy
access
to
all
the
required
data
and
information
to
learn
how
to
do
SEO.
It
should
however
provide
even
better
search
results
at
faster
speed
and
presents
information
from
diverse
sources
in
a
more
unified
and
customized
way.
Absolute
Cost
Advantage
In
this
competitive
market,
the
new
entrants
have
to
possess
an
absolute
cost
advantage
comparing
to
others;
for
example,
new
entrants
have
to
come
up
a
better,
cheaper
and
more
efficient
plan
to
do
SEO
internationally.
New
entrants
should
have
lower
cost
of
producing
the
services
compared
to
Capseo.
Brand
Loyalty
For
new
entrants,
brand
loyalty
is
not
a
tough
entry
barrier
to
overcome
unless
the
rival
product
offering
is
of
fundamentally
and
significantly
greater
value.
However,
the
market
now
is
mature
enough,
without
a
necessary
path
dependency
to
gather
data
on
both
the
content
of
web
pages
and
the
search
histories
of
users.
With
such
competitive
and
growing
market
and
strong
competitors,
the
threat
of
entry
rather
high.
If
we
consider
only
the
activity
of
SEO
and
SEM
marketing,
it
has
been
around
for
few
years.
The
competitive
advantage
of
Capseo
should
make
the
difference
within
a
few
years.
However
for
now
it
is
relatively
easy
to
learn
SEO
and
SEM
marketing
and
start
a
company.
For
this
reason,
entry
barriers
for
newcomers
are
weak.
3.1.6.4. Threat
of
Substitutes
Despite
being
common
concepts,
SEO
and
SEM
are
not
only
utilized
as
methods
to

42. 42
promote
and
stimulate
traffic
to
a
website.
There
is
also
a
“pay
per
click”
and
“pay
per
impression”
medium
of
advertisement
widely
used
for
marketing.
However,
SEO
and
SEM
are
cheaper
mediums
of
advertisement,
therefore
the
threat
of
substitutes
is
low.
Competitive
Intensity
The
intensity
of
competitive
rivalry
is
high
because
of:
Low
Exit
Barriers
Termination
of
a
low
number
of
workforce,
goodwill
and
legal
issues
would
not
too
much
to
quit
the
business.
Capseo
has
built
its
brand
value
laboriously
but
such
could
moderately
be
ignored.
New
companies
and
freelancers
offering
SEO
and
SEM
advertisement
are
growing
to
fulfill
a
high
demand
of
the
market.
Barriers
to
entry
are
low
while
the
customer
and
supplier
bargaining
power
is
moderate.
However
SEO
and
SEM
are
the
most
essential
marketing
services
and
have
the
advantage
of
being
relatively
inexpensive.
Google
AdWords,
Yahoo!
Search,
and
Microsoft
AdCenter
are
major
players
in
pay-­‐per-­‐click
advertising;
Facebook
in
social
media
marketing
and
Odesk
and
ELancers
in
hiring
freelance
SEOers.
Since
there
are
no
sign
of
a
slowing
growth,
Capseo
has
the
potential
to
be
very
profitable
in
this
industry.
3.1.6.5. Conclusion
The
Five
Force
model
helps
analyzing
the
external
environment
of
Capseo
in
a
detailed
and
organized
way.
It
shows
that
the
threat
of
entry
is
low
because
of
the
domination
of
a
few
companies
in
the
market.
Besides
that,
the
bargaining
power
of
customers
is
strong
as
their
switching
costs
are
low.
Moreover,
the
bargaining
power
of
supplier
is
medium
as
the
number
of
suppliers
is
huge
in
the
market.
Furthermore,
the
intensity
of
competitive
rivalry
is
high