Earlier this semester I talked a lot about a website I am a part of that had poor management and displayed some forms of opportunism. While that website is getting better, the other website I write for does a much better job and applies to these concepts. Rotoden puts in a lot better work and they coordinate things much better than cover32.
Overall, Rotoden certainly adopts the ideas of team production and a pseudo gift exchange model. The group coordinates with multiple writers and editors across every sport to put together a sports site made for the fans. Everyone puts in work in every category so that there is a continuous flow of views from all the fan demographics. The gift exchange in this case revolves around giving gifts in the form of articles in hopes to receive future rewards like an editor position or a weekly column.
This website relates well to the articles in the New York Times. The first article about the "sharing the spoils" idea and the marbles works out well. If a writer or editor needs help getting their articles out to the public, the team steps up and shares it any way they can. Everyone wants to succeed and wants to see everyone around them succeed. The idea of all members working hard and all members receiving benefit works in this way. The more views every article can get, the more everyone will eventually receive. As the article describes, collaboration is the key to "sharing the spoils". If everyone didn't collaborate, conflict could arise and the company wouldn't run as well as it does.
The second article, which describes the nature of "that's not fair!" and ways to (economically) think about solving this issue, works perfectly with Rotoden. Everyone in the sports writing industry certainly wants more and wants to be at the top, but the idea of scratching other's backs to build connections is important. While everyone certainly wants more, helping others will certainly influence them to help you in the future should you need it. The ideas brought up certainly work in this situation. Everyone can choose what they want to cover, which comes down to personal preferences. If you don't get what you want, the incentive to work hard still exists. Plus, being well rounded helps in the industry. If everyone helps to push articles out, traffic will increase and will benefit you along with others. These concepts are important to a well functioning site.
The final article discusses how people are choosing to act economically nowadays instead of looking at things morally. If everyone retweets, likes, and shares each other's posts, things run smoothly. But, there are always people who will act opportunistically and free ride in the situation. Things like that lead to the growing problem in the world that everyone assumes a person is selfish. Acting in a group's interest will only strengthen ties within the group and bring it closer together. Eliminating the idea of free riding and not helping others is certainly a part of what makes Rotoden a promising website.
I don't remember if you had mentioned in your earlier posts whether you liked writing for one of the website more than the others. Given how you described the occurrence of gift exchange in cover32, I'd imagine it would be more enjoyable writing for them. But perhaps Rotoden has more to offer for personal growth, or immediate pay which makes them preferred.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things your piece suggest is why some companies are better than others in encouraging the cooperation of their employees and affiliates. Is this luck? Or are there systematic reasons that can explain the difference? One possible story is that companies go through some evolution in their approach. Early on they may assume cooperation is a byproduct of the work, without any explicit effort to encourage it. Later they may come to realize that there has to be a deliberate approach to encourage cooperation.
ReplyDeleteA different idea is that some management is clued in while other management is essentially clueless about the need for cooperation. In this case, which organization will succeed and which will fail is predetermined, though they may not realize it at the outset.
So it would be interesting to hear you speculate about which it is. Further, if you know of rival sites, do any of them succeed without much cooperation of the participants? If so, what could explain their success?
I definitely believe that it does revolve around evolving and finding that systematic growth. I think Rotoden has figured out the idea of cooperation and that it must exist in order for the website as a whole to succeed.
DeleteAs far as rival sites, their growth was certainly based on cooperation, but now the team sites of those sites are popular enough to stand on their own, but they still obviously report to the top and still communicate with them.
I am interested in how you describe Rotoden's incentivisation of supporting your fellow team members. I wonder, though, if everyone benefits from the sharing and tweeting of everyone else's articles, why would people not act in a self-interested way by only sharing their own articles? Obviously, the whole team if better off if everyone shares each other's work, but it's interesting how Rotoden's company culture and promotion methods give incentive to act in a more altruistic way. But that begs the question: are you really being altruistic if the only reason you are helping others is because you know it will eventually benefit you?
ReplyDelete