Apparently NASA decided to dabble in crowdsourcing to name their new wing, and the results were somewhat startling. A new wing is being built on the NASA space station, and instead of naming it themselves, they opened their doors to the public to submit and vote on names for the wing. Stephen Cobert, from The Colbert Report - who has repeatedly asked his fans to vote for him in similar venues (on the ballot in South Carolina, named a Hungarian Bridge, and repeatedly messes with Wikipedia) won this time. According to CNN.com, "Colbert" pulled in 230,539 of the more than 1.1 million submissions in the contest, according to NASA spokesman John Yembrick.
So - his name should be on the wing, however, NASA maintains control of deciding to use the name or not and they haven't made a decision yet. The name that came in second and nearly 40,000 votes behind was "Serenity". Apparently, "the contest rules say NASA reserves the right to "ultimately select a name in accordance with the best interests of the agency. ... Such name may not necessarily be one which is on the list of voted-on candidate names."
This bridges back to Jenkins and how companies are working with new media and the producer/consumer relationship. It seems that NASA is trying to embrace this new model of interaction and inclusivity - yet is really unwilling to relinquish control to "the crowd". What complicates this even further is that NASA is publicly funded - and the tax dollars that are being used to pay for the space station wing come from people who may not necessarily love "The Colbert Report". Even more complicating is the fact that Colbert is a media personality and able to amplify his voice over others - so how democratic is the process when his role as a media personality has so much to do with the votes? So, what should NASA do, and even more importantly - what does this tell us about embracing the new relationship of prosumers? Is this really a crowdsourcing model if NASA maintains control - or is this crowdslapping as we have seen in the Chevy Tahoe ads?
It seems that the model is not as democratic as once touted, specifically since mass media still have a hand in setting the agenda.
Posts
The New PostSecret Book
10 years ago
If NASA does not like the name the crowd chose I would normally say it would be like the commercials for the Chevy Tahoe. However,since the crowd voted for Colbert I think that this does further complicate things for the naming process.
ReplyDeleteI think that if I were in charge of this dilemma I would make some sort of statement saying that the names to be submitted should not already be a name represented in the media, because along with that name come certain views of politics and even debates. If a name is submitted it should not already have a certain media representation associated with the name. That is my opinion, but who is to say that a name such as Serenity would not bring up issues also?
I think Colbert is a genius... he is using crowdsourcing to his advantage. The bridge naming is a perfect example - as well as the elephant extinction thing. He knows how people use technology nowadays, and capitalizes on it. Good for him. Anyone who has a great a fan base as him could have done the same thing...he just knew what he was doing. I congratulate Stephen Colbert on his naming of many things, because he knows how to work the system. In the future, it will not be this easy...because people will realize that voting on things online will be the norm. Until then, cheers to him. Hopefully the masses will realize that people know how to use the internet, sooner than later.
ReplyDeleteColbert is a man of genius, i will give you that. although he is rediculous at most points and doesn't seem very professional, he know what he is doing at tall times. He knows how to use almost everything to his advantage. He could literally be losing an argument and still make it appear as though he is winning.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that bothers me about this situation is the fact that if their was not talk of a celebrity name being assigned, no one would be hearing about this. If the name Serenity were the winning name, no one would care and we would most likely not be hearing anything about it. the public getting upset over a name is crazy to me. Yes, its taxpayer dollars, but did we have a choice on anything else nasa has done over the past couple decades? With the billions of dollars that go to NASA, I think the "Colbert" space station wing name should be the least of our worries.
I wonder why of everyone they did choose Steven Colbert. Crowdsourcing was used here, but like you said Annie, is it still crowdsourcing if NASA has the final say. Since this wing is representing their company, they need and strong and memorable name to. Steven Colbert himself is a strong personality and known to many, so in that case I think his name should win. But, since Steven Colbert is such a controversial and opinionated person, it will create drama and negative feedback from those who don't support Colbert. To solve this problem, they should not allow "famous people" to represent them, and stick to more neutral titles.
ReplyDelete