FTC Gets Crowdsourcing Right, Sets Example for Rest of US Government

When I interned in the federal government in 2010 and 2011, the government was experimenting with crowdsourcing to its employees. Every once in a while I would receive an e-mail soliciting ideas for what the department could do to save money and eliminate waste. The best idea each round would receive some recognition, and the department would implement it. (I can't remember if there was a cash bounty attached.) Submissions usually involved saving on electricity by turning off electronics or reducing paper waste by changing printing policies. I appreciated the idea, but it wasn't generating any landscape-changing policies.

Around the same time, the Government Services Administration (with input from the Office of Management and Budget) rolled out Challenge.gov, an online platform for soliciting ideas from the public. Much broader in scope, Challenge.gov is available for any government department to post challenges to the entire public. Challenges on the site range from video essays on responsible saving to launching nano-satellites to orbit. Again, this idea is an intriguing step, but limited exposure and lack of focus have limited its appeal.

This week the Federal Trade Commission has changed the game, I believe. The just-announced FTC Robocall Challenge has all the elements to get the viral attention a crowdsourcing initiative really needs.

The FTC wants you to "Be a hero." I think people will answer the call.

(I apologize for the telephony pun. It won't happen again. Probably.)

The problem with crowdsourcing is that it is only as effective as its reach. A crowdsourcing challenge with a limited or homogeneous audience will produce limited results. Of course, it's easy to say "your challenge needs as wide an audience as possible." But actually reaching that audience is another thing entirely. A look at some of Challenge.gov's present challenges demonstrates how easy it is for a crowdsourcing effort to limit its own audience and for the government to completely misuse the idea of crowdsourcing:

Lack of clarity: The Navy ran a challenge in 2010 called "Chief of Naval Research Challenge". Its caption text, visible from the main search page, was this:

"Win up to $100K for compelling solutions to current U.S. Navy and Marine Corps mission needs. Submit your ideas at the Naval Science & Technology Partnership Conference, November 8-10, 2010."

After reading that caption, I have no idea what the Navy is soliciting. And it hasn't even piqued my curiosity. If I'm a casual user looking over the site, or I see that posted somewhere, I'm not likely to click on it.

Poor subject matter for crowdsourcing: Turns out there's a reason the Navy's challenge was so opaque. It is a very limited call for specific technologies: reverse osmosis membranes, compressive sensing, and other things that mean nothing to the casual reader. The Navy is wise to reach beyond its own people into the private sector for innovation like this. But why isn't this a DARPA request for proposal? This subject matter is so esoteric that most people involved in the market already have their eyes peeled for military opportunities.

The Navy challenge resulted in 3 "likes" on Facebook, 0 tweets, and "over 100" entries.

A dull pitch: The National Institute of Justice has opened a challenge for new ways to measure the effectiveness of body armor. Given the enthusiastic respect Americans tend to show for men and women in the armed forces (and, frankly, the number of firearms available in the U.S. to enthusiasts), this should be a topic that at least generates some interest. Here is the headline pitch:

"There is currently no known way to determine the amount and rate of change in performance of individual body armor vests over time without ballistic testing. NIJ challenges you to solve this problem!"

 It's pretty clear from the pitch what they are asking for, but they managed to write a pitch so dry and convoluted that most people will never read it.

To my point, the challenge has been open since September 14. It has 0 tweets and 0 "likes" on Facebook.

These types of crowdsourcing challenges are failing to get people excited. When crowdsourcing, you want to reach beyond your core audience. The point is to reach as many eyes as possible. As more people view a challenge, more interest will be generated, and, hopefully, the challenge goes viral. Winning submissions can come from people who appear to be outside the core subject matter or constituency audience, and viral sharing can put a challenge in the hands of constituents who never would have seen it otherwise.

That's the genius of the FTC's Robocall Challenge. It appears specifically designed to go viral.

Its title is "FTC Robocall Challenge". Right up front, you see the word "robocall". Let's face it -- there probably isn't a person out there who has a telephone and doesn't hate robocalls. Reactions to the word range from eye-rolling to skin crawling. People really hate robocalls. In three words (only one of which is really substantive), the FTC has gotten the attention of every single person who has ever been interrupted during dinner.

The pitch text is brief and straightforward: "Be a hero. Help the FTC block illegal robocalls. Accept our challenge today." It says exactly what they want: an end to illegal robocalls. Again, this is pushing almost everyone's buttons. And, at the same time, stroking their egos. "Be a hero." Let's be honest -- who wouldn't want to shake the hand of the man or woman who put an end to robocalls?

When you open up the challenge page, everything is simple and compelling. In case you needed an extra reminder of what the problem is, an exasperated man looks like he's about to hit himself with a telephone. The description of the problem is simple. ("The vast majority of telephone calls that deliver a prerecorded message trying to sell something to the recipient are illegal. As technology has advanced over the years, so have the number of illegal robocalls.") The call for solutions is as broad as possible, and makes it clear that entrants don't have to have deep technical knowledge. ("Entries can be proposed technical solutions or functional solutions and proofs of concept.") The explanation of how entries are judged is straightforward and sensible. And the description of the stakes is very straightforward: $50,000 cash.

I wouldn't call the Robocall Challenge viral yet. But it has 137 tweets and 373 "likes" on Facebook. When was the last time you saw anyone "like" anything related to the FTC on Facebook? When was the last time you even saw the FTC mentioned on Facebook? It also has 979 "followers", meaning there are 979 people who have signed up to stay informed about the challenge. The Google News timeline on the topic (available here as of writing) shows a peak of almost 150 news sources covering the challenge at one time. And the challenge isn't even open yet -- it runs from October 25 to January 17.

We'll have to wait and see if the Robocall Challenge takes off, but I think it has the right elements for success. If it's successful, it will draw even more attention to federal government crowdsourcing and to Challenge.gov. Future challenges can build on its publicity and success, more easily penetrating to a wider audience.

I will be watching the development of the Robocall Challenge with interest. (I don't have any ideas for submissions yet, unfortunately.) If it is successful, it could mark a turning point in the way citizens approach their government. If citizens feel that the government values their ideas, we as a nation can only benefit.