on the Topic of Full Disclosure:
A beBee Brand Ambassador is – in functional terms – a ‘subsidized spokesperson‘ (The underlying deal is: “If you market beBee effectively, we’ll give you equity in the platform”).
Under the circumstances …
Shouldn’t a subsidized spokesperson reveal their relationship when they comment or publish?
My Full Disclosure:
1) I have no big problem with the idea of equity-in-exchange-for-work, but I do believe that there are some ethics that should be employed in the doing of it (see above).
2) I continuously advocated that LinkedIn should employ some form of compensation for its ‘volunteer’ Group Managers who
- made LinkedIn successful as a ‘professional’ socialNet in the first place,
- did a lot of work, continuously, and
- were not well-supported (tools, structure, process, etc.) by the enterprise that profited from their labor
3) I spent several months (unsuccessfully) trying to convince beBee that design and usability insights might also qualify for their equity subsidy ‘ambassadorship’ program. No luck.
In fact, beBee top management responded to my “Mirror analysis” by characterizing my contribution as “reporting bugs”
(Headslap. Eyeroll. Sigh.) That’s what I call ‘a nonversation‘.
Given the source and the quality of the response from beBee management, I realize that there’s not see much point in advocating about the ‘equity value’ of crowdsourced usability, design, or analysis at beBee any further. Though I’ll probably continue to comment on the many ways in which things don’t work.
The best we can say is that