The trouble with outsourcing our basic necessities to platforms
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein
In medieval times, village markets and fairs were platforms used to facilitate exchanges between buyers and sellers. People met to check out one another and the merchandise before closing a deal. However, during the last industrial revolution, as “pipeline” business models evolved from centralized head offices and factories, we thought nothing of purchasing products at retail or online outlets, queuing up at banks to deposit or withdraw money, applying to banks for loans, placing advertisements in newspapers to recruit staff, staying in hotel chains when traveling or calling for/hailing cabs on the street.
Technology enabled platforms like Alibaba, Amazon, Paypal, kickstarter, Facebook, upwork, Linkedin, Airbnb and uber have since emerged to disrupt the earlier, linear business models. As that happened, some may have exponentially shifted their focus from the human touch to pure transactions/ bottom lines.
However, in a networked world, the true value of platforms is in building “Age of We” communities because “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” Aristotle
Shouldn’t key strategies be to unlearn transactional behaviors to relearn how to focus on enabling buyers and sellers to build trust with one another?
Increasingly, as more of our basic necessities are outsourced to them, can we expect very different results from platforms doing the same thing over and over again?
To wit:
In today’s digital revolution, the world’s dumbest (business) idea is probably Milton Friedman’s maximizing shareholder value theory. When people are systemically conditioned to maximize profits at all costs, can that be any good for people, planet or the environment?
Isn’t the outcome a toxic culture where trust is systemically broken? Because we are conditioned to compete and/or to look out for ourselves, a scarcity mindset sets in and this exposes everyone to systemic risks.
“The greatest challenge we face today is a system that doesn’t work but we cannot step away because the toxic “Age of Me” culture keeps bringing out our worst as it forces us to prioritize money above all else.”
Since embarking on a voyage of self-discovery in 2001 and discovering my “abundance” life purpose, I have been experimenting with different ideas to catalyze a happier world. As I designed/developed seven websites, I have observed it’s MUCH easier to develop a website than to get meaningful participation because people are too busy trying to survive or building their “Age of Me” empires.
Lessons I learned:
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Leo Tolstoy
“Never expect someone to understand change when their livelihood depends on not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
As evidenced by Brexit, Trump’s presidency, Spain remaining without a government for over a year and a growing number of protests globally, the networked world is very different from the previous industrial revolutions. For those who can see, more people are realizing the status quo no longer works for us.
The growing inequality gap is one of the greatest challenges we face this century.
In the early 2000’s, I had grasped how technology could transform our world:
“Each of us has the perfect gift to give the world … if we are able to each give what’s so uniquely ours — won’t we be able to create magic for and with each other?”
It’s from an “Age of We” perspective: For true change to occur, we will need to come together as human beings. To create win wins and to discover that life is not about ourselves and our loved ones but about everyone.
So, since relocating back to Singapore, I have been experimenting with different approaches to create an emergent social experiment to attempt to kickstart the shift to the abundant “Age of We.”
Central to that is to create something to crowdfund.
By sharing net proceeds from that with the best co-creators, I am hoping strangers ANYWHERE will want to embrace a new way of thinking, doing and sharing. Or at least, try to. Hence, the decision to write an ebook to support likeminded strangers in various stages of trying to shape our future from the ground up, regardless of their location.
I also wanted to see if this ebook could evolve into a shared purpose for everyone: an emergent social experiment to kickstart the shift to abundance.
Yes, just about everything I do is observing human behaviour regarding our shared future because I am too aware we are in between two distinctly different paradigms (from scarcity to abundance).
Last May, I started approaching and interviewing strangers globally to draft the “Social movements powering the future of money” manuscript. I interviewed around 20 people (some twice), did the transcripts and drafted the manuscript to be as close to the founders’ voices as possible.
However, I still couldn’t figure out how to fairly share net proceeds from the ebook crowdfunding campaign. Then last November, ideas for a website finally dawned — I could design my eighth.
The trouble with platforms when everything is about money
For about three to four months, I then tried to walk my talk, to see if strangers anywhere could build trust with one another in the “Age of Me.” I largely communicated with strangers on two platforms. I have lost count of the developers I communicated with. There were many. I bought (and then cancelled) all the gigs.
Even though I have never heard of them, two vendors on Guru.com claimed to be “world class developer firms.” Urged to check their company reviews, I found both had 5 star ratings. Much later, I found out Guru.com provides vendors with the ability to block negative reviews. For a fee.
Being new to Guru.com, I had not known only vendors could adjust the agreement, especially with regards to milestone payments. That information was not even obvious on the platform.
Vendor 1 offered 100% money back guarantee to work with a team in a compatible time zone and they anticipated completing our gig in three weeks. On accepting their agreement, the first shock was finding the team in a totally different time zone. The following day, my second payment automatically went into their SafePay account but my requests for milestones and time lines were ignored. After waiting and chasing for well over a week, I cancelled the order and after a few days, managed to get my second payment back, less the fees.
I didn’t get back my deposit but Guru.com informed they only considered what was in SafePay and everything else was between the buyer and the seller.
Hmmm … if a seller on a platform offers 100% money back guarantee in an agreement lodged on the platform but doesn’t honor that, doesn’t the platform have the responsibility to do something to ensure the seller makes good on that? Or/and take some action to safeguard future buyers?
As for “world class” Vendor 2, they did propose home page layouts but after a promising start, the experience rapidly went downhill. The single point of contact kept telling us how experienced their firm was and wouldn’t listen when we tried to tell/show him what we wanted done. Despite reminders to read and digest my brief, he didn’t ask for much clarification but wasted everyone’s time doing whatever they wanted.
It’s shocking that a person at a “world class developer firm” is not aware that if you cannot understand a client’s requirements, you’re of no use to anybody. Instead of understanding, he only saw whatever we shared as a new development. He kept arguing and even called the key elements they repeatedly missed out “trivial.”
Due to his oversight, he also wanted to charge extra for something I had stated on the first page of my brief.
Since the SafePay refund was shortly due from Vendor 1 and Vendor 2’s first milestones were still far from complete, I asked Vendor 2 to stop the automatic payment. His response:
Although there was no way they could meet the deadline for the first milestones or deliver a fully functional website in the three weeks they proposed, this person kept insisting they could. Requests to provide more realistic timelines were ignored or brushed off.
Anticipating a problem, I emailed Guru.com for advice. A Heather replied there was no cause for concern. Imagine the shock I had the following day when what I had anticipated happened after Vendor 1’s refund came through.
I didn’t understand why Guru.com didn’t simply advise me to withdraw the amount till later.
That would have saved me a lot of time and undue stress.
Here’s Vendor 2 conveniently disregarding my asking him to stop the autopayment setting previously:
Receiving that was the last straw. I cancelled the gig.
As the amount in SafePay was for their second milestones, there shouldn’t have been a need to dispute that. The not having “any option” to refund the SafePay amount was a downright lie. Guru.com provides a button for the vendor to activate the refund and I even provided that link a few times but this person continued to ignore that and kept insisting how good they were.
See what I mean about:
“Never expect someone to understand change when their livelihood depends on not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
Perhaps his promotion/job was on the line if he had admitted he was wrong?
Typically, layouts are also easier to communicate than coding. As Vendor 2 wouldn’t listen to us for that, letting them code could be a potential nightmare. Among other things, we never saw the database and they didn’t deliver anything we wanted past the due date.
After more ding donging, Guru.com suggested I escalate that to arbitration for a US$25 fee. Could that be the real reason they didn’t initially advise me to withdraw my refund from Vendor 1?
After a few days, I did get my second refund back, again minus the fees.
Both these experiences felt like a scam. Besides wasting almost US$600, I also wasted about a month trying to work with these two firms from Guru.com (most of the time, waiting and chasing), cancelling the two gigs, writing reports/emails and chasing for the refunds.
The rise of online platforms is bringing complete strangers (buyers and sellers) together. Strangers are literally offering services when nothing’s known about them beyond what they state and what we read of their reviews.
Since Guru.com provides vendors with the ability to block negative reviews for a fee, are their vendor ranking and feedback even real?
Because platform integrity is critical in the networked world, I made the effort to compile all that had happened to share with Guru.com. I wanted to ensure they know both their “world class developer” vendors lacked integrity and to observe their course of action:
i. Vendor 1 had lied about the time zone and after over a week of chasing, still did not provide milestones/timelines. They also didn’t make good on their 100% money back guarantee.
ii. Vendor 2 wouldn’t listen and had argued and lied.
Even though I know providing negative feedback on Guru.com would mean these two firms would pay to block that, I have not done so. I’m not even naming them here.
Guru.com had different people respond to my emails but largely ignored what I shared and then skirted the issues. On my last check, both the firms still have 5 star ratings there.
If my experiences on Guru.com are indicative of platform trends in the gig economy, the future doesn’t look promising as trust will be greatly eroded as they continue to maximize shareholder value instead of facilitating strangers to build trust.
Even though I use other platforms, this is the first time I have been so stressed. The empath in me senses this could be a worsening of the “Age of Me” paradigm.
As blogs are very “Age of Me,” developers had reverted with blog like layouts
After the two “world class developer firms” experience, I had a fiverr freelancer just design the landing page. Again, his initial layout was blog like, like from everyone we engaged this time but because he listened, he finished a layout closer to what I had envisaged in two days for US$10.
Fiverr freelancers were relatively nicer as they didn’t insist on something when they couldn’t deliver. However, the platform charges sellers a 20% fee and buyers another 10%. This ultimately jacks up the final cost of a gig as everyone scrambles to make a living/killing. Some freelancers have confided it is like “a jungle of wolves” out there and I have experienced what they mean.
Cancelling gigs on fiverr had also incurred platform and payment gateway fees.
Other observations: When the freelancers/vendors wanted to secure a gig, the interested ones would be most attentive but once they secured that, they tended to forget about communicating. Some possible reasons:
Busy trying to wrap up gigs in pipeline
Not sure how to do the gig
Trying to find people to work with for the gig
A big gap between the brief and what the freelancer envisaged
All not very conducive for strangers to build trust with one another.
Just as I was about to search for another developer, my co-catalyst reminded that insanity was doing the same thing and expecting very different results. He cautioned the social experiment to try to kickstart the shift to the “Age of We” had already failed before it could take off.
That was a painful wakeup call. Also why we are overhauling the approach for this social experiment and launching it without a website.
Because it is extremely hard to explain abundance to people in the “Age of Me”
Rather than head straight for failure, this ebook/emergent social experiment will now be in two parts:
With the world in turmoil, Part 1 will test the waters to find out if enough strangers are interested to find out more about evolving the future of money and to kickstart the shift to the “Age of We.”
Part 1 will lean towards more business as usual as it’s become clearer “The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” We will crowdfund Vol 1 of the ebook to raise funding for Part 2 of the social experiment (including for website development costs.) Besides some social movements, Vol 1 will include chapters on the psychology of money and universal basic income while Vol 2 will feature the remaining social movements with perhaps a few more new ones and a chapter about starting social experiments/movements.
Details will be in our crowdfunding campaign (still exploring and developing possibilities).
If Part 1 flops, then sayonara. That’s the emergent direction we are taking …
If it succeeds, we will move to Part 2 where upto 100% net proceeds from crowdfunding Vol 2 of the ebook will be shared with the best co-creators after that wraps up.
Fingers and toes crossed, Part 1 of this social experiment will be out before the end of March 2017. As we overhauled and rethought the overall approach, I had wondered if we could crowdfund without using a crowdfunding platform but have since found out payment gateways take a huge chunk of the crowdfunding fees.
If you have worked with platforms, I’m sure you will have war stories to share too.
Meantime, given that we may have to outsource more of our basic necessities to platforms, please like and share this link so more people are aware of how stressful an “Age of Me” future based on competition and scarcity (status quo) will be ….
Together, can we kickstart a new way of thinking, doing and sharing for the “Age of We?”
Rather, will you?
Let’s hope and do so abundantly!!! If you have ideas/suggestions, please ping me.
Thank you, Betty
References
https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/28/the-platform-paradox/?
https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-and-uber-86f4f98902a1#.6umutqpui
https://hbr.org/2016/04/the-unique-value-of-crowdfunding-is-not-money-its-community
