Some times it is not a real market, people do it because it is worth doing, not for profit.

this quote alone inspires me tremendously. Why do we still use money as synonym for profit in a world where people pay with contact information? what is “worth” when Ultima Online credits are sold on eBay?

@jurg: I agree with you Jurg! But how to have bread and butter then……That’s what’s bothering me.

Interestingly enough you are still using money-language like "to pay" in your statement :-) In my view: when markets become a forum of many fragmented interactions, people demand, offer, contribute & co-create. Meaning, the value (the "worth" in your statement) is a function of the benefit (not just feature or function) a person can draw from his contribution. Such a contribution can be delivered in many ways: to allow an interruption, an effort, an opinion, a reference, private data etc. To conclude, the money transaction is a payment for a possible deficit between the value perception of service/ experience by the benificiary (other word for consumer?) versus the valuation of the efforts of the end-user by the facillitator (other word for producer?).

Question: what terms are/ could be used for consumer/producer in a co-creative environment?

Bruce Sterling proposes "end user" in his tomorrow now.

I don’t like the "end" in end-user. It is emphasizing the end of the value chain or the end of the industrial assembly line. In modern times, the individual might be starting something instead, or he is in the middle, inspiring others to co-create, remix etc.?

Is there ever an "end" (to experiences), especially in the weightless/ intangible economy? (see: Long Tail discussion)

Also "user" is difficult, is usage equal to consuming, creating, distributing, remarking, tagging etc.?

May I propose:
We have B2C and B2B - business to consumer and business to business

Wikipedia is C2C consumer to consumer

co-producing - consumer and producer could be CwithB

Best wishes, Rolf Jensen

Rolf, interesting proposal! According to Websters dictionary, to consume can mean "to utilize an economic good", in that case new technologies have emerged into new utilizations of these goods (like co-creation), but you could still define that as a form of consumption. So BusinessWithConsumers sounds ok!

Jurg & Rolf, another interesting point on Jurg his remark on "WORTH & Markets" is the difference between transactions & reciprocity. Reciprocity means that you exchange goods/ efforts but that it is done within a system where the exchange doesn’t necessarily is equal in value nor done within a certain timeframe. You give, but don’t demand something equally back at that moment. So within a system of reciprocity you don’t keep an exact balancesheet and there is no market/ exchange. So if we do something because it is "worth" doing but not for profit… does that mean we move towards a more reciprocity oriented exchange of efforts and experiences?

arjan, your train of thoughts is leading to open source software development (but wikipedia shares characteristics.)

reciprocity can only exist in an environment where trust is one of the tools available. trust is driven by reputation and thus idenitity and transparency. if technology allows us to build environments where transactions build trust (like ebay) reciprocity might be the driving force. it certainly is natural.

i think we can savely conclude that reciprocity might be growing as a measure of exchange of worth. but does it have anything to do with experiencing and/or experiences?

maybe. experiences are generally hard to quantify. qualification is easier but in subjective terms. subjectivity is probably an essential part of reciprocity. so by entering a period where subjectivity is part of the market equation experiences might be able to flourish.

the open source angle is still interesting (forgot to follow it the previous comment). many open source developers are believed to be scratching their own itches (see Eric S. Raymonds work). but because this community is open and transparent it is a very strong reputation system. a good reputation can earn you a position and food for your family.

so reciprocity is also fueled by believe and hope. but not the passive or reactive hope but actual feeling of empowerment.

Interesting discussion. Reciprocity, trust, subjectivity and experience are absolutely related if you ask me. When considering experiences from the perspective of the human being (instead of the point of view of the organization staging/designing/ managing it as is usually done) you also have to consider a broader concept of value. Since people do not just pay money but also spend time and effort, get involved with their body, mind, and/or heart, invest psychic energy as Csikszentmihalyi calls it, the whole viewpoint of paying in monetary terms to me sounds kind of reductionist. Godin even warns us for thinking this narrowmindedly in his Unleashing the Ideavirus. I’ve put the summary of this book online. It doesn’t always matter how you are going to make money if there is someone out there, motivated by completely different values, that is wrecking your business model. Professor Klamer furthermore speaks of a ‘Gift economy’ and explains how the logic of this economy is fundamentally different from the quid pro quo logic of market exchanges.

End-user is a concept rooted in old thinking originated from the economic and manufacturing point of view. The essence as Anna describes it very well is a relationship where both or several parties are involved in co-creation and therefore value creation and in fact value sharing.

Back to the original question. What is the word for the individual(s) formerly known as consumers/ end-users? We now all agree that the concept of co-creation is steering us into a new culture of participation where peer-to-peer might replace markets in some arease, but most definite will force new hybrid models. We no longer just consume/ transact/ use… In many presentations/ articles I see people struggle with the name ‘consumer’. What could replace this in the next decade? Maybe we need to go back to the source (after citizenship, consumership etc.): the individuals. Than it becomes B2I I2I BwithI.

Just a quick scan through the subject.
We are emphasising a new dawn, a new era.
How can we use old language to describe the new ?
OLD = end user
NEW = ? I do not know, perhaps new vocabulary like
EXPERIENCER or EXPERI-USER. The person who experiences the experience. (But can give it a different meaning)
Experienter a combination of experience and interpretation.

For example: Design hotel gathers important insight, my guest check in between 5 and 7, 90% comes by car, always traffic jams, many times people are stressed in front of in check balie.
I want my guests to feel good. I want to make them de-stressed. If I offer them a glas of sweet port, it will make them feel relaxed, the body reacts this and that to alcohol and sweetness.
In this example, the experienter, gets a glass of port, the intented experience is to feel relaxed. I however could experience as a novel way of welcoming me, breaking the ice as I generally do not like travelling especially meeting people. ( just an example)

This supports earlier made comments about the ENDUSER not being the end but only the beginning.

CO-create would be something where in the above example, the design hotel would ask its guests to make their own welcome cocktail, and next to the check in counter there would be a well equiped bar counter.

Ronald ( one of the new members) ;-)

What I really like about this Ronald is the remarkable notion of end user, being only the beginning of the process of co-creation.
What about valid parking+ the welcome drink?
Albert

In this particular example, valet parking was already included in the service offer 3 years ago.
Now how about your room now in your favourite colour. The possibilities (in general) are in principle without boundaries. Now getting involved early enough in the concept stage.

So how about inventing a new vocabulary ?

Ronald… interesting thoughts

A few remarks on inventing a new vocabulary to spice up the brainstorm:

A. yes i think we need to redefine the usage of the word end-user and consumer. In fact the meaning of the word TO CONSUME doesn’t imply it’s materialistic or passive apects it is being used for the recent years… so it’s not the meaning, more the value it stands for what is the problem.

B. I think we need to refine to empower the debate on the this new era of postmaterialism/ post-industrialism. But let’s do so without throwing away al our herritage/ culture. Let’s try to make a description/ definition first and than ask a language-scientist (’etnogrphy’) to define to possibillities of extending TO EXPERIENCE in a variation like possibly EXPERIENCER.

C. While thinking of such a definition, It becomes clear to me that we are dealing with a postmodern human who doesn’t live in the traditional nuclear family or industrial relationship anymore. He/ She want’s some time for him/herself, takes part in multiple communities and therefor show a different ‘me’ each time he/she interacts. The postmodern human is dealing with multiple representations of ‘me’.

That is what makes a definition so difficult… each time the role is different and are we now trying to define THE ROLE or THE ACTOR… examples [PASSIVE](role) [CONSUMER](actor) or [CO-CREATIVE] [PRODUCER] (it will probably be a combination). Traditionally when decribing an actor in a certain role (or multiple roles) we talk about THE PERSONA or PERSONAS

About the role of consuming and producing.

Alvin Toffler in his book “Future Shock” refers to people in the postindustrial area as “prosumers”. When you really think of it, it is only since the industrial revolution that the production and consumption role have been separated to such extremes. In the agricultural era (or the First Wave as Toffler called this in his later book “Third Wave”) people extracted their own materials from nature and built their own tools. The home and working place where the same.

While Toffler’s predictions about everybody working at home obviously have not come true (just look at the traffic jams…), I think the prosumer role is taking shape in the use of new products like breadbaking machines, beertender devices that give part of the production role back to the consumer. People are looking for such ‘authentic’ experiences.

Jeremy Rifkin’s publication on the Hydrogen economy is perhaps another example of the prosumer. When millions of end-users connect their fuel-cells into local, regional, and national hydrogen energy webs, using the same design principles and smart technologies that made possible the World Wide Web, they can begin to share energy – peer-to-peer – creating a new decentralized form of energy use. This would have far-reaching consequences for society. Today’s centralized, top-down flow of energy, controlled by global oil companies and utilities, would become obsolete.

Mark

Hi, Mark and Arjan,

I like the persona word - it says that the old passive consumer has transformed. The prosumer (Toffler was the guy that turned my life into future research with his future shock book) the prosumer is true too, the active, involved person that do not believe too strongly in authority. I guess both are valid, depending on the market in question.
Best Wishes, Rolf