Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.
Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.
Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.
Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.
Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.
Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.
Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.
Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.
Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.
Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.

Its been called my Beautiful Mind room. For the past week, I’ve had one of the chat rooms commandeered as I work through various aspects of my thesis around community ownership. Figure 1 shows the traditional model of how a team is run in black, with new models, such as the Green Bay Packers / FC Barcelona of fan ownership, as well as supporter’s trusts, such as the one they have at Arsenal. Figure 2 is me examining two different models of “micro payments”, fantasy football and Kickstarter, examining their similarities and differences. They’re incredibly similar in their high emotional benefit, with very little economic return. I also wanted to compare Kickstarter to a community ownership model such as what I’m proposing. Kickstarter is different in that it lasts for a finite period of time, only requires funding up front and is 1 time payment only, its creative projects, and offers some sort of physical reward. Figure 3 similarily looks at Ebbsfleet United, the soccer team purchased by the fantasy football website My FootballClub, who have attempted to transform the process of owning a sports team into the same experience as running a fantasy football team. However, this model has had its ups and downs, and the team is currently near bankruptcy. Figure 4 is the start of a very simple cybernetic model around the goals of owners and their fans. Fans have the high level goal of seeing their team win, and assume that owners share this goal as well. In reality, owners view their teams as investments, and everything that they do is in the interest of increasing the value of their investment. The three main ways that they can accomplish this is by increasing television revenue, increasing attendance (which sells more concessions, etc), and selling more merchandise. Its only here that winning factors in as one of the possible ways to do this, however, there’s countless other measures they can take, such as rebranding the team, building a new stadium (at the taxpayer’s expense), and signing new players, who may or may not improve the team. Its this methods that the fans witness, and again, interpret as a team taking steps to win. Figure 5 are just a notes that I took while reading Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody, a fascinating read on the growing power of collective action via the internet. There is a hierarchy to what we do on the internet, with the highest level of group action being Collectivism, which is not only working together on something, but sharing the same vision for what the end goal is, though it may never be complete. He seems to make the point that things like twitter, facebook, and web 2.0 are not just social media, but they are socialized media as well. Figure 6 are a few lingering questions, such as if ownership must necessarily be rooted in money or if there’s a currency to be had in “fandom”, and what type of team I could possibly be designing for around community ownership. Figures 7, 8, & 9 are three different levels of intervention that I see needed in this model, though they might not all be achievable immediately in the thesis, and finally, Figure 10 is an attempt at the elevator pitch with this concept. Yikes. There’s a lot left to figure out with this.

January 15, 2012 0

Tags

thesis

Share this

SHORTLINK

http://tmblr.co/ZTrL7yGLUN8Z