Crowdsourcing is one of the latest, greatest ways marketers are now leveraging the digital world. For those
not familiar with it, some of the largest corporations like GE, Starbucks, Dell and General Mills have organized online communities of fans, creative designers and other interested parties to develop specific ideas and creative work around their products and brands.
Some progressive brands like PepsiCo’s Mountain Dew, have even gone to the extent of allowing crowds to choose the design packaging of its products, as well as select agencies and determine media placements. In return, crowds can receive free product. Or, in some cases, small fees are offered to the designer or consumer whose creative was ultimately selected.
Because of this, companies like Crowdspring and Zooppa have sprung up to organize communities of creatives willing to compete for work. For example, General Mills recently crowdsourced to find creative for its Pillsbury Crescent Rolls. It challenged Zooppa's 63,000 members to create broadcast quality 15-second spots that would inspire moms to make "Crescent dog" snacks.
Crowdsourcing (reported in this AdWeek article) is very powerful. "It's driven largely by the proven concept that a large group of people is better than a single expert," says Shiv Singh, social media lead at Razorfish.
I'm not completely convinced that Singh's theory is always right, though. Interestingly, this article's main focus actually touches on the potential threat that crowdsourcing has now become for marketing agencies. Some worry that this is creating a democratization of services which will ultimately commoditize the value that agencies now provide to clients. That means industry prices will be forced to decrease because agencies will now compete with an entirely new, unconventional player (a crowd) that will offer unique designs or ideas for a fraction of the traditional agency cost.
I've seen how crowdsourcing can really work well for the end user. In one case, a small start up firm CEO needed a logo design. So he challenged one of these design crowds to come up with creative logos. He gave the crowd a strategic brief to follow (in developing the logo) and promised $1,500 to the designer he would select in the end. This CEO told me that although approximately 75 percent of the logo designs were off base or just bad creative execution, there were a few good ones to choose from. And, in the end, he selected one that became the firm's logo. The company now has a new logo and paid very little for it. And, some independent designer was $1,500 richer. Everyone was happy.
Putting that story aside for a minute, I also believe that it just isn't feasible for companies to believe they can use these masses to provide all the holistic value that they should be receiving from their marketing agencies. For example, even in my friend's case, he had to develop a strategic brief for the designers to follow. High level agencies often show their value through that very strategic capability. Understanding how to rebrand or reposition a company, or even develop the branding for a new one is a strategic process first... before it ever becomes one that is executed on via creative. And, crowds cannot provide relevant, creative ideas or graphics without the necessary strategic guidance first.
Also, while these crowds can clearly provide help on periodic needs, how realistic is it that they can replace an ad agency that needs to develop ongoing creative ads, direct mail, brochures, web sites, etc., in a structured and efficient setting?
To me, crowdsourcing is a great new phenomenon which can allow companies to let their fans be part of their own product development and creative process. That is pretty cool and will only pay big dividends for them in building loyalty and trust. And, using creative design (or other professional) crowds to source work is certainly one, limited avenue that can work. But, we're a long, long way off from this being any type of new competitor that will disrupt the agency model (which is already in the midst of turmoil, I might add).
Some progressive brands like PepsiCo’s Mountain Dew, have even gone to the extent of allowing crowds to choose the design packaging of its products, as well as select agencies and determine media placements. In return, crowds can receive free product. Or, in some cases, small fees are offered to the designer or consumer whose creative was ultimately selected.
Because of this, companies like Crowdspring and Zooppa have sprung up to organize communities of creatives willing to compete for work. For example, General Mills recently crowdsourced to find creative for its Pillsbury Crescent Rolls. It challenged Zooppa's 63,000 members to create broadcast quality 15-second spots that would inspire moms to make "Crescent dog" snacks.
Crowdsourcing (reported in this AdWeek article) is very powerful. "It's driven largely by the proven concept that a large group of people is better than a single expert," says Shiv Singh, social media lead at Razorfish.
I'm not completely convinced that Singh's theory is always right, though. Interestingly, this article's main focus actually touches on the potential threat that crowdsourcing has now become for marketing agencies. Some worry that this is creating a democratization of services which will ultimately commoditize the value that agencies now provide to clients. That means industry prices will be forced to decrease because agencies will now compete with an entirely new, unconventional player (a crowd) that will offer unique designs or ideas for a fraction of the traditional agency cost.
I've seen how crowdsourcing can really work well for the end user. In one case, a small start up firm CEO needed a logo design. So he challenged one of these design crowds to come up with creative logos. He gave the crowd a strategic brief to follow (in developing the logo) and promised $1,500 to the designer he would select in the end. This CEO told me that although approximately 75 percent of the logo designs were off base or just bad creative execution, there were a few good ones to choose from. And, in the end, he selected one that became the firm's logo. The company now has a new logo and paid very little for it. And, some independent designer was $1,500 richer. Everyone was happy.
Putting that story aside for a minute, I also believe that it just isn't feasible for companies to believe they can use these masses to provide all the holistic value that they should be receiving from their marketing agencies. For example, even in my friend's case, he had to develop a strategic brief for the designers to follow. High level agencies often show their value through that very strategic capability. Understanding how to rebrand or reposition a company, or even develop the branding for a new one is a strategic process first... before it ever becomes one that is executed on via creative. And, crowds cannot provide relevant, creative ideas or graphics without the necessary strategic guidance first.
Also, while these crowds can clearly provide help on periodic needs, how realistic is it that they can replace an ad agency that needs to develop ongoing creative ads, direct mail, brochures, web sites, etc., in a structured and efficient setting?
To me, crowdsourcing is a great new phenomenon which can allow companies to let their fans be part of their own product development and creative process. That is pretty cool and will only pay big dividends for them in building loyalty and trust. And, using creative design (or other professional) crowds to source work is certainly one, limited avenue that can work. But, we're a long, long way off from this being any type of new competitor that will disrupt the agency model (which is already in the midst of turmoil, I might add).
I agree completely that people who think crowdsourcing is going to replace other types of creative work are looking at this in the wrong way. Rick Liebling put together an eBook on crowdsourcing a few months ago entitled "Everyone Is Illuminated" at http://www.slideshare.net/eyecube/everyone-is-illuminated-3129260 . He invited me to contribute a piece on "Understanding Motivations." In it, I echo some of your sentiments here, that "crowdsourcing cannot be a replacement for creativity or thought" and that there's a danger of "a lack of thought and understanding about the motivations audiences have for collaborating on an issue and likewise about the labor audiences put forth when collaboration with one another and with a brand."
Posted by: Sam Ford | June 03, 2010 at 05:45 PM
Thanks for sharing Rick's eBook, Sam.
It's kind of funny. PR agencies actually look at crowdsourcing as an innovative tool to potentially create new bonds with our clients. Funny how some in the ad world see it 180 degrees differently....
Posted by: Ed Moed | June 04, 2010 at 09:34 AM