Comments on: Crowdsourcing Creativity – Brave Breakthrough or Creative Abuse?

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:17:26 +0000

Thanks for your comments folks. All good healthy debate. Just to clarify, I’m not against ‘crowdsourcing’ ideas at all. What I do have problem with is taking a concept developed by one agency (who rightly ‘own’ the idea) and then when it has proved to be enormously successful, crowdsource ideas to extend it on the cheap. It’s like having an architect design and build a very successful and famous building then calling for submissions to design another stage for a fraction of what it would cost to get the originator of the design to do.
Also, I think the amount being offered doesn’t reflect at all the creative hours put into the project or the long term value of the winning concept.

By: Deb

Deb — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:23:57 +0000

I wonder what would happen if you tried to crowdsource, say, a divorce settlement – $10,000 for the solicitor can extract the largest share of the marital pool. Or what about $10,000 for the accountant who can deliver the biggest company tax return.

By: AW

AW — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:22:38 +0000

Firstly, I agree that it will waste a lot of the marketing team’s time. They will be trawling through so many bad entries and they will have underestimated the time it will take and the project will have to be revised to put more resources into to.

But secondly – I have a question… if the client is paying for the “released” creative (i.e. all rights handed over to the client), then how is that unfair for the agency if it’s priced accordingly?

I am sure over time (15years) they have paid a handsome sum to the agency for the creative, so shouldn’t it then belong to the client?

If a creative director comes up with ideas for an agency, that IP is owned by the agency, because they are paying him/her to do that. How is that different from an agency being paid by a client for creative ideas?

By: Jo Stone

Jo Stone — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:48:17 +0000

I have to respond to that comment James – fair go as we say in Australia. I agree with you that the web has irrevocably changed many business models – good advertising agencies are all over the opportunities that this presents for our clients and their brands. However I think you’ve missed the main point of the post. The issue is not so much that Unilever have decided to crowdsource creative – their call if they were dissatisfied and decided to consult the crowd for a better idea. What I find outrageous is that they’re consulting the crowd to extend a very successful brand idea that currently exists. You’d have to question the motivation for that? Would the fact that you work for tongal.com – a creative crowdsourcing site have anything to do with your passion about the topic?

By: Jo Stone

Jo Stone — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:15:17 +0000

I agree totally – this is outrageous – shame on U.K. Unilever – wonder if crowd sourcing marketing is next?

By: James DeJulio

James DeJulio — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:19:51 +0000

I think that the only people threatened by this campaign are creatives at agencies who want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that an opt-in workforce or “crowdsourcing” is not the way a lot of what they’ve done (and been extremely well compensated for) in the past will happen in the future. Good or bad, it’s coming, and why not? The web has methodically toppled every business with walled barriers to entry. Marketing is next. That’s not to say that agencies will go away. Smart ones like Mullen and BBH are already positioning themselves as leaders in this sea change. Someone will have to steer these efforts and combine them with traditional channels/efforts.

Unilever’s foray into crowdsourcing their marketing for Pepperami (though I don’t love their approach) is an intelligent decision. Consumers want a voice, participation and connection with a brand: benefit of which will always go to the consumers themselves….finally Why wouldn’t they try it? Just because they’ve paid Lowe for the past 15 years?

By: Greidy

Greidy — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:10:50 +0000

The last creative outsourcing resulted in ‘iSnack2.0′. And that was the simplest brief of all – a name.

Sure that was a response from the public, but I wonder how many great creatives are sitting around at home waiting for a one in 4,500 chance of winning $10K based on a decision from marketers punchdrunk with thousands of disparate ideas?

Putting aside the fact it’s so wrong on so many levels, they might, just might, get lucky. This time.

But for mine, the future of a brilliant campaign property, built with so much care and inspiration over so many years, has officially been put on notice.

Boo. Hiss.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:30:38 +0000

Having worked at the above-mentioned agency in London and having seen first-hand the investment in building that brand into what it is, I think it is appalling.

It also raises some serious questions over IP.

How can agencies safeguard themselves against this type of behaviour? KPIs and annual bonuses don’t really cut it when you really try and assess the equity built in a brand over time.

Take Tesco for instance, how can one measure the real value of a brand idea like “every little helps”?

Given that one in every single 8 pounds spent on the High Street goes to Tesco and this idea or philosophy is not only customer facing but influences and embodies everything the company do.

Maybe the industry as a whole needs to unite and develop some form of metrics that ensures that brand ideas can be fairly valued.