You may have read my ‘Crowdsourcing Creativity – Brave Breakthrough or Creative Abuse?’ from October 14. I talked about the fact that through the Idea Bounty website, Unilever has been ‘crowdsourcing’ ideas for its Peperami brand.
Well, here’s a quick update.
At midnight last Friday the Peperami project closed with… wait for it… 1185 ideas!
And what have Unilever paid for all that creativity? For 1184 of the ideas the answer is absolutely nothing! Zero!
The winning idea will earn just $10,000.
This just proves the point I made in my blog post. If we took a stab and guessed that each idea on average had ten hours of work behind it, then that totals 11,850 creative hours.
If we then, as I suggested in my previous post, valued those hours conservatively at $150 per hour, then the value of the time spent on this project could be over $1.7m! Also, the $10,000 bounty values those creative hours at roughly $0.84 per hour.
That’s less than 1% of its real value or a 99% discount.
This is blatant abuse of the creative community in my view. It dramatically undervalues ideas and creativity.
If I’m right then why did the creative community submit 1185 ideas?
Are there that many people who need work or want to be recognised?
Is it simply a case of quantity over quality? Are most of the 1185 ideas going to be rubbish? Only the team assessing the work can answer that question.
If most of the ideas aren’t of a very high quality then this process still has people expending creative hours without being paid for their time.
It’s a rip-off and I think Unilever knows that.
Creativity at less than 1% of its market value means that in this case Idea Bounty is nothing more than a discount idea store. I can’t imagine that’s what its founders set it up to be.
What do you think?
Paul Cornwell is a Partner at BCM
Great post. Surely though, it’s not the upper crust of the creative industry that are giving Unilever these ideas? I agree that it’s morally incorrect to take the ideas and run especially when they’re so specifically advertising related.
What do you think to the Red Bull contest? Borderline or acceptable? (create a new Red Bull drinking ritual).
This is an inevitable progression of what’s happening on the web and it’s really false economy. Creative head hours aside, how many hours of work will go into assessing the entries by, one would imagine, creatively qualified people with the ability to determine what’s good and what’s rubbish. It’s ripping off the creative process but guess what? It’s going to keep on happening while punters out there think they are creative thinkers waiting to be “discovered” and clients latch onto this scam.
Hi Paul,
Thank you for the mention of Idea Bounty and your comments. Would just like to chip in a bit from the Idea Bounty side.
I think that to a certain extent you have missed one of the subtle differences between Idea Bounty and holding a competition. In a competition all the entries would belong to who ever was hosting the competition, however on Idea Bounty you as a creative retain all IP rights to a submission until it is paid for. So I think its a bit disingenuous to pull out numbers and state that Unilever has only paid $0.84 an hour for an Idea. In fact by your calculations and the way Idea Bounty operates they have infact paid $1000 an hour – if we accept your thumb suck that the average time spent on a submission is ten hours.
Idea Bounty works on the principal of an open ideas economy where a creative will make a call on how much effort they are going to put into a submission that will be directly related to the amount of money on offer. I think this also answers your question on why there were so many entries. There were obviously over a 1000 people who thought the possible return of investment of ten hours was large enough to warrant the time spent on their submissions. And on top of that its not like submissions are executed ads but ideas – often a couple of paragraphs long with some rough storyboard sketches and scamps. These are ideas that no one anywhere would personally get paid $10000 for and ten hours of time (probably not all consecutively and done in their spare time) is well worth the investment.
Andy also stated in his comment above that surly it was not the upper crust submitting ideas – The Peperami brief had loads of submissions that came from creatives working in global agencies and there were even a few entries from senior art directors. I think the reason why Idea Bounty is attracting such quality creatives and the amount of submission is precisely because of all the things above.
1. Time investment verse reward is good
2. Its just an idea and not full executed bit of work
3. If you dont win you retain the IP rights to your idea
I would also like to point out that when an agency pitches for a account there is often a huge amount of effort and work (believe me far more than $10 000 worth) that gets done for free in order to win an account. Idea Bounty is no different, people weigh up investment verse reward and if its high enough go for it. I hardly think you can call this blatant abuse of the creative community.
The only problem that we now have is trying to choose the best idea out of so many. I guess that’s the real challenge. Thanks again for your thoughts and comments – always enjoy discussing the evolution of idea generation!
Cheers,
Daniel
Idea Bounty
It sounds like a great idea to get loads of people working on your business and it sounds unbelievably cheap.
But there is hidden cost and huge risk.
First you have to sort through the winning entries and have the ability to recognise a great idea. On this score, often it’s the Creative’s passion and vision that get ideas over the line, and sometimes the value of the idea is not fully expressed or brought to life via a few scamps and a paragraph or two.
The amount of crap we have to endure on our screens is proof positive that not everyone is qualified to develop or assess ideas.
Next you have to determine whether the winner has the wherewithal to actually produce the goods. Sure if they’re pros then they should be competent, but what do you do with the semi-pro or the enthusiastic amateur?
And what happens if you crowd source and there’s nothing worthy. Do some research on the web and read the lament of companies who have traveled this road only to find that what they got was un-useable, off-brand and impractical; developed by juniors and well intentioned wannabes. The cost in such an instance is not just prize money but time lost as they go back to the drawing board.
Finally lets call this for what it is. Of course it’s a competition, Daniel. Don’t cloud it with legal definition or restrictions around IP to suggest it is otherwise. In any case who goes through the 1,000 entries and how long does it take? If you give every idea 15 minutes to comprehend and think about, it takes close to 300 hours. And should just one person judge or two or three? Surely you’d want at least two people- now you’re talking close to 600 hours. If as they say time is money, then not so cheap after all.
I reckon any PRO worth their salt (post GFC and with full employment) will run a million miles from a 1 in 1,000 chance of winning a beauty contest. Think about it.
Is this the future of idea generation at a commercial level? Personally I don’t think it’s sustainable, for the reasons outlined above. It is however a reasonable tactical approach to generating publicity and creating a bit of buzz for a brand- and that’s not a bad thing at all.
I think the article is an interesting one and some valid points are raised. I do think it is sustainable though because there will always be clients who will be keen to use this method, after all it’s cheaper and with the right brief, they will get a richer selection of ideas. . If I had a budget for a TV ad and I knew I could get much more value for my money this way then I wouldn’t think twice.
Secondly, there will always be creatives who are happy to have a go as a spec job. I’d be happy to invest 10 hours of my time if I knew I could win $10 000 and I think there are plenty more people who would have the same attitude.
Having said that, it’s a fledgling industry and I believe that this model will evolve with the help of articles like this.
One thing for sure in my mind is that this way of sourcing ideas is here to stay and it’s a great space to keep an eye on.
Oh come on Paul, get of your high horse,
I look at moments likes these and see them for what they are.
No one owns the rights to good creative, and if someone wants to spend their time developing concepts then let them,
I am sure if you had come up with the concept and dveloped the site you would be spruking on the benefits it provides to help creatives have an outlet for their ideas.
Cream rises to the top so there will always be a place for great creatives (are they scared of a bit of competition), I also agree with the statement about the hidden costs of sorting through the ideas (that will be the hard part…
as mediums evolve and humans adapt this will be the least of your concerns, I love the fact that internet is empowering the wider community and providing opportunities. Surely you can appreciate the odd story of someone making millions of dollars from their bedroom
Personally I dont think I would ever use this type of service because of the workload it generates, and I love to hear creatives put on the silly voices when selling a campaign to me..
There are defining moments in any industry and maybe the agency of old is in for a bit of a shake up, dont worry about it, embrace it…
Keep on blogging
K
I am really enjoying the spirited debate that my blog is generating. Kevin and Jon both make very valid points. I really appreciate Daniel from Idea Bounty contributing his viewpoint. I particularly like the balanced way bloggers are arguing the various angles on this issue. No rants. No getting personal. Just thoughtful and insightful views. Whatever your opinion, there is no doubt whatsoever that we’re in the midst of an industry shift that is unmatched in its breadth, depth and complexity. Exciting & challenging times. Thanks to all contributors. Please keep your thoughts coming.
Do Idea Bounty have a traffic department to ensure there is not an overinvestment of creative head hours?
If not, how come when I was an account manager everytime I put a brief in with a budget clearly indicated and a head hour allowance, there was always a gross overinvestment of creative head hours no matter what agency I worked at.
Surely Daniel from Idea Bounty is not suggesting that creatives can manage their own personal time without traffic people?
If so, that’s surely where we can make up the lost income!
Maybe the future agency model is one without a traffic department?
Furthermore, maybe those agencies that don’t have an in-house creative department but who hot desk external creative talent are onto something…
Scary ain’t it? But we’ve got to make up this lost income somehow!
When a big brief comes into the agency, creatives like me get a tight little knot of nervousness in the stomach.
Then begins the days or weeks of relentless talk and debate and gnashing of teeth as we interrogate and dissect and immerse ourselves in the brief. There are brilliant flashes and false starts and every now and then a ‘Big Idea’ that next day is unceremoniously torn into a billion pieces and then we start all over again.
We grill the suits – usually just a light char, but sometimes a thorough blowtorching – because we care. We want the outcome to be brilliant, to make our client love us, to buy us beer, to hear how much it sold, to overhear people mention it at barbeques when they’re talking about ads and stuff they like that’s NOT CRAP.
We work ourselves into a lather about the possibilities and the contradictions of the task. We draw on our experience with the product and the category and the customer and we filter the dozens of possible solutions using our good taste, brains and balls.
We propose wild and outrageous and game-changing solutions way outside what’s written on the A4 paper. Even though that bit of paper may just be asking for a poster.
We think about it driving to work, and when we should be sleeping. We tune out when our wives are telling us about our first-born’s latest triumph at the spellathon, because we’re thinking about ways to make the idea last into next year.
Then when the brief is finally cracked and the creative is handed over and the client is loving it, that’s when we really start thinking about it.
On the flipside, here’s what ideabounty.com says about its offering: “Creatives: Get paid for your best ideas with no long term commitment from you.”
No long term commitment. Hope that works out nicely for you Unilever.
ditto what AB said.
While the concept of Idea Bounty sounds wonderful, isn’t the client just making a crap load of work for themselves. There’s a reason agencies usually present three concepts to a client -much more than that leads to indecision and an extremely drawn out creative process. I can only imagine their confusion with more than 1,000 concepts to choose from.
And what self respecting creative would do this for the chance to win $10,000? They’ve got just as much chance of winning a ‘25 words or less’ competition in Take 5 – and the prizes are often worth more!
I suspect, however, that it’s not the money motivating them, but the chance for glory and having a global brand in their book of work. That being the case, I think Unilever is just having a lend… and showing how much it really values creativity ($0.84/hour).
Anyway, I sincerely hope the time and money they expend judging the work far outweighs what they would normally pay their agency to make them a good ad in the first place.
Good luck Unilever… I’m sure it’s gonna be awesome.