Did CP&B’s crowdsourcing experiment backfire? Have designers created an exclusive club designed to keep newcomers out?
This logo was crowdsourced in 1916. A 13 year-old won the contest.
Go ahead; pick the headline for this post. I’m crowdsourcing it. There was plenty of buzz on Twitter and in the press today about whether or not CP&B’s crowdsourcing experiment for client Brammo Motorcycles backfired (No pun intended.) The agency, in its inimitable practice of calling attention to itself, went and initiated a crowdsourced logo competition for Brammo, offering a paltry $1000.00 to the winner. (Obviously they made the prize so small intentionally, knowing it would incur the wrath of the design community and generate buzz for the agency.)
No surprise, it didn’t take long for the critics to emerge and start a #nospec hashtag on Twitter. A believer in “all publicity is good publicity” Crispin let all the comments show up on its beta blog website. Folks who just don’t get it may have thought this constituted a faux pas. No doubt, however, that at Crispin people were celebrating once again.
Personally I’m a huge believer in crowdsourcing. At my agency, Mullen, we’re experimenting with it ourselves, joining with clients to try it out and meeting with as many crowdsourcing companies as we can to determine how best to use it. Why? A. We owe it to our clients. B. Consumers want and even insist on a role in a brand’s voice and content. C. If we don’t, we’re simply leaving it up to someone else to do.
It’s not our intention to exploit the crowd or necessarily to source cheap content, but rather to embrace the inevitable and discover what it can yield. In fact the real value in contests like the one CP&B is running may not be in the logo that gets created but in giving customers a chance to participate in the process. While we’re actually more interested in the co-creation side of crowdsourcing – memes, propagation, group created content – we are in the process of launching a crowdsourcing program for ourselves and potentially our clients, initially working with schools and portfolio programs and eventually with the community at large. There’s much to figure out, but we’re committed.
However there’s another side to today’s story. And that’s the reaction of the design community and its reluctance to tolerate spec work. In advertising, there’s no one who likes spec work. But the industry already dug that hole. Not unlike the media giving away free content, we’ve made it a practice in our desire to win business and gain attention and there’s no going back.
But we’re not the only ones. Architects, filmmakers, and writers all create some form of content for free in the hopes of winning an assignment. What makes designers so special? (I’m not talking Paul Rand, here.) The critics among them must either think their talent is so rare, unique and valuable that they don’t need to compete. Or those who are finally semi-established must figure that now that they’re in the exclusive club it’s their responsibility to keep everyone else – young designers, students, aspiring talent – out.
The interesting thing about crowdsourcing is this. It hasn’t emerged as a new phenomenon because there are clients and companies who want cheap content. It’s emerged because there’s a community of aspiring professionals, or, yes, amateurs, who want to try their hand, find out how good they are, or have their work considered by those who curate it. By the way, this isn’t new. Planter’s Peanuts crowdsourced its logo in 1916. A 13 year-old kid won and a professional designer tweaked it.
Will there be crowdsourced logos created today that live for another 93 years? My guess is yes. So, where do you stand? For crowdsourcing? Or against?
Comments
156 Responses to “Did CP&B’s crowdsourcing experiment backfire? Have designers created an exclusive club designed to keep newcomers out?”
Leave a Reply
Edward – CP&B, Mullen and other top agencies didn’t achieve success by following tradition. I agree that consumers want and insist on a role in a brand’s voice and content. Importantly, brands want to give consumers a voice.
Unilever, Audi, LG, Henkel and many others have embraced both the desire by their customers, and the opportunity to better define how brands are created and managed online. It is short-sighted for agencies and designers to ignore this important paradigm shift – it’s already taken place.
As for the origin of crowdsourcing – you are right that it isn’t a new phenomena. There are many strong examples – The Tribune Tower, The Sydney Opera House, the X Prize, and countless more, dating back centuries. Today, just like in the past, participation is driven by large communities of aspiring artists and inventors – professional and amateur – ready to compete and to embrace the opportunity. In a little over one year, crowdSPRING’s own community has grown from zero to 37,000 designers (from 150 countries).
Your concluding question asks whether people are for crowdsourcing or against it. It’s an appropriate question, but it doesn’t reach far enough. I wrote earlier today (on Twitter) that free markets create efficiency and free will creates competition. Once people pick sides – they’ll face a more important and more practical question. How will they evolve?
Best,
Ross Kimbarovsky
co-Founder
http://www.crowdspring.com
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..There Are No Ordinary Moments
Ross:
Like your free market comment very much. And your final question is better than mine. New ways of doing business are often seen as threats by those comfortably ensconced in the old. I understand some of the concerns but not the outright rejection nor the unwillingness to find ways to turn it to your advantage. Interesting to see where it goes. Ideally it will benefit both creator and buyer.
I like it. It invites stakeholders to stand by our side rather than on the sidelines.
Leo Bottary´s last blog ..Why You Should Interview Anyone Who Asks
Participation is good. But who are the participants? People who do it for the money or fans of the brand who do it because they love the brand?
For ex. Who are the users on crowdspring? Designers who haven’t made it into bigger agencies trying their luck for a lower fee, right?
To conclude, if it’s the former, I think it’s myopic of clients to get into crowdsourcing. If it’s the latter, I’d say it’s myopic of agencies to oppose it.
Thiscudb You´s last blog ..thiscudb_you: @mediaczar Digital Planning Head, Rediffusion Y&R
Of course it’s about passion for a brand. There is nothing more titillating (bizarre word–I should crowdsource a replacement) than the levels to which our brand involvement has grown over the past few years. We are shaping them through drect involvement. Not “we” the creatives, but we the people. It’s not some nebulous word-of-mouth arrangement, but real, direct involvement. The Planter’s Peanuts folks didn’t have nearly the deep involvement brand have today. It’s different. Way deeper. More tittilating (had to do it).
Gretchen Ramsey´s last blog ..Heathrow Airport installs Alain de Botton as writer in residence – Springwise
It’s interesting that the epicenter of this debate is within the design community. Maybe designers have had it too good for too long? Maybe they’ve become comfortable? I don’t know. I’m not a designer. I am however someone who has spent a career in a creative endeavor. Members of our community at Tongal, many of them aspiring filmmakers, many people just looking for a creative outlet, write to thank us all the time for giving them access to an environment where they can find work, co-create and collaborate with others. Maybe they’ve had it too bad for too long? I know that they have been working on “spec” for years, with no real chance of being paid for their spec work, so, they’ve by and large been welcoming to this shift in workforce paradigm where they can see an actual task a buyer is willing to pay for and execute it if they so choose.
To me, all the noise coming out of the design community around this topic like a Managing Director at Goldman Sachs revolting over the invention of ETRADE, or Thomas Keller worrying that the next Top Chef winner is going to make the French Laundry obsolete. I can’t speak for other crowdsourcing platforms, but our clients at Tongal are buying the process as much as they are buying the output. They are beginning to see the value to having an open brand, they want people to engage with them for a long time more than they want cheap labor.
In my opinion, what’s going to “backfire” is this feeling of entitlement to a certain type of work on a certain set of terms. We all need to get comfortable with the fact that the way work gets done evolves constantly. Sometimes it’s to the benefit of the employee and sometimes it’s to the benefit of the employer. To be honest, I think that right now, it’s right in the middle—and it’s captivating.
James,
The entitlement thing is what gets me, too. Insane. I remember when I started out there were as many barriers to entry as there were people willing to help. Probably more. Getting visibility, guidance, an audience for your work or an opportunity to create it hardly existed. So it took me a long time to get the opportunity I wanted and a way to show what I was capable of. It’s classic in many ways. Those who finally get into the club slam the door behind them to keep others out. F that. I think crowdsourcing is a great opportunity for the participant who has no other way in or who simply wants to participate with a brand. It goes without saying that the brand has to play by the rules of engagement: give feedback, allow the crowd a say in the outcome, make compensation fair, and try to create more upside than a lousy $1000.00, even though that appears to be enough reward and incentive for some.
I like the second headline, more provocative. Despite my twitter-limited comments, I mostly agree with you. There are great ways to use crowdsourcing. The best brands are the ones with consumers who feel like they’re really a part of something, and that they make the brand what it is. I don’t even think designers are above spec work — but design spec should be a preview, not a finished product. You wouldn’t go to a bunch of bakeries / painters / body shops and say, “Everyone make me an awesome wedding cake / portrait / custom auto and I’ll only pay one of you.”
And I should add, I’m not in the club. As a young creative, I have the biggest problem with companies that try to exploit young talent. That’s why I brought up business relationships — because when agencies do spec work, it’s part of a business model where both sides get something out of it. But logo contests are one-sided. The company demands all the work upfront, takes ownership of ideas they aren’t paying for and doesn’t add much credibility or value to the winning designer’s work. The wrong kind of crowdsourcing only hurts young creatives because it supports the idea that we’re all falling over ourselves to give away our ideas and work for nothing. Fair compensation for us may not be all about money, but we should expect to gain something such as work that is book-worthy, exposure, opportunities, experience and/or relationships that will actually help further our careers.
- Erica
a starving young copywriter in Boston
Erica:
Well put and thoughtful. A few things. One, I don’t think that anyone owns content other than the creator unless a brand buys it. At least that’s how it works on the video sites. If crowdSpring doesn’t work that way, it should. Two, anyone sourcing the crowd owes participants quality feedback and reaction. That way, at least the non-winners learn from the process and have guidance to get better. Of course that presumes the company doing the crowdsourcing knows what the hell it’s doing, not always the case I would guess. And three, compensation must be fair. It’s a Catch 22 in some ways. The crowd wants to participate. It’s an opportunity for young talent to get visibility. But it’s imperative that the process does not take advantage of them. I have a new idea for young writers. (No money, but visibility and chance to develop your voice if you are a good writer.) Perhaps you want to participate. I will send you an email soon.
Edward – crowdSPRING works precisely that way. Creatives own their original work at ALL times until the client selects it AND the creative is paid. The protection of intellectual property is one of our core values as a company – and we’ve written about this extensively, including: http://bit.ly/protectip
Ross Kimbarovsky
co-Founder
http://www.crowdspring.com
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..There Are No Ordinary Moments
Ross
Thanks for the clarification. I assumed that was the case, but was a little too lazy to go and find out for myself. That makes me even more of a supporter.
Sure, let me know what’s up. I’m a good writer and do have a portfolio (www.dandychick.com if you’re curious), but I’m interested to hear more about what you’re working on.
D.C. actually made another point below that I hadn’t thought about … in portfolio school, the experience isn’t about winning/losing, but becoming a better creative by understanding WHY things do or don’t work. Oh– and she didn’t mention it, but the Circus has a class called Design Deathmatch that might interest you as a good model for crowdsourcing students in a way that’s beneficial for both sides.
Edward,
Thank you at least for acknowledging there is a dark side to crowdsourcing.
For every Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin who originally melded blues and hard rock–and created something extraordinary–there were at least a 1,000 Whitesnakes.
In the same manner, for every high-minded CP+B and Mullen creative ‘experiment’, there will be thousands of Logo Tournaments hosted by Facebook. Where the winner can expect $250 and… absolutely nothing else.
At the moment this is all an interesting sidelight to the business at hand, but it’s safe to say that the number of career opportunities (and well-paid pundits) someone like Mullen can finance will permanently be limited.
For everyone who considers there is still a creative profession, I would remind them we have yet to see lawyers.com host a ‘Brief-Off’ or Web MD launch ‘Surgery Throwdown!’.
Just sayin’
arb:
Anthony:
I agree not all intentions will be noble. There will be those who seek nothing but the cheap solution. But ideally, great brands, agencies that value creative, and the community at large will guide this new practice to a place that is beneficial to all.
[...] Did CP&B’s crowdsourcing experiment backfire? | Creativity_Unbound edwardboches.com/did-cpb%E2%80%99s-crowdsourcing-experiment-backfire-have-designers-created-an-exclusive-club-designed-to-keep-newcomers-out – view page – cached CP&B crowdsourcing experiment for Brammo Motorcycles may be controversial, but agencies like CP&B and Mullen are embracing the new approach. — From the page [...]
Wow, some really awesome points of view.
I think we’re dealing with 2 different issues: Did CP+B do something wrong? And are designers who work at agencies getting exclusive work, even though they might not be the most qualified to deliver?
My opinion: CP+B didn’t do anything wrong; they just made it clear they are NOT the only authority on logo design. (Additionally, it’s not the entire CP+B company; Brammo won the intern auction, it’s very possible the interns recognized a lack of logo design between them, and went with crowd sourcing with the little budget they had to work with.)
My opinion on the 2nd question: Companies usually hire advertising agencies based on a vision. Often this vision is lead by someone; a creative director, account director or a team. In my opinion, companies have an expectation of synergy within the agency they hire. (i.e. the CD and AD will work directly with designers and strategists to create something none of them could create alone.) I don’t think a client, hiring an agency would appreciate being presented with a crowd-sourced logo they paid $1000 for and charged them $17k.
Additionally, I don’t think freelance designers are being excluded from anything. While at Wieden + Kennedy we’d hire a student right out of high school if he had a portfolio that showed fantastic work; just as we would turn away a seasoned veteran with a massive portfolio that didn’t fit the client.
Jordan´s last blog ..thejordanrules: I’m indexing all my diagrams as editable AI files for download here: http://bit.ly/KhC4q [just updated]
Jordan:
Sure clients hire agencies for their vision and sense of the brand. But aren’t agencies wise to seek ideas from beyond their four walls? They are still the judge and curator, and that takes real talent. Also, in the spirit of partnership, the foundation of any great agency/client relationship, the client would be intimately involved with the decision to try crowdsourcing. They’d also know the costs associated. This is the age of American Idol in all walk of creative endeavor. There are opportunities for brands, for individuals, and, yes, even the agencies who embrace change. IMHO.
I agree.
My point wasn’t that agencies shouldn’t seek outside talent; I think the best agencies know when to look outside their walls. I’m just not sure crowd sourcing is the right way to do it. Wouldn’t seeking out appropriate freelance talent that could work with the rest of the team make more sense?
If crowd sourcing is the right option; why wouldn’t the client engage crowd sourcing themselves? If a brand manager NEEDS an agency to tell him if a logo is acceptable; he probably needs to rethink his career.
I’d like to know what the objective of agency crowd sourcing is. Is it to find a final design? or is it to find inspiration, or a starting point?
Know I’m late to the discussion and think so much great stuff has already been contributed, but thought I’d put in my 2 cents from my perspective. As a screenwriter (who’s also an ad copywriter) I’m used to working on spec. I’ve brainstormed script ideas, pitched TV network and movie studio executives and spent months writing spec feature screenplays that I proceeded to send out willingly, in hopes of a sale or a writing assignment. So I’m not as offended as my art director counterparts in the ad biz by the idea of crowdsourcing or spec work. But there is one big reason why I’m nowhere near as wary about the thievery of my artistic property. When it comes to screenplays, I have the power of the Writer’s Guild (WGA) behind me. If I pitch a story to a producer or studio, they pass on it and then make something similar, the WGA will not sleep until I get my say in court and the money that’s owed me. No, that’s not the case when I pitch a concept to a brand, but I think my time in the movie business has made me more willing to put ideas out there, right or wrong. Art Directors have no union and thus, no security in a body willing to fight for them. And because of that, I can appreciate why they might hold their creative concepts a bit closer to the vest. I think there is a lot to be said for empowering the crowd in helping a brand get ideas and trying to get cheaper ideas from younger, less established artists; that can be a win-win. But I understand the anger and/or fear (and thus hesitation) established artists have about participating in crowdsourcing exercises. I think the best hope these seasoned artists must cling to is that the brands crowdsourcing get what they pay for and that the cream will still rise to the top.
Adam,
Interestingly every idea that an employed art director comes up with, whether it’s produced or not becomes property of the agency he or she works for. If the agency was paid for pitching a business and there was a contract, even if the agency loses, every idea belongs to the client. (One reason we usually don’t accept payment for pitches if that is the case.) However, in the spec and crowdsourcing scenario, the creator/art director owns the idea until it is paid for by a client. I am pretty sure that is standard and that all contracts say so.
Edward
Are you guys familiar with Chipotle’s recently wrapped up crowdsourcing experiment?
http://www.chipotle.com/#/flash/My-Chipotle-Contest
I’m hunting down the initial legalese behind this, but Chipotle declared in the fine print that they owned all ideas whether selected or not once submitted. I’m sure this caused a lot of folks to balk, but thought I’d add the example to the conversation.
David Saxe´s last blog ..Winos are Crazy…and Smart
Adam – when we founded crowdSPRING (my business partner spent 20+ years making movies as a director and producer – for every major studio/tv network), the WGA was a huge inspiration for us on issues related to intellectual property. In fact, for the very reasons that you’ve identified, we made intellectual property a core focus of our company – and build policies, procedures and tools to make sure that the crowdSPRING community not only respects IP, but knows that we will stand behind them if someone abuses their rights in our community.
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..There Are No Ordinary Moments
I think that’s an admirable way to be and a great way to set the bar — because it’s certainly your site that has been the most visible in the recent wave of crowdsourcing exercises. I can only hope that others follow suit and protect the creators’ properties as well as it protects the clients bottom lines.
To me the question isn’t really whether the ad industry still harbors pompous a-holes or whether CP+B succeeded at bringing more eyeballs unto them. The answer to both is yes (although focusing on the first the a-holes permeate the industry at all levels and are not secluded to just the creative dept).
The better question to me is whether the client, in this instance Brammo, was actual served well? If the exercise was to bring more attention to the fledging motorcycle brand by exciting the masses through an democratic logo contest great. However the first name to get lost in this exercise is Brammo. The uproar seems to be centered around #nospec, which last time i checked is a niche concern for designers and not something that has broad appeal.
So if CP+B has figured that designers are the primary target audience for Brammo motorcycles, Kudos to them cause they have stirred the pot and created conversation + awareness. However reality is that CP+B has created a conversation around themselves or their action and not around their clients. The latter i thought was the point of getting an agency.
Sean,
First I think that the recession has reduced the a-holeness of many. Not all, but many. We actually don’t have any at my company.
Now, re crowdsourcing: There are lots of reasons on both sides to try out crowdsourcing. For a client or agency: to experiment; to allow the crowd a role in the brand; to see if there’s something great out there; to identify new talent (in many cases winners of Poptent video contests have ended up as AOR for clients such as Callaway Golf); and to learn from the experience.
For the participants: there’s the psychic reward of participating; the opportunity to have a voice in either creating or voting on what should represent a brand; the chance to learn and get better from the feedback that a good agency or brand should willingly provide; the chance to connect with peers; and finally the opportunity to win.
That’s a lot of reasons. Are there that many good reasons not to try it? For either party?
Oh my goodness,.
“psychic reward of participating”
I expect this is what the slaves who built the pyramids most enjoyed too.
You quite simply need to get over yourself. Apologies if this sounds harsh.
Either be committed to your opinion or not. You don’t criticize someone forcefully then apologize for being harsh. Either you have the conviction of your opinion or you don’t. We don’t have to agree. We just have to believe in what we believe and stay a little open minded in case someone else’s argument is so good that it changes our mind. Thanks for your thoughts. Really.
I understand.
I didn’t want to come across as someone who wants to be aggressive – but I was pretty much flabbergasted by this particular comment.
So much of what I read regarding crowdsourcing is disingenuous.
The majority of the proponents are either those who take a fee from the initial prize fund (crowdSpring/99designs et al), or those who use crowdsourcing as a tool (CP&B, and other clients).
I’d imagine the most fierce supporters of crowdsourcing (as participants) are the very same people who would traditionally participate in the _outsourcing_ of work. For this group $1000 would actually be a fair wage – even if obtaining the fee involves entering into a lottery.
After reading about CP&B’s initial endeavour, my anger piqued my curiosity and I entered into ‘competition’ myself.
After participating, I decided to exchange some emails with the contest organiser, and I discovered that he was a subcontractor who takes on web-jobs and uses the crowdsourcing agency to produce PSD images of each potential website which can then be given to other outsourcers who create an HTML website. He likes the crowdsourcing model because he has a number of different designs to choose from, and ultimately he doesn’t need to carry out the work himself.
Crowdsourcing creates a dynamic of factory owner v. factory workers. There’s no equality between participants.
I honestly don’t think that those participating are going to gain a better understanding of the processes involved in design. The idea that the contest organiser even knows what constitutes a good design isn’t even a given. The only known fact is that the organiser has some money.
The bottom line is that it’s unfair to expect anyone with any skill to work for free. In my mind, this is about good old fashioned wrong and right. One group of people is benefiting at the expense of another group of people – and your comment that participants experience “psychic reward” is laughable and offensive.
I do believe that crowdsourcing has a future – but only when a fair remuneration model has been developed. I think that the Amazon Mechanical Turk provided a more fully formed conceptual model in this respect.
In any case, I don’t think that design is something which can possibly excel when it’s carried out by committee.
Luke:
First of all, your points are very good and well put. Second, you may be right in much of what you say. But you also twist some of my argument. I am not outright declaring that all crowdsourcing is great for the participant. I am not advocating that all design should be crowdsourced. And if you read my post carefully, along with previous posts on the subject, you would see that I am opposed to any exploitation of creatives and in favor of fair pay for work. Finally, one has to ask, why are there so many people willing to participate? A. If it’s because it’s the only way to find work, then there are too many designers. B. If it’s because they’re looking for a way into the business, then good for them for taking chances. B. If it’s because they simply want to try their hand at it or because they like a brand, then why stop them. As for the clients, maybe they just don’t value what you or I value when it comes to design. If that’s the case, what should we do? Educate them? Explain the difference between good and bad? Boycott the CS platforms? Form a union? Come up with an idea that works and go for it. It’s a free market.
Edward
I’m very glad you’ve posted on this, as I find the area interesting and enjoy talking about it (even if I do end up feeling infuriated at times..) I think the strength and tone of my initial comment was partly due to not having had my morning coffee
I believe that crowdsourcing in it’s best format involves creating efficiency by horizontally dividing a task between hundreds and thousands of people. Ideally all the participants involved are employed (i.e. paid), and the amount of work they complete is at least as engaging as it would be if the task was approached conventionally.
The benefits of this idealised view, involve speed / efficiency in completing the task and the luxury of a plurality of viewpoints.
Baring this in mind, in my opinion, there are a limited variety of tasks that are suitable for a crowdsourcing approach. I don’t think design is very suitable for crowdsourcing because it’s difficult to very divide the task.
Long term, I’d actually question whether these CS companies will survive. Currently I think they’re doing well because:
* We’re currently in an economic downturn – the number of people willing to participate and give crowdsourcing a go will surely have been buoyed by laid off workers.
* The concept is novel. Many people are willing to give something new a chance… but after a short while they’ll most probably ask themselves whether continued participation is worthwhile.
Even so, I don’t think the game’s totally over for companies like crowdSpring or 99designs.
I think that these companies are providing two types of service.
[1] The first can be loosely defined defined as crowdsourcing. I say ‘loosely’, because they don’t divide the task of creating design – they multiply it.
[2] The second type of service involves building relationships between designer and client; a task which is very similar to that of a traditional work agency.
I think they should focus on providing the second type of service – this is where they could make the most positive difference.
If we look at the way they operate at the moment, (cynically) I’d state that the current crop of crowdsourcing applications are only really acting as ‘enablers’. They provide a place for client and participant to meet – and the functionality they provide is very basic. Currently it would probably be fair to suggest that crowdsourcing web-applications are still most similar in functionality to a traditional bulletin board system -> ideas (graphic files) can be submitted, and messages can be submitted publicly and privately. There’s little in the way of innovation.
If speaking optimistically, I’d state that these crowdsourcing applications provide a platform for collaboration. This statement holds a lot of potential, but if these companies can possibly survive, they need to try to offer innovative collaborative technologies. The problems they try to solve are both interesting and challenging – but unless they accept the fact that their current approach is full of holes, they stand no chance of becoming a positive force for change.
Edward,
Glad to hear that humility is creeping its way back into the industry.
Let me clarify a few points. I have nothing against crowdsourcing even though it seems to be the new shiny object now. As you noted there are many benefits to it. My particular issue/concern was how crowdsourcing was executed in this instance on a niche site as opposed to a broader contest a la hoodieremix. To me that seems more on target.
Lastly at the end of the day CP+B victory needs to be measure not just it the mentions it gets itself on soc nets for their latest tactic, but by how it advances its clients and and their brands. In this case there is noise about CP+B but none that lifts or enhances the Brammo brand.
Sean´s last blog ..Social Media + Government | Crowd Building – Part Deux
Sean:
I can’t speak for either CPB or Brammo. And who knows that the outcome will be. May be a great logo, an interesting experiment, learning for both client and agency, or a total disaster with nothing to show for it. We shall see.
Relevant QOTD: “In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the network’s mind there are no limits.” – Dr. John C. Lilly, M.D.
I don’t know about you, but somehow I don’t think there’s a gatekeeper around who won’t eventually be toppled by the ethos and economics of open source. It’s digital Darwinism. What hump?
Scott – absolutely spot on. I agree that there’s no gatekeeper that can withstand the tide from the open source movements, or in this case, from thousands upon thousands of people around the world looking for an opportunity to compete on a level playing field. Some gatekeepers will evolve – as many have throughout history. Others…perhaps can learn a thing or two from Luddites.
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..There Are No Ordinary Moments
Scott:
Digital Darwinism is a great phrase and an apt one. Don’t know if its’ yours, but if so TM that baby.
I’m a little shocked seeing so much ignorance. It seems most of you have no clue what the design industry is like. Many of you are comparing design companies to Goldman Sachs or a bunch of “entitled” brats, which is laughable. What is the matter with you? You should be ashamed.
Design has to be one of the toughest industries out there. Margins are slim, competition is fierce, and there is a general lack of understanding and appreciation for what design brings to the table. Most design shops are lucky to last more than a couple years.
Designers regularly hear such gems as “Oh yeah, my nephew knows Photoshop too!” and “My wife would like the logo to include purple.”
And most of the comments here continue this trend of ignorance and dismissal. It shocks me that so many people purported to be “creatives” know so little about the design field.
Here’s the facts: there are already so few barriers to entry for design. A computer and a cracked copy of Photoshop, and you’re up and running. And indeed, that is the case: there is a huge surplus of design “talent” out there, and it has indeed driven down prices dramatically in recent years. The industry doesn’t need any help from an exploitive faux-contest to keep it competitive.
Starting salary for a designer? $24k. Not much better than McDonalds. If wanting to earn a living is being “entitled” then so be it.
Your incredible ignorance and arrogance paints you all as hacks and charlatans that truly don’t get it. That includes you, Edward Boches.
Dear Nostro:
Your comment is approved for all to see despite your hiding behind a pseudonym. No need to do that hear as everyone is welcome.
To set the record straight: no one has said that design isn’t tough, or that margins aren’t slim, or that salaries aren’t low.
And, if I were a designer myself and suddenly had to compete with a bunch of amateur hacks trying to take my work away for $1000 logos I would be furious. But my fury would be directed at the clients who think they may be able to get equal quality from the vast pool as from a well-trained, proven, accomplished, award winning designer. My anger would be directed at my own profession for failing to establish perceived value for its work. I would not direct my bitterness at the new digital pioneers responding to market forces.
In defense of me, not that I need to defend myself, but always welcome a challenge, I’ll say this. Thirty plus years in this business has taught me many things, among them: a camera does not make a photographer, a typewriter does not make a writer, and Final Cut Pro does not make an editor. I doubt that Photoshop makes for a designer.
However, who’s to say there isn’t plenty of talent not currently employed: Moms who left the workplace, aspiring designers, students who dream and, yes, amateurs who way overestimate their talent. I have hired designers and paid them well. I have hired design firms and paid them well. I have been involved with creating logos for brands from Timberland to Inc. to Lotus Development. True, I can’t personally design my way out of a portfolio case, but ignorant about the profession, the craft and how to buy good design? Not a chance.
But let’s say you are right, and none of us know anything at all about design, well guess what. It may be equally true that you know as little about the inevitable changes that are happening to your profession. And while we may need to get smarter about design and what it’s worth, you may want to figure out how to survive in the new world.
I don’t disagree with anyone here. All valid points. It’s absolutely true that CP+B draws attention to itself, in the process of trying ground breaking things, but for the purpose of drawing attention to their clients. I respect that they take risks, regularly. Did it stir interest in the right group of people? I don’t know. CP+B probably does.
My concern is as a former designer, art director, and now working with graduating students to help them find employment. It’s not the CP+B experiments that we need to worry about. While in some cases these tactics may work; when it’s something new and different, that’s creative – and it DOES draw attention. But if crowdsourcing is used badly, or overused, like any method for promotion, if it doesn’t prove profitable for companies, they will eventually be looking toward something else. In the meantime, how many young creatives will have to compete with free work?
There have always been competitions that students or aspiring creatives can participate in for a pittance of a reward or hopes of glory. And I’m not talking about the industry awards, D&AD, One Club, or Cannes, etc. that obviously provide students incredible exposure to the people that can hire them. I’m talking about companies and agencies trying to cut cost and think that using young creatives will be a great opportunity for them to do that while at the same time getting them the freshest young minds. Students have the right to participate in anything they wish. But as the Career Services Director at The Creative Circus, I don’t promote it.
A couple of students, on their own, participated in a jingle competition for Chicken of the Sea, because proceeds went to charity. They won 25,000.00 for the local food bank. We sent their jingle out to industry contacts and alumni to vote and win – second place. The winning jingle was a little boy with a lisp. I doubt that Chicken of the Sea will ever actually use the jingle of the little boy with the lisp – but the point was getting people to go to the site and vote on the ones who submitted so they got plenty of exposure from that. It proved worthy for all, though the best promotional work certainly did not win the public choice – in fact, it became apparent to Chicken of the sea that the stage mom was at one point using some automated program to submit thousands of votes. Was the brand awareness imporved and measurable in terms of sales? Was crowdsourcing any more profitable in this case than any other campaign for proceeds going to charity? I don’t know. But, this was one example of how our students choosing to participate in a competition could benefit them, as well as others. Had we not spread the word through our own alumni and industry connections, and had the profits not gone to a cause, the only benefit gained for these students would have been the experience of working on it. Gaining experience is why they are in a portfolio school. They are working under the guidance of industry professionals. Will the crowdsourcing competitions provide them any training? What do we mean when we say they get experience from this? It seems that they only can hope to get a small amount of cash and some notoriety – but with whom? Is it anyone who can help them get a job? Unless it makes the kind of splash that CP+B just made, they will remain invisible. Young creatives who are in training to be paid for employment after graduation – sometimes that is a paid internship or freelance – but it is real work competing with other industry professionals, not little boys with lisps. So, I hope all the other agencies will think hard before they jump on the band wagon and use it thoughtfully.
D.C.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful post. I am hereby extending you an invitation to write a post for my blog if you want to develop your comment further and craft an argument for what’s wrong with crowdsourcing, or continue your perspective on what companies and agencies owe to students and participants. Clearly there has to be value in both directions. If you are not familiar with Filmaka, you should check them out. They are determined and passionate about helping the creator, providing opportunity, feedback, access to professional advice and fair compensation. I also think that overtime, Ross (the founder of crowdSpring) will find he’ll have to be as vocal and supportive or participants as he is of the crowdsourcing itself. He claims to be already, and sound fair in his communications with me, but I have no personal experience to know for sure. Please let me know if you’d like to write a post.
Edward – You’ll rarely find me defending crowdsourcing generically. I believe – as many have nicely written here – that there are good and bad ways to execute a crowdsourcing model. In fact, it was because we believed that some organizations were doing a terrible job leveraging crowdsourcing that we started crowdSPRING.
As for me being vocal about participants – let me point you to something I wrote a little while ago about the crowdSPRING community – and WHY crowdSPRING differs from other online marketplaces; http://bit.ly/whycS
We invest a lot of time supporting our community – on and off crowdSPRING. Among many other efforts, we regularly publish detailed interviews with our creatives – here’s a recent example: http://blog.crowdspring.com/2009/07/09/12-questions-meet-edoardo-gioe-italy/
There are no doubt many reasons we’ve been fortunate to have built an awesome community of creatives in such a short time. We believe that one of the key reasons is that we care about our community – and about each person in that community.
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..There Are No Ordinary Moments
Ross:
Thanks again for your participation in this conversation. And forgive me for not endorsing you outright. While I personally buy into everything you are saying, having not gone through the process with you as either participant or client, I just wasn’t comfortable speaking for you or crowdSpring. Have read some of your perspective, and it is all noble. It’s obviously imperative, and you get it, that you have to be a great resource to both sides of the relationship. Clearly, that’s what you’re trying to be, and from the large number of people willing to participate, you seem to be accomplishing it.
Ross:
Also, have tried to comment on the initial post, but comments must be closed. My comment was: This is both fair, helpful and smart on your part. You are dead on when you say this is about a community and that the role, process, benefits, etc. should be as much defined by the participant as by CS itself. It’s this type of engagement that will not only help participants on both sides, but that should ideally set an example for how others enter this still relatively new world of social media, community and crowdsourcing.
Edward – sorry about the problem with you leaving a comment. It turns out we had a problem with the submit button for non-registered users and your post here made me take a closer look and fix. Thank you for that! It now works correctly.
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..Twitter Link Roundup #10 – Design, Small Business, Social Media And More
This is a great discussion with valid points on each side. So thank you, Edward.
I’d just like to point out what no one seems to be talking about: free will. If you don’t like the price or don’t agree with it, don’t participate. No one is forcing anyone to design a logo.
And like any service with a price tag, the better the compensation, the better talent it will attract. We seem to have forgotten that that’s how capitalism works.
And it’s been done for decades in other professions. Magazines, journals and organizations like NPR hold writing contests in which the winner receives a prize and gets published. I’m frankly surprised that people have gotten so riled up.
If I don’t like a TV show I change the channel or turn off the TV. If you value your skills more than is being offered, choose not to participate, right?
Thomas
I think you know where I stand. All for this stuff. With the caveat that we never exploit the crowd, that they receive fair compensation, retain ownership of their work until it’s purchased, and that they have a role in the decision and the process other than just competing.
Competitions, by the way, are a very narrow use of crowdsourcing. There are dozens of others that are equally suited to the desire of consumers to co-create.
The most important thing this article does is introduce crowdsourcing as a value-added Mullen service. And you explain why. Well done on that Edward.
I have issues with giving away ideas. Not because I think others might have better ones, but because I understand their value. I think the CPB tactic is fine. I definitely don’t think logo or tagline development will become commonplace, however. Why use cannons when you have sharpshooters? Think of the logistics. Sure, you could automate it – but really? The *only* reason to use crowdsourcing for brand identity work is for press.
Maybe the brands should just start having agency shoot outs publicly? No, I’m serious. I’d love the opportunity to put up our ideas against the big boys.
Jim Mitchem´s last blog ..A Conversation with ‘That Guy’
Jim:
True that the sharpshooter is probably a better bet. But why not hedge your bets if you’re a brand? And why not try this if you’re an agency? I think any agency that is focused on its clients business first and foremost has to be inventing and exploring in all the new spaces available. I’m talking to clients about launching products using nothing but social media, about building community, about using Scoble’s Starfish approach to taking content across the web where customers live and hang out, to trying out crowdsourcing. I can’t do it fast enough. And, by the way, your attitude is both healthy and realistic. Mano a mano as we used to say on the links.
Oh I definitely believe SM has a place in today’s advertising. Not as traditional one-way conversational advertising, but in terms of WOM. Absolutely. And you’re right, it’s moving very fast. We’re going to fall along the way – and we’ll all be watching to learn from it. Those who win will be both cautious and willing to risk. I feel good about moving to an advertising ‘conversation’ rather than a one way monologue (trad.). Loving this. But you watch, people will try tacky guerilla tactics that will only create spikes in stickiness vs. true brand equity.
Jim Mitchem´s last blog ..A Conversation with ‘That Guy’
Here is my response to comments regarding “free will”, “change the channel” and being “surprised that people have gotten so riled up,”:
You are framing this issue incorrectly. As Edward has stated, crowdsourcing is not some sideshow, a little experiment. It’s not a simple choice. It is a market upheavel.
The problem is when an entire market is expected to operate in this manor, you no longer have the choice of whether you want to spend your time and talent on the *chance* (no guarantee) that you will be compensated in return. The graphic design industry is fast heading that way.
Your are essentially rallying around a model that threatens to commoditize creativity. The only *choice* involved is what career you’re going to switch to. That is, if you’re a designer. If you’re a marketing hack, you’ll get the leftovers. Congratulations.
I think it’d be very interesting to hear Alex Bogusky weigh in on the recent actions of his slew of interns.
After all, Mr. Bogusky, the son of talented designers, was first educated, trained, and employed as a graphic designer before ascending to the Crispin Porter throne.
Just two quick thoughts here in regards to this comment:
“But we’re not the only ones. Architects, filmmakers, and writers all create some form of content for free in the hopes of winning an assignment. ”
A few points about this that I think are worth mentioning.
(1) The math in these situations does not work the same. The payoffs are different by an order of magnitude. When an Ad agency or Architect spends a few days or weeks on a spec pitch, they are working towards the potential of tens, hundreds, or millions of dollars worth of work. This kind of payoff makes it worth the effort. Logo jobs simply don’t pay this much unless you’re one of a small handful of shops in the word, which is irrelevant to this conversation anyway since sites like Crowdspring work specifically with individual designers. So if we keep the conversation confined to that audience, a single designer who spends half a day on a spec logo has just cut a significant percentage out of his billable hours for the week. For the average designer, a logo job will pay between 1-20k. Spending a good chunk of time on something that may not even pay, let alone doesn’t pay all that well, is simply not a good use of their time.
(2) When a designer works through Crowdspring, the spec work is the deliverable. These are not sketches (even if the agency or client chooses to treat them that way), these designs are the end of the road for that designer. Crowdspring doesn’t position itself as a service which brings designers together with agencies for big jobs and month’s worth of work, they facilitate the delivery of a huge number of options for very little money (36,000 designers? Just for me? Wow!). So to compare this situation to an Agency’s method of using spec work to gain a client which will fund their firm’s existence for a good handful of time is disingenuous.
Would Mullen be doing spec work for clients if it paid a fraction of what the concepts were worth, and there was no potential for work beyond the pittance that you were given for that spec, assuming it was even chosen from amongst the other 50 agencies submitting? No, of course not, that would be horrible business.
As an aside, as a designer, Crowdsourcing doesn’t threaten me. I welcome the evolution of the technology, and I trust that at some point down the line, the market will equalize and resources like Crowdspring will be recognized for what they are. A cheap way to get cheap work. Which, in the end, is the real reason designer’s shouldn’t be so up-in-arms about the service. A good logo takes a ton of hard work, and in the end it’s worth it because the results are spectacular and your client’s product benefits from it and etc etc. Designers who spend anywhere from 10 minutes to a few hours competing on Crowdspring are not going to be delivering the kind of work that your portfolio should be competing with. It simply doesn’t work that way (unless you’re Paula Scher and have been designing excellent work for 30 years.) If a potential client looks at your portfolio and sees Crowdspring as a healthy alternative, then you need to consider working harder or finding a new trade, or, of course, joining the crowd.
Amen, Ben. This is one of the best replies, in my opinion. I like the idea of ‘crowdsourcing’ just another label for brainstorming session. $1000 for a logo design… for me that would be about $5-$7/hour.
Someone brought up the Tribune Tower architectural competition as an example of crowdsourcing. I totally disagree with this comparison mainly because at that time Chicago was the architectural epicenter of the world and it was handle more like a RFP with a very handsome prize.
Ben:
See my comment to Nostrodamus. You are right, a logo banged out in half an hour or half a day is not the same as a logo crafted and thought about and delivered in light of dozens of alternatives considered. I have sat through many of those presentations from the best logo companies in the world. I know what it takes to create a mark that captures a brand vision, connects with an audience, stands the test of time and distinguishes the brand. But if a brand won’t get that from a few semi pros, pros or amateurs on crowdSpring, whose fault is that? It’s the fault of either the client for not seeing the value of a great mark, or of the design industry for not inspiring people to see the value. But when all anyone does is complain and or demand (not saying you are doing this) they sound like a bunch of whiners. Even if they are partly right. It is a buyer’s market, is it not?
Secondly, on the agency pitch scenario you laid out, you’re only half right. The typical pitch these days for an account of siginifcance costs an agency between a quarter and half a million in time, talent, and OOP. Sometimes takes four to six months to recoup. And that’s only if it wins, something that happens for the best agencies only one of of four or five times. So in the very worst scenario, as in losing five or six times in a row (not impossible in a day when clients source up to 20 agencies in a full blown pitch) you could, essentially, give away a year of time and effort to secure a piece of business, not the half a day a designer has to sacrifice.
“But if a brand won’t get that from a few semi pros, pros or amateurs on crowdSpring, whose fault is that? It’s the fault of either the client for not seeing the value of a great mark, or of the design industry for not inspiring people to see the value.”
I don’t follow. It absolutely is the fault of the crowdsourcing system. The very nature of the service makes it a gamble for your time. Win or lose, you have to plan ahead for minimizing your loses by not spending a lot of time on the work. As you’ve stated, you know how much effort goes into a good logo. Are you expecting that designers put multiples of days worth of work into a quality design, when the odds are against them for getting a return on their investment?
If a designer hopes to make any money off a crowdsourcing business model, they have to shotgun the system. Get your work in as many places as possible as quickly as possible. Even in a situation where a client offered a decent payoff through Crowdspring, say $10,000, the response would be so overwhelming that your odds of winning would be driven even further down and you’d still be forced to spend a minimal amount of time on the work.
Obviously, this is not conducive to quality design or results for anyone, and it has nothing to do with the client or the industry’s inability to “inspire people to see the value.”
Ben – you are of course correct that some designers will evaluate the risk/reward ratio and spend as little time as possible on their designs. We’ve found that those designers tend to not do particularly well – and even if they have some short term gains, they tend not to improve over the long term.
As for quality – the feedback we’ve received from people who’ve paid tens of thousands of dollars for the same services is the exact opposite – that they are impressed WITH the quality of the work. There are plenty of exceptions – and plenty of bad design too – but that’s true everywhere, not just online.
We celebrate entrepreneurs who take risks with startups. Why not also celebrate people who want to create – who take risks that they might not get paid but who welcome the opportunity to prove that they are talented?
And incidentally – those designers who take such huge risks with their time — you’ll notice they don’t spend a ton of time talking about the issue in blogs or on Twitter. That’s because they’re letting their work speak for them. crowdSPRING has paid millions of dollars to those designers in a little over a year. For them – it’s a gamble they clearly feel is worth taking.
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..Community corrosive
Ben, he’s saying it’s designers fault that people can’t see the value of good vs. poor design.
I wonder who’s fault it is that Edward cannot see the difference between right vs. wrong.
crowdSourcing is exploitive and its effects are not limited to a single website (crowdSPRING), it hurts an entire industry.
I appreciate both sides of the argument, I really do. And I respect your opinion and you make “some”good points. But again, does crowdsourcing exist because of the technology or the sites?this Or because people want to participate? Do you propose telling clients, large and small, that they can’t or shouldn’t do things this way because there are designers who don’t want them to? Why not get all designers everywhere to refuse to participate? Are you getting less business because of crowdsourcing? Have clients that value what you do started to show up and say, farewell, we’re off to crowdsource? And finally, it’s a free country. People will do it if they want, or choose not to.
Nothing has really changed, Edward. The clients are still cheap bastards. Terrible business practices like this have existed long before anyone uttered the phrase crowdsourcing. For ages, companies have tried to get designers to work for free or for pennies using the lure of “exposure” and the promise of “future opportunities.”
“Just think of how much exposure you’ll get by doing this project! We’ll add a link on our website to your portfolio.”
“If you can do this project for [$xx] there will be more work in the future.”
Or, one that really takes the cake
“We’ll make you a business partner and give you a percent of the profits.”
Every designer has a horror story about dealing with these insulting practices. Insulting because we know these promises never pan out. Most designers get burned a few times dealing with such a client before they learn better.
But what CrowdSpring does is put these insulting practices on steroids. And then marketing hacks rally around them under the guise of “new” and “progressive.” As if crowdsourcing is noteworthy and noble simply because it’s on the internet.
Maybe you are right. But perhaps it’s too soon to tell. I’ve lived through a lot of upheavals. I remember the day that every art director and designer resisted vehemently the arrival of computers and the end of the drafting board and t-square. So I’m going to do three things. 1. stay open minded. 2. experiment. 3. do my best to treat everyone fairly and get my clients to do the same.
And though it’s painful to to admit (which is why we use thrilling euphemisms like “creative destruction” or “digital darwinism” technological advances often put entire careers out to pasture, from brougham builders to letterpress printers. I’m doing a broader project exploring the impact of technology on the creative process (from poets to filmmakers to producers) and so far I’m finding just what I see here. Designers (or at least graphic designers) are the most troubled by and critical of these developments, while poets and TV producers (for very different reasons) seem to be stimulated by what’s happening.
Scott Karambis´s last blog ..Webinar hell or some elements of a good class I wish were in more them
The agency I CD at has some of the most brilliant designers I’ve ever seen. (No thanks to me; I come from the copywriting side.)
But they don’t arrive “brilliant.” They arrive as promising juniors.
They only way they become amazing is through constant, thoughtful feedback from our more seasoned designers and CDs. A swing and a miss, day after day after day.
Sure, there is friendly competition within our agency for the best logo, the nicest graphic identity, etc. for a client.
But over time, I suspect the constant, valuable, day-after-day feedback those designers receive from their seasoned senior coworkers will make their talents grow exponentially faster than an occasional atta-boy from a nameless figure on the web.
What makes them valuable to us, and us valuable to them, is our mutual commitment to grow one another. Over time, you learn an individual designer’s (or writer’s) strengths and personality, and you get a sense of which projects they’ll be best for.
I recognize the potential power of crowdsourcing. But I also see some real pitfalls. When everything’s starting over, every time, with a fresh brief, a new client and a blank sheet of paper, all institutional memory and knowledge disappear.
You can’t take what you learned on the Dunkin’ Donuts door display project and apply it to Kenny Rogers Roasters. (Wait, are any of those still around? Anyway…)
I’m sure someone will be quick to offer another perspective, but at least to me, it seems like everybody’s starting over from scratch, every time. Crowdsourcing is like the movie “Groundhog Day,” except without Bill Murray and therefore not as funny.
I think Bill Murray went downhill totally after SNL. GHD was a mediocre movie at best. As for training designers, agree that’s the ideal approach and your agency is doing it right. This has a been a great dialogue, and holy cow, it’s an emotional subject. So for me anyway, it’s been useful. I’ve learned some alternative perspectives, become aware of certain sensitivities and will have them in mind when working with clients in this space. However, I will tell you that this is not going away. Just like free news is not going away (despite newspapers new efforts and behind the scenes determination to charge for content.) Just like ESPN will lose all of its audience to the NFL channel and MLB and NHL. Just like cable tv will lose out to Boxee or someone else. Change is change and you can’t stop it. The internet is barely 14 years old as we know it and this stuff, crowdsourcing, etc. is just the beginning.
Stephen,
I was totally with you until your Bill Murray/Groundhog Day analogy. Groundhog Day, is more akin to educating a designer rather than starting from scratch every time. Even though the days starts anew with everyone else, Murray carries forward his experience from previous “Days”. Every day, as you will recall, keeps getting closer to his perfect day-albeit with a few pitfalls along the way. (e.g. Using the pick-up truck to kidnap the Groundhog). Doesn’t that sound like the arc of most careers?
Edward-while I agree with your “can’t stop progress” argument, I think you are totally off the mark with your analysis of Bill Murray’s career arc. Who has had a longer and more successful post-SNL career than Bill Murray? For example:
Caddyshack-Go to the AT&T at Pebble Beach and watch the thousands of people follow Murray around the course screaming lines from the movie… “Cinderella Story!” “It’s in the Hole!” and tell me that movie has not entered the lexicon of pop culture like few others. As Jeff Lebowski said “Obviously you’re not a golfer…”
Groundhog Day-really a brilliant mediation on making a movie-after all what is each day but a series of ‘takes’ trying to get the scene perfect? Harold Ramis is the Preston Sturges of our time.
Lost in Translation-Laura Linney, Paul Giamatti, Liam Neeson… when they appear in a movie with Scarlett Johansson their thespian skills simply remind me that she can’t act. Bill Murray, at the very least, made me forget that. Which is the more notable achievement?
arb:
Groundhog Day is brilliant, Ramis’ best movie as well, although I have a soft spot for Club Paradise, just because Peter O’Toole is so obviously wasted throughout the entire shoot.
OK, you win. Don’t want to argue about Bill Murray. You can all have the Bill Murray argument.
Crowdsourcing (like super-open collabs and brainstorming) is well-loved by people who have trouble coming with their own ideas and standing behind them.
While all those practices are sometimes helpful, they’re usually not, and hinder the real process.
“Crowdsourcing (like super-open collabs and brainstorming) is well-loved by people who have trouble coming with their own ideas and standing behind them.”
I just have to say that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Great ideas even those that originate from a single mind require others to make them better or execute against. One of the most powerful movements at the moment is the ability for anyone, I repeat anyone to make their mark if they really want it. I see proof of this every day. I actually am proof of this.
We can say we don’t like crowsourcing, spec or whatever we want to call it but it’s not going away. I’d recommend that everyone’s energies go into making it work for themselves, their business and society in general.
My 2 cents.
David:
Thank you! A voice of reason!. I have tried to stay somewhat diplomatic. Today I saw some amazing crowdsourcing concepts that are not design competitions for a project we are working on. Brilliant. They involve the consumer, allow them to co-create with us, involve the crowd in decision making, etc. Also, last night had dinner with Vay-ner-chuk. He knows as we all should that the world is changing. No one is safe. We all have to adapt. We don’t need intermediaries. Content creators are on their own. Brands will not pay for stuff they don’t need. Anyone who perpetuates what has been rather than invent what will be dies. My 2 cents. Thanks. Can’t believe you read through this stuff.
David – well said. There’s a great quote from Maya Angelou along the same theme: “”If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude. Don’t complain.”"
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..Community corrosive
Are you kidding me? Go watch that new film, Art & Copy.
There were many great ideas, years ago, mostly by single minds or a small team that didn’t ‘need’ to be made better by the hundreds of talking heads/critics/makers-of-nothing-adder-oners-of-everything that we have today.
Sorry, but it’s true. Maybe one talented director, or key programmer, or amazing performer, yeah then let’s collaborate and ‘build.’ But a committee of twittering bloggers who share links and read the same innovation books?
Spare me.
Art and copy is great. But those guys are old and the past. And guess what, if they were around today, they’d be the ones pioneering creativity in the new spaces and probably inventing and starting the crowdsourding companies. They weren’t fools. They knew how to get attention, be remembered, drive results. There’s a new way to do that, my friend.
Oh by the way, the one guy who actually gets this stuff (he doesn’t talk about, just does it) is Alex. He’s not in A&C but deserves to be. I can only guess that the creators of the film are at worst jealous and at best convinced he doesn’t need the publicity.
Edward,
I’ve used logotournament.com a number of times. I write a detailed brief and I reap the benefits. Recently, for $500, I received over 70 entries, 25 of which were excellent and presented to the client as a starting point. For some projects, logos in particular, having many options is desirable. Try getting that many out of a single designer or two without spending a fortune.
It’s a great concept… I have an entire design community at my fingertips. And judging by their won/lost/win records, many of the participants are making good money at this.
Best,
John
John Mathes´s last blog ..Why Kodak Is Using DRTV in Addition to Brand Advertising
As noted earlier, I had dinner last night with Gary Vaynerchuk. If you listen to Gary everything, as in everything, is going to change. Had drinks with MC Hammer. If you listen to MC, everything, as in everything is going to change. Doesn’t matter what kind of content creation you are in — design, advertising, music, movies — the old rules are out. Everyone, myself included, better figure out how to succeed and prosper in the new era. You can either write new rules or live by those getting written by the ones who get there first.
One beautiful example of crowdsourcing done right is Threadless. Their website sells t-shirt designs that are created and voted on by the Threadless community. The site itself fosters the community by creating the structure for idea submission, judgment and ultimately compensation. Designers earn money when their idea is picked, if it sells and if it becomes other Threadless items like limited edition prints or wall clings.
It’s quite a fine example of crowdsourcing at its best and most successful. Threadless has also figured out how big a carrot to use so designers participate and keep participating.
http://www.threadless.com
Eamon,
And Threadless was created by a designer, Jeffrey Kalmikoff. I believe he has the interest of the creator, the community and the sourcer (in this case him) at heart. Never played there, but it seems to be working. I better write a new post soon so we can all talk about something else.
Edward – Jeffrey came on board several years after Threadless started, but until he left last week, he made a HUGE contribution to who Threadless is and to their entire community. They’re a Chicago company – and I have huge respect for the people, their community, and for what they do.
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..Community corrosive
Eamon – I’m curious, since you’ve said that Threadless is a good example of crowdsourcing done right (I agree with you!) – what role do you believe compensation plays in their success? And when you refer to the “big carrot” in the last paragraph, what do you mean?
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..Community corrosive
Don’t the designers own the designs at threadless and work on a license type of deal? if so, it’s not the same as the CP&B thing.
Yes, I believe they still own the license to their design, and this is different for sure. But I haven’t ready about any of them selling the designs to others – so the discussion still centers on the compensation they receive (I believe these days, its $2000 plus a $500 gift certificate if their design is chosen).
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..Community corrosive
[...] to some and immature frat boy leader to others, got a nice little feel good pat on the back from Edward Boches. Why do I say “feel good pat on the back?” Well, Alex’s tweet earlier today [...]
Edward, great article. You’ve obviously touched a nerve judging from the engaged discussion in the comments section. With the hope of not being redundant, two things jump out at me with this discussion:
1) The younger, less experienced you are, the more you have to do things for free. It’s the same in every creative venue I’ve seen, from film to journalism to advertising. Most budding film makers, from writers to directors to dolly grips, all work on a lot of no-budget pictures on their way up. The more established you are, the more you want to get paid for what you do. No one is asking Charlie Kaufman to spec a treatment. They pay him for it. Established agencies feel they’ve paid their dues and deserve better treatment. Younger designers and copywriters shouldn’t feel so entitled.
2. Crowdsourcing is great for agencies and brands if for no other reason then to see a lot of new and different ideas. It doesn’t mean they all have to be good; most of them won’t be. But marketing departments and their agency counterparts can suffer from “blinder-syndrome”: they’re used to doing things a certain way, even in how they harness creativity. Outside voices are always good, since they challenge the status quo. If there’s a nugget of gold in the crowdsourcing all the better, if not, there’s not much risk to it.
One thing I’ve always been in the habit of doing is presenting my ideas to people who have nothing to do with what I do. It’s not crowdsourcing per se, but that perspective always makes the idea better.
Can’t wait to see what you guys do with LendingTree.
Rich Nadworny´s last blog ..Ads are like hookups; Social Media is like dating
I really like your approach. Especially 2. As for LT, doing it through a company called Tongal, which has a good approach. But, from what I know so far, the participation is rather limited. Raises a whole other point: crowdsourcing is only as good as the crowd.
Edward – I propose a small correction to your last phrase – “crowdsourcing is only as good as the crowd.” For mechanical-type tasks (Amazon’s mechanical turk) – that statement is spot on. But for other things, it’s important to have a community, not merely a crowd. A large group of people is a crowd – but not every crowd is a community.
The reason Threadless succeeds isn’t because they have a large group of people – they succeed because they have a great community. Same for iStockphoto, Etsy, and we feel, crowdSPRING (there are many more examples).
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..Community corrosive
Yes, the actor thing got us off topic. But no one really addressed the underlying point I was trying to make. Without the benefit of daily experience and an ongoing relationship, you’re constantly rebriefing a bunch of strangers, the unfamiliar masses with every aspect of your brand, again and again, and that represents a significant investment of time on someone’s part.
Stephen:
You raise a very good point and one I’ve talked about before: you have to be a brilliant client and curator to use crowdsourcing effectively. You have to create the right brief, source from the right crowd, know exactly how to involve them and reward them, and be confident in your decision if you choose to make it yourself. No one said this is all figured out yet, but it will be.
Edward, let’s pose a scenario here.
You decide it’s time to leave Mullen and Crispin has an opening. You go. You interview. You sell yourself based on your past achievements. And then they say:
“Edward, thanks for applying. What we’d like you to do is come work for us for free for a month. If we like what you do better than the 5,000 other people who are doing the same thing, we’ll hire you for 1/10th your normal salary. If you’re not #1, you get nothing for your month of work.”
Would you accept those terms in a million years? But that’s exactly what crowdsourcing’s terms are.
I’m not against using technology to find better solutions for my clients. I’m against ridiculously unfair business practices that prey on people desperate for work in this economy. Not sure how you can justify that.
We do it every day. It’s called a new business pitch. Work for us for a month, pitch your ideas, there’s a one in 20 chance you’ll win, but an upside if you do. But seriously, if it was I wanted to do, what I loved to do, and there were no other options to make a living, because that’s how things worked, what choice would I have? I could do it or find something else to do.
Hey Matt, you’ve described an unusual hiring practice. One that Seth Godin is actually proposing, instead of the broken down way we usually hire people.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/08/two-ways-to-hire-and-a-wrong-way.html
Caveats. Crowdsourcing can be a very useful tool to get lots of ideas quickly. Crowdsourcing allows deeper ownership among consumers of their favorite brand. Crowdsourcing will be a big part of our future and learning to harness it effectively will be a necessary skill in the agency quiver. Kudos to Mullen for leading the charge.
That said, crowdsourcing is obviously exploitive. The agency involved asks huge numbers of people to spend untold numbers of hours concepting and executing an idea (in this case a logo) for FREE.
The people rejected are never compensated for their effort. They are exploited. Of course, they might be receiving the true value of their ideas.
But let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Let’s say clients treat agencies the same way where they only pay when they buy an idea. All other thinking is free.
Better yet, what if clients let all agencies who wish to work on their business do so without compensation until an idea is bought. All campaigns are spec pitches all the time. It’s exploitive.
With regard to architects, writers and screenwriters, they own their work. A spec screenplay needs to be purchased and then a payment is made when the movie is produced, the writer takes a cut of profits and is paid residuals forever. Clients license an architects design.
Not so in our business. Now, if CP&B said we’ll give everyone who enters $5 but the person who wins will get a nickel every time the logo is reprinted on anything, forever, that might be a deal.
Think of the girl who designed the Nike logo for $200. If you were to buy Nike, a large portion of the cost would be that logo. She got exploited and the winner of the contest will get exploited because the compensation is not fair market value.
So it’s exploitive. Especially when CP&B will make lots of money for having the idea to ask people to have an idea for them.
But wait, aren’t they the clearinghouse, arbiters, the one’s with taste? Why? Why not crowdsource the creative direction and the judgement?
So it’s exploitive and undermines the agencies claim to expertise. A focus group is useful but you don’t want them making all brand decisions do you?
So I think crowdsourcing is a legitimate tool, but I worry about its long term consequences and usefulness. And I sympathize with the designers who went to school, who trained, who are now being cast aside.
So to paraphrase Warhol, in the future everyone will design a logo.
Edward, I guess your previous post about debating sank in.
“Edward, I guess your previous post about debating sank in.”
Guess so.
You’re supposed to be the experts. It’s cool that you want consumers to have a role in the brand, but they aren’t the experts that were hired to do the job based on their expertise. Pawning off the work on the public says you can’t do the work, or at least aren’t capable of doing it any better than anyone else. Even if that’s not the stated reason, that’s still the message that comes across.
That’s not necessarily true. Even brands and companies who can do allow others to participate because they want to. We can all agree there are right ways and wrong ways to do this. Those who want to participate do, those who don’t don’t. A year from now, these conversations will be moot. CS will be the new normal.
Edward, if there’s one thing advertising people bitch about more than crowdsourcing, it’s the broken pitch process. So I don’t think citing that really helps your argument.
Rich, Godin’s proposal is spot on. However he doesn’t propose to try people out for free. It’s one thing if getting experience outweighs getting paid (as in an internship). But asking experienced people to work for free is just wrong.
What would happen if you went into a restaurant and said “I’d like you to cook a bunch of meals for me and if I like one, then I’ll pay for it.”? Or “I’m going to bet money on 25 differ Roulette numbers but I’ll only give up my chips if I win.”?
For what it’s worth, Jeffrey Kalmikoff did not start Threadless. He was brought in as a designer by the Jakes, then later moved on to become the CCO and partial owner.
The thing is, Crispin will make WAAAAaaaaYYYYY more than $1,000 on the logo. Plus it’s publicity as you say. So it’s not that designers are special, it’s that in this case (and probably alot more to come) they are being taken advantage of. Being paid what something is worth…that’s what any professional community should expect and should deserve. Genie is out of the bottle. Cue the chaos.
Michael Ancevic´s last blog ..The thousand days of pain
that was my point. the designers are being exploited because they are either not being compensated at all or fairly. Bogusky will make twice as much going to the meeting that sells the free logo and the designer is not getting a job at Crispin I would bet.
Good post with good points… but why the assumption that crowdsourcing has to be cheap, as far as a winner goes?
Not my assumption. Other than the market will determine prices and it’s a buyer’s market apparently. I’m a believer in fair.
Because otherwise they’d be calling it a new business pitch.
Good Points, Steven… Although we need to remember you can’t pour ‘joy’ over the Kid’s Cornflakes in the morning.
Among other things I wonder about traffic. I’d never herd of Brammo. You? I went to their site. I know more now than before.
The compete data is interesting to me on this issue of crowdsourcing. Sure it’s a guess on traffic but still, all the numbers before last month were a guess too. Traffic is noticeably up. Chart here: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/brammo.com/
150% increase shown across 3mo on Alexa.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/brammo.com
Yet, Spyfu shows a key words buy too. So, who knows. Right? http://spyfu.com/Domain.aspx?d=-7233608955058427373
Interesting on so many levels.
Joseph Rueter´s last blog ..Marketing as Service: Wifi & Power
This may come off as hopelessly idealistic, but I’ve always believed my paycheck has precious little to do with my real compensation in advertising.
Someone told me a long time ago that your book is your only real compensation.
I have another way of looking at it. For me, my real “income” in this business is joy.
In fact, you could argue that the most important ingredient in this business is joy. It’s contagious. It creates synergism. It makes good work better.
For me, the rewards of advertising are:
- pride in something I’ve created
- the respect and acclaim of my peers, inside and outside of award shows
- a deep sense of community with like-minded souls
- the fun and pleasure of it all
- being able to eat
As people develop crowdsourcing models, they’re going to have to figure out the “joy” compensation at least as much as the dollar amounts.
“Whoohoo! I and 367 others helped design the new Bank of America checking pocket insert! Now, which 367th do I put in my book?”
This business is starting to become pretty damn unfun already, and a Tab A/Slot B mentality has the potential to bleed it of further joy.
Sure, it’s a buyer’s market. But abuse the sellers enough and the good ones will go sell something else. Clients and agencies have every right to go down this road – and talented individuals have every right to say, “why in the world would I want to do that? I’m going to go into video games.”
Unless you can somehow maintain or even increase the joy factor, the result may be a further bleeding of top talent from our business.
But that’s okay, because maybe the second tier talent will do just fine. After all, we got it the logo for $1000!
None of us are smarter or more creative than all of us.
Increasingly, what will separate brilliant amateurs from well-paid professionals is the ability to spot brilliance AND harness it to drive business results.
Creative skills alone are no longer enough.
Tom Cunniff´s last blog ..What If Your CEO Is Right To Be Afraid Of Social Media? (Part Two)
Tom:
Watch. The new gig inside agencies will be “curator” or “director of crowdsourcing.”
Edward
You’re probably right on this since you are the guy who can create the position but it is a creative position or a project management position? If you can crowdsource concepts, why can’t you crowdsource creative direction?
IMO, it’s still a creative job. The “curator” needs to know how to spot a promising idea and make it fit the client’s needs without screwing up what made it a great idea in the first place.
Tom Cunniff´s last blog ..What If Your CEO Is Right To Be Afraid Of Social Media? (Part Two)
They have a saying in golf architecture-ODG “Old Dead Guys” and it is used mainly to describe how people like Tom Doak (Pacific Dunes) and Ben Crenshaw (Sand Hills) have taken the lessons of Donald Ross (Pinehurst) and Alister Mackenzie (Augusta National) and reinterpreted them with benefits of today’s knowledge and technology. How much credit they get depends on how much they have added to the original concept of letting the land dictate the challenge of the golf course. No-one, of course, can ask Ross or Mackenzie how well today’s group have succeeded.
Given the short history lens of the ad business some of our pioneers are still around to be asked what they think of today’s creativity-e.g. Art & Copy.
One person not available for comment is Howard Gossage, who is Jeff Goodby’s idol. In reality, he is the person who developed crowdsourcing (at least as it applies to this business). What is the paper plane contest he developed for Scientific American? Just a much more clever idea to shine attention on a brand than the same tired “design our logo” idea CP+B is out there flogging for their electric bike client.
What is “win a Kangaroo” other than a contest idea to promote Australian Tourism that predates this year’s “Best Job in the World” Cannes winner by over 4 decades. One can only imagine what a mind like that would be doing with today’s enabling technology. I have a feeling he wouldn’t be asking Microsoft users to name their new operating system or design their start-up screen.
Edward, your point about the greats of the business being the pioneers in both concepts AND the creative process is well taken. It’s important to remember that some of them were already doing what is being discussed in this thread-engaging customers with a brand without getting them to do work for free–almost 50 years ago. The technology available today has simply made it easier for even the lazy mind to conceive of “crowdsourcing” ideas that often seem like a pale copy of what has come before.
That said-CP+B’s “Lose 10 Facebook friends. Get a free Whopper.” idea was genius. Not crowdsourcing, but a perfectly timed leveraging of social media tools to get attention for your client’s brand.
Maybe we should start up an annual Gossage Awards for co-creation ideas. Especially since the Titanium Lion committee seems to issue a two-page Press Release every year trying to identify exactly what it is they’re looking for…
Actually it was crowdsourcing. Any great viral meme that builds into something big because of the crowd is CS. Creating something great via the small contributions of the individual is CS. This stream is too focused on design competitions, perhaps my fault due to the post. But if you read and explore other things that I’ve been talking about, or John Winsor at CP&B, or Ben Malbon at BBH Labs, we’re attempting to inspire much more exciting projects and possibilities.
I LOVE the idea of a Gossage Award. Nice one.
OK. Let’s start it.
Edward/Rob,
Thanks for the boost.
OK. Crowdspring, FLICKR, Threadless and few other likely suspects to sponsor it. (I have a contact at Nokia very much into co-creation who could probably have his arm twisted.)
Jeff Goodby chairman of judging for the first year. But the judging is ‘American Idol’ style. The panel ‘curates’ them down to the finalists for each category (somewhere between 3-5) and voting then takes place through the competition sponsors websites. (One vote per customer).
Awards ceremony live streamed. Winners accept via webcam (or whatever other method they choose). That’s it for me at the moment. I have a proposal to finish–which includes a really neat co-creation idea!
arb:
Cool, but let’s not do competition crowdsourcing, something more in the co-creation arena.
Anthony:
True on all accounts. This isn’t new. (Think Zagat’s, anthologies, church cookbooks, etc.) It’s not new to our business either, as you point out. I’m not arguing in favor of design contests for no money. Simply that a. crowdsourcing thanks to technology affords us all kinds of opportunities other than contests. b. in places like design, yes there is disruption. Stop fighting and use some martial arts to turn the changes to one’s advantage.
Edward,
If you are serious about the awards, the act of defining the categories of competition would provide a good opportunity to define the terms of what is completely new niche of the advertising and communications business.
BTW-Should we accept Wikipedia as the ultimate authority on the definition of crowdsourcing? At the moment, they define it as “a task traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people”. From that definition, a logo competition is 100% a crowdsourcing activity.
Unless you defined the Burger King job as “can someone here at CP+B hack into 2 million Facebook accounts and dump 10 friends from each” is it crowdsourcing according to Wikipedia?
The other definition of crowsourcing on Wikipedia; “Crowdsourcing is a distributed problem-solving and production model. Problems are broadcast to an unknown group of solvers in the form of an open call for solutions. Users–also known as the crowd–typically form into online communities, and the crowd submits solutions”.
When Facebook users dump 10 friends to get a Whopper are they submitting a solution or simply helping to execute one that has already been defined? I would humbly submit they are helping CP+B and BK achieve their marketing goal, not performing an employee task. Then again, most employees and employee tasks are focused on executing previously decided strategies, so who knows?
Edward,
I hope it comes across that I am also a believer in co-creation. I also agree with your viewpoint that crowdsourcing has so much more potential than simply using it as a cattle-call for a design contest… the last thing we need it for is to enable a race to the bottom for the skills many here have spent a entire career developing. In fact, we need it more for the tasks that many organizations would find impossible to do within their own four walls.
We use eLance to locate particular skill sets that neither I or my partner possess. At our budget levels, our clients are fairly keen on embracing WordPress as a total content management solution once they get an inkling of its capabilities. Very quickly, a niche industry of people who can incorporate functionality into your UI designs and make your WordPress site look and act like so much more than a blog has been created. It would not be possible to accommodate our clients’ requests without these peoples’ talents.
Considering the modest budgets and the fact each third party expense cuts into my margins, it would be tempting to conduct some kind of competition to gather ideas, designs or the like for my clients, since I am reasonably confident of my ‘curatorial’ abilities. It would be hypocritical-and shortsighted-to devalue a skill that I want my clients to appreciate and pay for when I provide it to them.
arb:
Brainstorm + Focus Group = Crowd-Sourcing.
Is crowdsourcing the point or is the Brammo logo the point. It seems to me Crispin is getting kudos for the method by which they get to a logo, we used to be concerned with the quality of the logo.
If the logo sucks or is pedestrian does that matter?
Paul,
It doesn’t necessarily matter. If the logo was great, then that’s a huge plus. What matters is the “theater of creation” and that’s why traffic went up on Brammo’s site and why we’re all talking about Brammo, a company we all seemingly never heard of before this happened, suddenly they are relevant. So, did it work? I believe that for the time being, the process is more important than the output. eventually as the process becomes mroe refined, so will the output.
Yes, the process and the “theater of creation” are wildly effective – for exactly long as this is novel and interesting. Which by my calculation, was approximately twenty posts ago.
Let’s say that Euro RSCG crowdsources a logo for a cruise ship line next week and the prize is, say, $1200.
What’s that sound? I believe it’s crickets.
AgencySpy and Adweak would pound them mercilessly. They would be accused of the worst sort of me-too marketing. Already the whole thing is slightly more tired and less capable of creating buzz.
Right, because it was novel the first time.
So what do you do to make it interesting next time? Limit the entrants to chimpanzees? Meth addicts? Make the contest last 37 minutes? Only allow them to design in the dark?
It will not take long for the contest shtick to become tiresome.
Please understand: I totally get, value, and am excited about the prospect of involving thousands or millions of people in your brand. And the possibility that crowdsourcing might yield unexpected, smarter solutions for us all. That part, I buy into.
The part about the process itself creating excitement around your brand? That’s where I see it as having a stunningly short half-life.
When the third snowboard maker or the sixth candy company does this, will anyone care?
116+ comments. Looks like CP+B got what they wanted by crowdsourcing.
Stephen,
Thanks for the laugh. I think you encapsulated the thought that’s been swirling around the last 20 posts here (hope you weren’t too bored). Crowdsourcing, when it’s simply to outsource creative work in the form of a contest, has a very short-shelf life.
I think Edward said something about “a camera does not make you a photographer,Photoshop does not make you a designer…”. In the same vein a presence on Facebook, Twitter, CrowdSPRING, or operating your own blog does not make you a social media guru. It’s just another communications tool to further involve people in the messages of your brand, specifically to foster engagement, interactions and activities that would have been impossible or cost-prohibitive up until this point.
arb:
So, ten years from now, if this all keeps going the way it’s going, what kind of person will want to go into design? The ones without talent. If you’re good, you deserved to be paid more than a thousand bucks. Alex Bogusky is a very handsome, very hip, very smart, ethically-challenged snake oil salesman.
I’m about to do an interview with zooppa.com, and I find myself completely torn on this whole issue. Engaging your audience to chart the course of your organization? Yes. Participation in the most fundamental levels of your brand? Absolutely. But, as Edward said, to turn every assignment into a knock-down, drag out competition reeks of what ad people despise most: thankless new business pitches where you spend countless hours and dollars and guts on work that has very little likelihood of seeing daylight.
There’s no doubt that crowdsourcing is here, the way “free” is here and “Twitter” is here. But none of them have reached maturity yet. Nor, I hope, has crowdsourcing.
Why not take the basics of the crowdsourcing principle – audience participation – and improve upon it. What don’t Brammo and the like offer $1000 to, say, 20 designers, then give the “winner” a much bigger reward.
As a budding entrepreneur, I see the value of crowdsourcing. As a creative, I get a pit in my stomach when I consider its many flaws.
Erik Proulx´s last blog ..Happy Employment New Year
And Erik, isn’t part of what makes your site special the sense of loyalty it engenders? There’s a sense of trust and community and an expectation that you’ll all help each other out?
As crowdsourcing and its cousins mature and multiply, part of what I suspect will happen is that all voices will not be equally respected, and all opportunities will not be equally valued.
What if I were given an choice to crowdsource my logo to 20 designers who each were guaranteed to have earned at least One Show Design pencil, as opposed to 200 with no guarantee of quality or credibility? Would I pay more for the former? You bet I would.
Forgive the cheesy analogy, but maybe it’ll be like getting a haircut in some places, where you can choose a stylist or a Master Stylist. In either case you leave with less hair, but sometimes the difference is worth a premium.
[...] lots of blogs that tackled the subject – Creativity Unbound (pro), Fast Company (not so much) to name two – but now CP+B’s Alex Bogusky has weighed [...]
When an artist uses her craft and creates a design through many layers of technique and thought, she is damn sure every element follows a path to excellence. She has seen how a layer of craft slightly off key, in color, composition, light or texture can wreck the job.
This attention to detail comes from study, failure and PRACTICE.
Maybe we can’t discern that beauty as well today as we used to, when a careless drop of ink could ruin an illustration. Or when we had to wait and see film after the models were long gone.
We don’t see much fine design in the mainstream today. It’s far too dear. It’s slow, expensive, and measured, and while you don’t need to chop off an ear to do it today, it’s not EASY.
Throwing crap on the wall won’t create the sublime- But it might fit the bill.
Let’s get this great hoard of mercenaries to design our bridges, dams and government.
SOLD!
Gene:
I hope they don’t do the bridges, dams or tunnels. But I fear they are already running the government. Your metaphor is flawed. Bad logos might assault our senses but they won’t threaten our lives. And guess what, people don’t want to do business with companies anymore anyway. They want to do business with people. Logos matter less, not to you or to me, but to the consumer. Oh by the way, I agonize over design. I have great designers working for me and we tweak the shit out of everything when we do it for ourselves. Probably a stupid unnecessary thing to do. Most clients don’t want to pay for the time when it’s their work. We still do it for ourselves out of pride of craft. Who is right? The designer or the market?
My very first art director partner, Ben Niles, left advertising and went on to NY to become a documentary film maker.
His film, “Note By Note: the making of Steinway L1037″ premiered on PBS last night.
http://www.pbs.org/notebynote/
It explores the extraordinary detail and individual personalities that go into something truly handmade and original, rather than mass-produced.
It’s well worth viewing as we assess the value of painstaking individual craftsmanship vs. acceptable machine-built engineering.
Note By Note explores the alchemy which happens when a group of individuals work together for decades side by side, passing on their craft to the next generation.
There used to be over 1000 piano makers in the US. Now there are but a handful. But for the people who still value a Steinway, there’s simply no substitute. Literally no two are the same.
Crowdsourcing will create excellent Yamahas. But it will never create a Steinway.
Stephen:
I have furniture that is one of a kind. Custom built by a great furniture maker, Henry Fox. It is a joy to behold. And I paid dearly for it. The wood is beautiful, the workmanship precise. I hope, for all of us who admire beauty (along with truth and wisdom) that such craftsmanship will live, even in our business. But it will a finite, and a small finite, part of it, I’m afraid. We are talking survival here. We are responding to consumer behavior. Steinways are amazing creations. But in an MP3 world, we’ll never see very many of them sold.
I’m not wistful for craft for craft’s sake.
You never chose a Jim Erickson photo for a Mullen ad because you simply liked Jim Erickson.
Your decision had a purpose.
Craft has had a role in moving a consumer emotionally, in disarming them if ever so briefly, to see the world in a new way. At least, up until now.
In this new environment, what will take its place?
Because appealing to consumer’s emotions is still the way to make a difference for a brand. Our audience hasn’t turned into robots.
If anything, we’re more emotionally-driven than ever. All you have to do is look at downtown DC last weekend or the tweets at #whereiwas.
I think Goodby has it nailed on their website: Art serving Capitalism.
Are the old tools less unique and more easily dupllicated? Yep, thank the Knoll brothers and Photoshop for that.
But the need for powerful emotional triggers which accomplished what “craft” did for us in the past, isn’t going anywhere.
The trick is be be one of the marketers who can harness these new tools to powerfully accomplish those timeless goals.
typos today. not enough coffee.
I fixed the typos. Always do, as I am a perfectionist, just like great designers. I agree with everything you are saying. But it’s not up to me. Read the piece in the recent Wired about “The Good Enough Revolution.” MP3s suck. They sound like crap. They do to music what bad design does to craftsmanship. They deny all the importance of audio quality and the amazing ability of the human ear to detect frequencies. And I am sure there are composers and musicians alike who lament that they have replaced Kirsch horn speakers. But they have. Because they are good enough.
Years ago, a copywriter friend referred to advertising as “perhaps the last couture business. Everything we do is handmade”.
It’s a good analogy. Technology made really high quality off-the-rack clothing possible. Previously, this had been laughably inconceivable.
Stephen Curry is correct when he says that nothing beats handmade. But I believe the overwhelming majority of clients will clamor for excellent Yamahas.
“Good enough” is anathema to most creative people. But it is precisely what most clients strive for.
As bitter a pill as it is to swallow, the truth is pricing power isn’t based on intrinsic value. It’s based on market forces — including the threat of substitution.
Tom Cunniff´s last blog ..What If Your CEO Is Right To Be Afraid Of Social Media? (Part Two)
Tom:
All of this led to a new post about the consumer trends that drive everything. http://bit.ly/7BPTu We all got into this business for the craft. But in some ways, unfortunately, holding onto that will kill us.
Since this thread started, I was contacted by a Community energy alliance in Cincinnati who liked what we did for a similar group in Cambridge, MA. One thing they liked in particular about the web site was the neighborhood shots that presented a side of Cambridge only known to residents and not the usual Harvard Yard/JFK Bridge stuff you see.
As a resident of Cambridge with 600 commissioned photos to select from, this was not a particularly complicated task. This new group is in the middle of the country in a city I have visited but once. How could I recreate this for their city? How about a FLICKR-based photo comp where residents submit photos of the neighborhood that are voted on by other local residents. The top 100 vote-getters have their photos put into rotation on their Word Press templates (which we will design). The top 3 get up to $2500 to make energy efficient improvements on their homes.
Crowdsourcing should be about shifting a project outside the walls of an agency who couldn’t complete the task in the normal course of work. It’s also about getting the audience to spend more time thinking about your client’s business and messaging. All while saving a couple thousand dollars commission on a local photographer and being forced to take whatever he produces.
This seems like a fairly simple idea, but so far I’ve had to explain it to three different people. I’m still waiting on approval.
On the other hand, if you tell a client they can get 75 new logos to choose from and the most they’ll pay is a thousand bucks… You don’t need all the neurons firing to understand this (or communicate it to your superiors).
Perhaps we need to do a better job steering clients towards the kinds of crowdsourcing projects that don’t involve replacing the capabilities we’ve spent a lifetime developing.
It also helps to remember that by the time you’re sick and tired of talking about something, a lot of other people are just starting to nod their head.
arb:
Great point, Anthony.
The best crowdsourcing involves an ongoing engagement between customers or potential customers and the brand. Though the design contest obviously has its place.
It’s the purchase funnel, no? I think of the logo contest as an awareness driver. Where as, the flickr community can encompasses every phase from awareness to loyalty to some degree.
I suppose, like anything, the execution should serve the need.
Paul,
Thanks for your note.
Your comment on the purchase funnel reminded me of something my partner said the other day about branding awareness “The TV has been replaced by the Google search box.”
I’ll let you know how it turns out. Like many of these groups, they are waiting for their stimulus check.
Anthony:
Yes. Brilliant. This is crowdsourcing. Or, better, co-creation. Library of Congress did it in reverse. To identify thousands of photos on its archives, it just posted them on Flickr and let people id them. You have it figured out. Thanks for sharing. Will go into my case study deck.
Edward:
Your and Stephen’s comments left me wondering are we working in an art form or a business? Now, the easy answer is business. But we, as creatives, have always tended to think of ourselves as commercial artists. Where is the twain meeting these days?
Have the years honing a craft been for naught? What does the book of a creative look like next year, in five years, etc? Are we looking for immediate impact or long-term resonance when we concept? What comes first, the positioning or the media event?
Let’s face it – it’s easy to get excited about any trend or buzzword, and there have been a lot of them over the years. Some work out great, others don’t. For a while the music industry thought “subscription-based music” was going to save them, but it crashed and burned. Millions were invested, and lost, in “desktop-based peer to peer video” with Joost. Even “regime change” sounded great at one point.
But while you can argue over something as an abstract concept, and even claim it’s the Inevitable Next Big Thing on such grounds, most trends don’t exist simply in the abstract but have to live or die in the real world, where it can’t be avoided when examining their potential merits or lack thereof.
So for the sake of argument, let’s separate out (1) crowdsourcing in the abstract, which all of us agree is interesting and worthy of discussion, from (2) crowdsourcing as it actually exists, which we can examine by looking at sites like Crowdspring and 99Designs. Putting the abstract arguments aside, can these sites – Crowdspring and 99Designs – provide a credible economic model for agencies and serious designers moving forward?
Now on the face of it, the appeal of the model, for businesses and agency heads, would seem to be that it’s a hell of a lot cheaper, and offers more choice. Retain a brand designer for 60k who may or may not deliver what you want or spend $200 at Crowdspring for limitless options? Sounds like a no brainer, especially at a time when agencies are being squeezed by the recession.
But when you take a closer look at it, I’d argue that it’s unclear how crowdsourcing, as implemented currently, could really be all that great for agencies.
How does this brave new crowdsourced world work? Will agencies charge the client $10k, turn around and spend $200 on a crowdsourced logo and hope nobody notices?
Maybe, if they whip up enough buzz around crowdsourcing the concept, they can do that in the short term as a gimmick. But over the long term, agencies aren’t the only ones who want to cut costs. What’s to prevent the client from going directly to the crowdsourcing site in that case and bypassing the agency altogether? Isn’t the design expertise of the agency one of the main reasons the client hired the agency to begin with?
Another problem is that crowdsourcing seems to be effective is pretty limited areas of design. It’s no accident most of the contests on these sites are for logos, and for a small business happy with the quality of work they get out of it, it might be a good option for them.
But last time I looked, logos weren’t the only or even the main thing designers and agencies produced. Can crowdsourcing deliver an agency-quality motion graphics piece? Or a complex, usable web application? At some point (very soon in fact on most jobs), crowdsourcing is simply not going to be a feasible means of producing content, because the same touch and go model that makes it appealing for generating basic ideas makes it a poor one for producing thoughtful, detailed projects, and for refining ideas over the long term.
It’s also important, I think, to be honest in terms of looking at the kind of quality you will get out of crowdsourcing as it exists. Clearly not all design is created equal, and again that’s why high-end agencies exist in the first place. A quick look at Crowdspring and 99Designs will tell you that, the occassional exception notwithstanding, the quality of the work on these sites ranges from passably mediocre to jaw-droppingly bad. I’d love someone to tell me with a straight face that the submissions you’ll find in an average contest on Crowdspring could really replace the work in the portfolio of a company like CP + B.
And that gets us to a largely ignored truth about these sites, which is that a large portion of the participants, and probably a majority, are not the janitor or stay at home Mom who discovered their hidden artistic talent when they downloaded the trial version of Photoshop Elements, as Crowdspring likes to frame it in their ad copy.
Instead, they are mostly designers from third world countries like India, places where a $200 prize not only isn’t bad, it’s great pay.
This is an important point that a lot of people miss. Put the buzzwords and the contest aspect aside for a moment, what companies like Crowdspring are providing to a large extent is simply good, old-fashioned outsourcing.
And that, by the way, is also the genius of what they have done. Most small businesses and agency art directors wouldn’t get at all enthusiastic about going to a site called Third World Designs or Outsourcing dot com. But slap a servicable logo on it and wrap it up in a buzzword, and suddenly it becomes not just safe and appealing, but the Next Inevitable Trend in the world of marketing.
Now I’m not saying that designers from the third world are necessarily bad, that outsourcing is bad, or that, indeed, crowdsourcing is all bad. But we need to take an honest look at crowdsourcing as it is implemented currently before getting too excited, or scared, about it. And then ask ourself which we are really in favor of – crowdsourcing as an abstract intellectual concept, or crowdsourcing as it exists as Crowdspring – a low wage market for mostly third world designers? Because while concepts are great, as any client will tell you, unless we have a workable model for that concept, they are largely worthless.
Andrew,
Now I know why I blog. So that I can connect with people as smart and thoughtful as you. Thank you for this reply. Among the best yet.
The single thought I’d like you to take away is this. Crowdsourcing is not just about competitions and exploiting the audience; it is about co-creation and allowing consumers who demand participation a chance. Think Beasty Boys video where they gave cameras to lots of fans and edited the footage. Think Library of Congress sourcing the identity of thousands of photographs by posting them on FlickR. Think Sour creating a video by blending together webcam images of all its participating fans. Think of Anthony Butler’s solution to capturing the real neighborhoods of Cincinnati. Our industry is too focused on the one, most controversial, example of CS. But we shouldn’t let that blur our vision of what it can be.
I believe that every time a brand does a TV spot or even a print ad it should allow it’s community to create its version. Join the fun, post it on social networks, spread it around, and yes, give out some awards to the winners. Not because the agency or client need the crowd to come up with the idea (though we should be open to someone coming up with a better one than the agency, and be honest about it), because it’s insane not to. How many videos, many about brands, are uploaded to YouTube every day? We need to tap into that.
As for the contests in the world of design, you may be right in all your conclusions about the participants. And the quality. Still, if I were a small company and needed a logo I would certainly try it out. What do I have to lose? If I were Coca Cola launching a new drink, I might try it out just for fun and the buzz. But in the latter case, no doubt, I would be hiring a great design firm, ideally less arrogant than they used to be; the threat of crowdsourcing should temper that.
As for all the other stuff, yesterday I interviewed a 22-year-old kid right out of college. He had a motion graphics reel. He’d developed iPhone apps. He had blogged for some major, high visibility blogs. He designed logos and he did art direction. He was very good. He is the future. If he doesn’t find a job (he probably will) what should he do? Why not crowdsource? As for me, should I get rid of people making more than what I can get him for and squeeze output out of lower salaried employees? And if so, what happens to the other folks? (For the record, I’m not going to do that, as I believe there are many benefits of experience, from judgment, to speed, to interaction with peers, to understanding clients’ needs.)
I can’t answer for Crowdspring, so I’ll leave that to Ross. In the meantime, my intention is to learn to make if work for me, for my clients, and as importantly for the participants.
Thanks again. Your reply was great. Should have been an entire guest post.
The first crowdsourcing application:
Tom Sawyer gets the other boys in the neighborhood to paint the fence while “paying him small treasures for the privilege of doing his work”.
Mmmmm… if the Gossage Awards ever gets off the ground, the Best of Show should be called the Twain Prize.
Andrew,
I agree with Edward – you’ve posted a very thoughtful comment that moves the discussion forward.
I do want to correct one inaccuracy. I can’t speak for any other sites – designers on crowdSPRING come from over 170 countries around the world. You’ve suggested that most come from the third world – and some certainly do. Half of the designers who are awarded projects on crowdSPRING are based in the U.S. Many are based in Europe, Canada, Australia – areas that are hardly the third world. Incidentally – we’ve shared answers to the 25 most frequently asked questions about crowdSPRING – http://bit.ly/cSanswers
However – I’m not sure the location of the designer is relevant – unless you’re implying that designers from outside the U.S. are less capable (and it seems that you’re not saying that). By allowing people to compete based on talent and not based on location, resume, or fancy offices, we’re able to provide a level playing field for all.
Now – let me suggest a way for us to move the conversation even further. You’ve asked an excellent question – is the crowdsourcing model as currently practiced a credible economic model for agencies and serious designers moving forward.
You’ve offered one answer. I believe that for many agencies, for certain projects, the answer is unequivocally yes (but not for all projects, and certainly not for all agencies).
There are others answers, however. For example, crowdSPRING has worked with many agencies who’ve posted projects – but not all of the projects were looking for design collateral from the crowdSPRING community. A bit of background would help here: we have two types of projects – standard and Pro. Pro projects offer granular privacy protections, non-disclosure agreements, granular approvals of participants, etc. No other marketplace has these features.
Some agencies have posted projects crowdsourcing ideas internally from their own employees.
That’s right – leveraging their OWN creative talent. As much as we like to think this is commonly done (I’ve worked at two mid-size professional organizations that TRIED to do this) it’s not easy to execute well. We have a platform that allows agencies (and any brand) to easily do this. We’re thrilled that some have.
I do agree with you that too many people frame crowdsourcing as abstract intellectual concepts – and never really look at the practical applications. That’s partly why I enjoyed reading your comment and why I have invested the time to participate in this conversation on Edwards’ blog.
Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..10 Legal Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Small Business And How To Avoid Them
it’s great for the greedy and bad for the rest.
Ross Kimbarovsky said:
[b]I’m not sure the location of the designer is relevant – unless you’re implying that designers from outside the U.S. are less capable (and it seems that you’re not saying that). By allowing people to compete based on talent and not based on location, resume, or fancy offices, we’re able to provide a level playing field for all. [b]
This statement strikes me as a little disingenuous. Design is not only a profession, the end result is a product. Like anything being produced, there are production costs attached.
Why did all the shoe factories close down in Massachusetts? (Footjoy in Brockton the last one in 2008). It wasn’t the quality of the product. It was simply the cost of employees could not be overcome, especially when locating manufacturing overseas and transporting the product back to the US was far cheaper. Since the cost of product transport is effectively zero in the design business, and there is no capital costs involved, locating your production overseas makes sense for design and practically any other information based job. (When I worked at Fidelity, all the back-end work and page loads on their customer facing websites was performed in India.)
You can choose to participate in Crowdspring’s business on a voluntary basis, but there is no question the production (i.e. living) costs (Housing, food, health insurance) are much higher for US-based participants. Apart from those breaking into the business, long-term US participants would most likely need a W-2 job.
For people who want to expand their portfolio and pick up some extra spending money Crowdspring is worthwhile avenue. It does not represent a career path for US-based participants.
Anthony and Paul:
A lot of this is all about the money. Do you have clients who aren’t cutting budgets? We are working, as is every agency I know, to deliver faster, cheaper, more digital. Forget the kerning, who needs dropped shadows, all the background detail, forget it. Film? Let’s shoot on video. Etc. Etc. Etc. The new definition of creative will not different. Years ago a great creative director, Stavros Cosmopulos said, “Make the layouts rough and the ideas fancy.” If he were alive today he’d say, “Make million dollar ideas and thousand dollar productions.”
Posting a link here to the article referred to on Twitter re:Netflix paying out a $1m prize to a team who created a movie recommendation algorithm that outperformed Netfix own software by 10%.
http://tiny.cc/latGx
The article is worth reading because it reveals how much the client already valued outside technical expertise to improve what they view as a crucial component of their customer experience. The business goal of the project (improving product matching for customers) was deemed worthy enough for the client to spend this kind of money on technology, since it is the only way to solve the problem.
Perhaps that provides a guide to how clients will continue to spend money with the likes of us instead of crowdsourcing everything. Establish a business goal for every creative project and make sure the client agrees that it is worth the time + effort = money. See Fast Company article article on design inside Coke. VP of Design David Butler never mentions the word ‘design’ before he delivers the goods.
http://www.fastcompany.com/design/2009/
If that’s not the secret to his success, it must be Bogusky © 2005 hair.
Anthony:
Well aware of the Netflix project. Has been underway for a long time and a challenging project for those who gave it a try. It’s the challenge, and the $$ that got them interested. I think we all know the difference between a gimmick, a real need, a quest for lower costs, and the benefits of participation in propagation of an idea from either CS or co-creation. Watch, this will be as popular as all other aspects of social media very quickly. Thanks so much for the links.
Edward,
When I saw the Netflix article at NYTimes.com, I wondered how long it would take you to notice. Then I logged onto to Twitter the next day and got my answer.
File this one from the NY Times on crowdsourcing recipes under “Too many cooks in the kitchen…”
“E-KITCHENS GET CROWDED AS USERS TWEAK INGREDIENTS ON FOODIE SITES.”
http://tiny.cc/qZSCG
[...] the one hand, it’s a brilliant way to engage fans/consumers/friends with your brand. Instead of pushing an internally generated idea, you invite [...]
It seems as though the only real reason in favour of crowdsourcing that I’ve come across after reading post after post after article after article about it is “that it’s different” and “boldly trailblazing a new direction, leaving behind the fossils of…” …whatever.
So because no one at all, anywhere in this whole debate about crowdsourcing has been able to actually articulate how it is a sound and viable business idea that will stimulate economic growth, I’m gonna guess its all about the – how do you say – “newness” of it all.
But perhaps the biggest problem with it is that it kinda “deregulates” the entire business of graphic and communication design. Which is bad. Its bad because although its a business that has the appearance of fun and frolic and reverie…its still a business. And to the masses of people who have chosen it as a profession, its a job. Fun at times yes, but a job. And a job that pays a reasonable salary, but not riches. So its a labour of love for the vast majority of designers.
So I guess then Edward, you could say that if crowdsourcing passes the litmus test in the design world, lets just move it along after that to the world of finanace. Or litigation. Or construction. Cause yeah, people don’t really need to get paid for the work they perform at their jobs. They don’t need to eat or sleep or have a roof over their heads or hell, even feed their kids while we’re at it. No. They don’t. They don’t need all these things out of their jobs because work is entirely about ideas and discourse! Who will win the big pitch! And more importantly…who will survive in the future! Its certainly not about who will survive in the present, because…well…its kinda hard to live past a week or so with no food, no home and no family. Which exactly what the professionals of the design industry (or any other indusrty) will be left with if crowdsourcing becomes the norm.
It looks as though people like Edward Boches and his friends at CP+B have really missed a huge nugget about this crowdsourcing thing. It takes the deregulation and dismemberment of an entire industry to usher it in as the next big trend.
But I guess the American people haven’t had enough unemployment. Its not enough that the financial industry (as deserving as it was) is now in shambles, and as well, that the entire American auto industry is in jeopardy…lets throw the design industry down the chute as well.
…oh, and sorry, I forgot to mention in the previous message, the reason why crowdsourcing isn’t economically viable is because the only time someone gets paid in the process is when a design amongst many is chosen (in which case the winner is paid). But the bitch of it is, that individual is paid after their work is done.
So for all you design professionals out there who like the idea of getting paid only once the work is 100% sold to the client, raise your hand!
Rory:
You are in good company with your opinions. I am not totally convinced of CS as a tool that benefits dsigners (though there are some entry level and aspirants who would argue it is). My real interest is in co-creation and participation. To date, we have done only one contest, mostly entered by wannabes and displacing no one. But we have used it a lot in many other places. Crowdfunding for Grain Foods Foundation; consumer participation in conversation and community for Panera; video sharing for Olympus; the co-creation and marketing of Lemonade the Movie (I just helped with the promo part); in creating digital events from analog events (Superbowl, Academy Awards, etc.) for Mullen; and my favorite http://thenextgreatgeneration.com where everyone benefits. I think that Lowe got screwed on the Peparami project. We live in an age of consumer participation, even control. Brands no longer can stop people from creating content so why not embrace it. (See HP You on You). Sure there are brands trying to do it only to save money or squeeze participants via competitions. But many have the intention of finding better if not the best ideas, of inviting their communities into the brand, of embracing a larger talent pool. CS gets a bad name from the design community. But even in that case there are some advantages. I’m just one guy trying to experiment with all that’s new. You can blame me if you want, but I’m not inventing the trends, consumers are.
Here’s a solution: Adobe should lean on these sites to require users to provide their Photoshop, Illustrator, and font licenses.
Business owners are required to do so. Why should Crowdspring profit from software privacy?