I’m crowdsourcing the questions I should ask crowdsourcing expert John Winsor
Image copyright Denver Post
Crowdsourcing as a pure concept has been around for a while. In my business, you need look no further than the typical agency review in which a client invites multiple agencies to submit their best thinking and creative ideas (usually for no pay) and then picks the one it believes will do the best job.
The now ubiquitous online forum is another example of crowdsourcing. Have a problem or a question? Float it out there among the online masses and, if you’re lucky, someone will offer up the answer you need.
In the last couple of years, however, crowdsourcing and its counterpart co-creation have started to become business strategies if not actual models. Companies as diverse as Dell, Proctor & Gamble and Starbucks have aggressively pursued ways in which customers can help create or inspire new products (co-creation). And platforms such as Crowdspring have made it easy for companies to put projects from new applications to logo designs out for individual competition (crowdsourcing).
These practices, accelerated by the web and social media, raise all kinds of questions.
Will crowdsourcing and co-creation, by tapping into the talent of many more people, actually increase innovation?
Will they reduce the cost of development and design and along with it the salaries of people who create for a living?
Will they help in solving those large, unsolvable problems; everything from healthcare to education to global warming?
Will they change the traditional relationships between employers and employees?
And finally, are crowdsourcing and co-creation here to stay, or are they simply convenient alternatives to business as usual in a miserable economy.
In early August, I have the privilege of interviewing crowdsourcing advocate and believer John Winsor for the Ad Club of Boston. John is the VP/Executive Director of Strategy and Innovation at Crispin, Porter + Bogusky. He’s also the author of Spark: Be more Innovative through Co-Creation and Beyond the Brand: Why Engaging the Right Customers is Essential to Winning in Business.
John thinks crowdsourcing is here to stay. (In fact right now he’s crowdsourcing the manuscript for his new book Flipped.) In a recent Business Week editorial John argues that even after the global financial crisis comes to an end, the new marketplaces that support crowdsourcing will continue to evolve, offering “a more efficient and creative way for companies to engage with and harness the crowd for help.”
I agree for three reasons.
One: if businesses can find access to more ideas for less they will, down economy or not.
Two: today’s customers and prospects actually want a voice and a say in influencing a brand and its products. So they’re ready and willing to participate.
And three: there’s a huge and growing number of people who are motivated not just by the money, but by the fame and reputation that comes from being an influencer or co-creator.
However, there are at least three big questions that remain.
1. To what degree will companies change their entire models if they are to take full advantage of the crowd as their source of ideas? Will they cut employees and spend more money sourcing the crowd? Will they attempt to become more competitive by paying less for content and products? Will they be forced to work this way if their competitors do?
2. Will all workers have to become entrepreneurs? What if you’re a designer and all of a sudden all design work is solicited this way? Will you compete non-stop for opportunities? Will you be able to get use to the unpredictability of work and income? Will you resist even participating and urge others to do the same?
3. How will we manage collaboration? It’s common to write software this way. But what about projects or campaigns that call for everyone on the team to have a well-oiled working relationship, understanding and respecting each other’s roles, knowing how to seamlessly tap into institutional knowledge? Will crowdsourcing require organizations to learn new ways of encouraging collaboration in an era when everything – idea, design, technology, production – is more connected than ever?
These are some of the questions I’ll be asking John, who knows a lot more about it than I do. But I do know one thing. In the age of crowdsourcing, I’m supposed to ask you, the crowd for ideas. So, got any questions? Ideas? Answers? Please share.
Comments
21 Responses to “I’m crowdsourcing the questions I should ask crowdsourcing expert John Winsor”
Leave a Reply
Is there a tipping point at which a crowdsourcing entity can lose either technological or creative control of a project due to too much outside influence and not enough systemic, in-house organic development, and how does one recognize when that point is approaching?
Adam:
Good question. Will add to my list. This fits within the big question 1: how will businesses have to change or modify current models. What new learning will they have to pursue?
Is crowdsourcing a reliable approach. When you pay someone to come up with an idea, you know you’ll get a dedicated effort from a professional with the skills to deliver what you’re after. Put that out to the masses and you’ll get answers, but I still question the quality of such idea-gathering because valuable talent doesn’t tend to work free for long, the agency pitch example included (no agency continues through unlimited rounds). Consumers with zero communication expertise have a role, but is it really that of sole idea creator?
Hi Edward,
Looking forward to this. Please ask John, what, in his experience, are the necessary ingredients for a successful crowdsourcing endeavor. Specifically, if a business or person is going to crowdsource a task, are there any certain practices they should follow to get the best results?
Thanks!
Bernard
In response to a recent Network Solutions crowdsourced logo competition, noted Web designer Jeffrey Zeldman posted this on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/zeldman/status/2551802106
In it, he suggests that “Crowdsourcing is theft.”
Yet, Zeldman has been known to post his Web designs to the community at large, in the middle of things, to gather their thoughts before finalizing a design.
An interesting rub there. I assume, though he hasn’t confirmed, that he thinks that crowdsourcing is more acceptable when you’re after an edit or a crit, as opposed to work that fills an empty page and turns nothing into something.
What does John think about this distinction: crowdsourcing edits/crits vs crowdsourcing creation?
@bradnoble´s last blog ..Friday AM ride to work
Brad: I think it can be if the only objective is how to get something for less than the current going rate. It can also devalue the contribution of the individual. However, there are many who are more than willing to participate in hopes of fame and glory or at least recognition. One valid question might be who (what level of talent) will work this way. Not unlike the argument on free. Will the very best participate? Or is the quantity of contribution likely to match or exceed the quality from one highly-regarded and proven talent.
How does he think other agencies will feel about crowd sourcing for a competitor? I see this as a holding company thing. Imagine Crispin crowd-sourcing for JWT on a Microsoft project.
~Rob
Rob:
Good point. I don’t know if that will go over so well. Another related question is what do clients think if they’re entrusting their brand to an agency that might crowdsource the work. How often do you get asked (in a new business pitch) “Is this going to be my team?”
On the question of who will participate:
Seems to me that crowdsourcing the solution to a blank page is akin to banking on the infinite monkey theorem, a metaphor that asserts after some amount of time, a room full of monkeys banging on typewriters will write Hamlet.
The best don’t think of themselves as monkeys, aren’t perceived as monkeys, and will find a way to charge for their creativity, thoughtfulness and … well, chops.
I’m reminded of the story that Steve Jobs happily tells of his work with Paul Rand, on the Next logo. Paraphrased, Rand said to Jobs: “I will bring you one logo, and you will pay me for it. Whether or not you use it is up to you. If you want options, go talk to other people.”
@bradnoble´s last blog ..Friday AM ride to work
v cool.
As he talks to a large number of people about crowdsourcing, I’m wondering if John has any insight into why people seem to think crowdsourcing is an effective way to cut costs, as opposed to what seems more appropriate – as a way to increase innovation by pulling by a bigger and more diverse pool of smart thinkers.
Can’t wait to read the interview!
Blue
Sarah:
Good question. I’m sure John will agree that it’s a way to increase innovation. But we’ll find out; ideally he’ll have thoughts on how to foster that innovation, either by how you source the crowd or the tactics you use to make it most effective.
As a young creative, I want to know what’s in it for the crowd? Is it reasonable to expect that there will be unlimited supply of people wanting to do your job (or part of it) for free or a tiny fraction of what you make — especially when there’s the potential to make huge amounts of money off the ideas being solicited?
It seems like there will always be a division between the professionals and the ‘crowd’ and the smartest, most creative, most talented people in the crowd would still expect to get credit and compensation for valuable ideas.
And maybe this is more of a question for you, but how would you really respond to a portfolio full of ‘crowdsource’ contributions?
Erica:
Interesting perspective. As noted by Brad Noble, in his first comment above, some consider crowdsourcing “theft.” So clearly some ground rules are in order. You can check out crowdSPRING and see how it works there. Almost like the eBay of crowdsourcing. Not sure I would ever participate myself as the individual. Often the winners in these things are younger talents who later on go on to bigger and better things, not simply hobbyists. As for your second question, while I’ve never thought of such an idea until you just mentioned it, maybe I would hire the person as a creative “broker/purchasing agent,” presuming the work was really good. Then again, perhaps it just means the person’s already a creative director; not doing anything him or herself, but managing to get good work done through others.
I am sure I don’t have a single question. What I do know is that my train of thought around crowdsourcing lately has been bumping around in context to the following.
One, crowdsourcing for ideas simply validates the significance of the lateral thinker. Can that be crowdsourced? Two, can an environment necessary for innovation on a social level be replicated in the digital world? Three, none of it matters unless it’s helping achieve a goal which is most often cash. Therefore, isn’t the crux selling? Can crowdsourcing source it’s own buyers?
There seems to be a number of dynamics to crowdsourcing. A clear player is that of ideas. We all have them. Right? It’s the easy part, e.g. stick up a site asking for them and have people stop by via whatever means available to you (i.e. paid or earned media).
Ideas don’t seem to be the real value of crowdsourcing. Am I way off here? They’re a plentiful resource. If crowdsourcing is primarily seen as a quick way to more ideas, isn’t that simply valuing the synthesizers of the information all the more. The insight there seems to be that if you can get the strategists/planners more of the “right information” then crowdsourcing is the answer. Yet it’s only a bettering of a component in an existing system by supplying the mechanism something of richer value. You’d guess the product would be better then too, right?
I wonder about the synthesis of the crowdsourced ideas. It seems to my mind that the lateral thinking done with the business objectives and the end user objectives all in mind while looking at the opportunities in the data is where a whole lot of innovation happens. How can we crowdsource lateral thinking like that? Is it a UX problem? Is it possible in a digital world? If so, has it been done in ways that are intensely more interesting and social than a simple binary value assessment (a yes/no poll)?
In one way I am wondering if it’s possible to recreate an innovative studio the likes of Benjamin Franklin or Edison or or or in the digital world? How do we create web based environments as immersive and as social as the physicality of a work shop? And if it was not enough to get the talent gathered and working well together how do can a digital environment be one where its all these things and constantly engaged? It has to be predictably more interesting than Hulu or surfing the web, right?! It has to be returned to vastly more often than an email reminder to engage.
Doesn’t creativity and innovation thrive where all parties stand to benefit? I guess what I am getting at is that there is something intensely unsatisfying about having an idea alone, pushing it to the ether of the interwebs and standing by as it develops and simply getting a cash compensation. Isn’t part of the magic of innovation the committed context of a team that it happens within? How does crowdsourcing and the social dynamics of a team coexist?
Isn’t the crux of any sourcing the same as it’s always been? Namely how does the synthesis of a resource (in this case information/research/ideas) lead to insights such that a strategy can be built (a direction forward in a context) so it can be sold to an eager buyer and then actually built?
Yet, maybe here is real crux of crowdsourcing’s success or lack there of… buyers. Can it source itself some buyers?
Edward, What sticks out to you here? Are there any reasonably helpful questions you can develop from the flow of thought here?
Joseph:
Lots to stew on in your comments. First off is the difference between co-creation and crowdsourcing, one of the topics for my interview with John. Your thoughts about ideas being developed by a crowd or group is more in the vein of co-creation, not unlike what Pixar does or any modern agency. Ad for crowdsourcing, there are very simple examples that work well: anything modular, for example, such as writing software. Also, recently the Library of Congress posted thousands of photos on Flickr, not knowing the source or subject matter of many of them. But by inviting the public to fill in the blanks, if you will, they discovered all kinds of information about the images. “That was my Dad’s barbershop in Baltimore in 1946,” for example. Answers often included location, little stories, etc. Your question re Edison and Franklin inspires discussion about whether or not we need new models in the digital space to replicate the laboratories of the past. Will be turning my attention and concentration to the subject and interview as we get closer to August 5. But thanks for the thoughts. They’ll be helpful.
[...] crowdsourcing the some of the writing via a wiki. Edward Boches points out that you can join Starbucks’ crowdsourcing platform and contribute all you like. You can source logos designed from the crowd via crowdSPRING which [...]
How does crowdsourcing as a vehicle for creativity and recognition build or erode company loyalty?
What are the implications for long term development for creative talent if they are creating in a silo where the virtual office is now virtually no office?
If a company’s new role is to be a curator of crowdsourced ideas, what is the new role of the onsite on staff traditional creative talent? – and does this contribute to the notion that better work comes from outside? i.e. when an Agency hires a “silver bullet’ who is supposed to solve all problems, or when an Agency brings in a freelance team last minute to solve what those inside have been working on for months
Ally:
Great questions. You should be conducting the interview. Hopefully I’ll get to ask all of these and share answers from the discussion.
LOL.
I will be there on Wednesday and would love to meet you at some point if time allows. Looking forward to it.
Ally:
Me too. Definitely we’ll have time to connect. Introduce yourself and bring any and all questions you have with you. The honest answer is that no one knows all the answers. We just have ides, hypotheses and our imaginations.
Will do. Thanks