Should you crowdsource even if you’re only gonna get crap?

Generalizing as in "they are already creating" is bollocks. Get any Forrester technographics report and you realized that only about 10% of them are "creating". The folks that are really creating something of decent quality are already working in creative industry. Would you like to crowdsource the pants you're wearing? .-= Armando Alves´s last blog ..Shameless PromoTion: Sapo Pond =-.

Yes, crowdsource if you can make it more than an event. If the plan is to crowdsource a logo because it get's a small group of folks involved - forget it - that's crap. If your can engage the crowd in a meaningful way by immersing your product in culture - you'd be crazy not to. Crowdsourcing needs to be something more than a cheaper way to execute a traditional approach. .-= Bruce DeBoer´s last blog ..“We Are Strip Mining Our Childrens’ Minds” =-.

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Agencies fear crowdsourcing because it is 50% as good with 500 times more choice. If you do the math, that's scary, because choice is something agencies typically don't provide clients, and the value in that formula tips in crowdsourcing's direction. Anyone who's been through the ad process knows that strategy meetings lead to offsite research and huddled design work and more client updates and a big funnel of ideas carefully constructed to 2-3 creative execution choices. By the time the actual campaign approaches implementation people with far too much groupthink and nuance have built subtlety that often does not work. Agencies are reluctant to go back and recut things because that kills profits; clients are enamored with the logicfest that led to the idea, so won't admit their off track. Like the blind leading the blind, they all pat each other on the back and head to market. "You're brilliant! No you are!" Like a blog post with too many back-slapping attaboys, we get ads everyone on the team loves with surreal images that don't read, copy that doesn't pop, and consumers scratching their heads. So agencies should be scared by crowdsourcing. If I could get 500 times the ideas of an agency's 3 outputs, most half as good, I'd bet a few might be far better. I don't think agencies should fight back by joining crowds or mocking them; instead, they might be better suited learning to offer clients more choice. .-= Ben Kunz´s last blog ..This Esquire download should take only 5 minutes =-.

Interesting discussion. To me, crowdsouricing is a good idea if you want to either: A) Generate as many ideas as possible as fast as possible. And why not? In the early stages of developing a marketing campaign, more ideas are better than fewer. Sadly, no one seems to have a good idea for how to pay the crowd. Once you have your idea, I think execution and sustain should be done by a consistent team. B) Engage your audience. This is as old as the hills and the internet just makes it easier. The only real risk nowadays is that you become overloaded with feedback and can't decide how to respond! Jeff .-= Jeff Shatuck´s last blog ..Those were the days. A tale of living for the music, friendship and finding the holy grail of bootlegs, Bob Dylan's Ten of Swords. =-.

Agencies have been using crowds in the form of focus groups for decades. Getting public opinion and consumer insight is valuable but only if you do something actionable with it. The best crowdsourcing in my opinion is connected right up to R &D. TV Networks turned to reality programming with amateurs and no budgets and yes, it yielded crap. Scripted shows with A list actors and writers have been too costly- as has the process within the advertising industry. Those of us who believe in crowdsourcing ( and I do) need to be certain that the crowd is put to good use- that the work and ideas are actionable, that the business model is sustainable and scalable, and that the talent is rewarded properly. So, invite the crowd to the party if you choose, but be sure your expectations are realistic and the deliverables will be valued.

One of my favorite things about crowdsourcing is that the people who are most affected by pop culture, consumers, now have a chance to shape it themselves. Prior to this movement, pop culture was largely the creation of MTV, the various major league sports, Hollywood and, on occasion, advertising. We were told what was hip, awesome or cool depending on the decade. The rise of culture glue like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter has caused a sea change in the old model. It will be fun to see what happens when those who are most affected by pop culture take full hold of its steering wheel.

I think there are two ways to use crowdsourcing in marketing that are useful: 1) To generate raw ideas. In those early days of a campaign, you need as many sparks as possible and as fast as possible, and crowdsourcing would appear to be a good way to go. I mean, why not, right? Sadly, I don't think anyone has figured out an appropriate compensation plan, but it will come. And as for execution and sustain, I think these should be handled by a focused team, not a crowd. 2)Customer engagement. Truth be told, asking customers what they think of your stuff is as old as the hills, it's just easier now and woe unto those who don't listen to their customers. Jeff Shattuck www.cerebellumblues.com .-= Jeff Shattuck´s last blog ..Those were the days. A tale of living for the music, friendship and finding the holy grail of bootlegs, Bob Dylan's Ten of Swords. =-.

I must say that right now I am not on one side or the other of the whole debate but rather watching it unfold like season one of American Idle (which I quit watching a long time ago because I think proper musical artists are better than game show contestants). But I have a couple of questions/observations. It appears that there is suddenly a lot of different activities that are being lumped into the 'crowd' excitement and whether there is going to be diamonds in the rough or just a load of crap depends on the event if it can be called that. If the event involves something like beer and is being promoted by a good agency that know how to package things then you probably would get some fun work. However, someone I know recently started a new business and went to a popular logo design contest site to get his new $300 mark. He asked all his friends to help him judge the work and being from an art background I happily waded through the piles of crap. Basically I thought there was only one logo out of hundreds that was even usable. I told him so and it suddenly went from 4th place to being the winner. The guy didn't know any better so it is correct that some people prefer crap. I wonder what type of person gets involved in recreational marketing anyway? In the logo contest that I played Simon Cowell, at least 75% of the entry's where from developing countries. It is great that they now have a new outlets where they may be able to make some good money. However it is more of a gamble for those living in more expensive western countries to go after the $300 bounty but those that do I suspect will work very quickly and we all know what quick work brings. Now slick contests being run by good brands and agencies may be something different. I imagine there are some very creative and passionate people who will make a commercial just for their favorite beer and the chance to win the prize. But I bet right now you are also going to get a lot of entries from out of work marketing people and aspiring youngsters who never had a chance to get a job because the economy is so crap. The game may offer them a chance but it seems like a crap shoot to me. .-= Cranky Pressman´s last blog ..{ THE SECOND DAY OF CHRISTMAS CARDS } =-.

The revolution has begun. Like you said, people want to create. Keep them out at your on peril. .-= John Winsor´s last blog ..Hello World. This is Our Logo. AKA: Proof That Talent Rises. =-.

Edward, You've articulated an interesting dilemma for many companies. But I'm not sure this question should be asked only about crowdsourcing. After all, there's no shortage of crap (logos, other designs, websites, TV and radio campaigns, print ads, and much more) created through direct means (without resort to crowdsourcing) and even by respected agencies. I do think you've approached this dilemma from a sensible perspective. Often, the process is part of the marketing. In fact, that's one reason social media is so hot - people have nearly equal access to the process and brands are faling over each other trying to figure out how to leverage this opportunity. The rules have changed. Consumer activism isn't solely about people complaining or challenging the actions of a company. As you've written - it's going to happen anyway. Smart companies have already realized this opportunity and smart agencies have already embraced the evolution. Nice to see you and Mullen are on the right side of smart. .-= Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..Good Old Fashioned Personal Branding =-.

Edward, I believe that crowdsourcing is a powerful tool that can be easily tweaked and manipulated to the marketer's (and the client's) advantage. But just like James said, crap is in the eye of the beholder and after all, it carries no cost to acquire. So, comes down to the same old: if life gives you lemons, you throw them away? (I'll stick with making the best pure lemonade possible and sell it forward). --Paul .-= Paul L'Acosta´s last blog ..marketingfails: A great personal branding approach to tackle your fears: If You Can Say It, You Can Live It by @nancerosen http://bit.ly/2RqYFH =-.

"So what do you think? Should we invite the crowd to join us in everything we make? Or keep them at arm’s length hoping they’ll be a cooperative audience?" - Hmmm, I dunno. Why not ask the newspaper business? .-= ktroia´s last blog ..ktroia: RT @nolamaven: Jennifer with the turducken! Awesome. #topchef =-.

We frequently encounter this response to crowdsourcing when we're talking to clients. Here's a pretty bland list of the responses we give (bland because without specific context it's pretty hard to provide specific feedback). 1. Crowdsourcing is often about the process as much as it's about the outcomes. The process shows a brand engaged with the world and all the world holds -- good, bad, critical and loving. Brands have to participate in culture in order to be part of it. 2. Crowdsourcing isn't just one process. It's a mindset of co-creation put into practice with many variables. Maybe it's providing a public creative brief and asking people to contribute concepts. Maybe it's creating an online screening room for fans. Maybe it's asking folks to create a ton of raw content from diverse sources that can be edited and remixed into new content. Tons of possibilities exist when you open the creative process. 3. In the absence of facts and experience, opinions can dominate. Many brands engaged in crowdsourcing have seen great successes and continue to engage in crowdsource. See Doritos. Many others have tried crowdsourcing and learned a ton, including how they'd work in public in the future. All snowballs start with one snowflake and if you never give the small snowballs a chance to form and a nudge to start you never get big snowballs. 4. Crap is in the eye of the beholder. A ton of very effective advertising can be labeled 'crap' if the wrong lens is applied to view it. .-= James´s last blog ..How to Break Into Advertising Creative Agencies as a Student =-.

Wouldn't it be better to give them their own arena in which to play? I am not sure the crowd is going to be there forever for everything no matter how interesting the brand is.