In recent months we’ve observed a rash of well-known brands seeking to leverage the power of the people through “crowdsourcing.” In this post, I’ll consider a couple of new examples of crowdsourcing and its implications, and also share an exchange I had with John Windsor, the founder of a new agency dedicated to crowdsourcing, on the next evolution of advertising.
For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, a recent article in The New York Times describes crowdsourcing this way: “The term refers to open innovation, usually online, that relies on the so-called wisdom of crowds to generate ideas collaboratively rather than traditional models based on, say, copywriters and art directors.”
But from its beginnings in simple competitions designed to engage consumers, crowdsourcing is morphing into a more serious business that may threaten existing ad agencies. For example, as a continuing part of its Dewmocracy campaign, PepsiCo announced last week that it would turn over the choice of agencies for three product launches to the crowd. AdAge reports that Mountain Dew is asking any agency, independent film company, or individual to submit 12-second clips via www.12seconds.tv along with outlines of their ideas for marketing three new Mountain Dew line extensions.
In the case of Dewmocracy, it is reported the new effort will not impact its relationship with the agency of record, BBDO Worldwide. But other companies have gone a step further. Unilever aims to to replace Lowe, London with ad agency creatives drawn from the crowd. In September, the company announced that it would award a $10,000 prize to the winner of a competition to find TV and print ideas for its Peperami brand. Peperami, a popular meat snack, has been advertised using the hugely successful Animal campaign for many years, and the brief dictates that the animated character will remain central to any new campaign.
As reported by AdAge, the brief has been posted on the Ideabounty.com website, and is being promoted to the creative community using traditional ads in U.K. trade publications, as well as viral marketing. As of October 30th over 1100 entries had been received.
Where there is obvious demand, new agencies spring up to fulfill it. Last week saw the launch of a new agency, Victor and Spoils, dedicated to crowdsourcing. (It’s described in the same New York Times story cited above.)
One of the founders of Victor and Spoils is John Windsor, previously vice president and executive director for strategy and product innovation at Crispin Porter & Bogusky. I asked John for his thoughts on the future of marketing in a crowdsourcing world.
To what degree will marketers truly need to “let go” in the world of crowdsourcing versus defining what the brand stands for?
The need to let go has been happening for a while. Most companies are a bit behind. The rise of social media has shown that brands are formed by the community. The radical transparency of social media has created a heightened need for companies to be more honest and let go of the control of their brands. Consumers now know when a company talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. Crowdsourcing will cause an acceleration of this trend, demanding that companies let go even further.
How do you create an effective campaign through crowdsourcing (rather than a one-off execution)?
I think we’re still in the project phase of using crowdsourcing. As soon as strategy and creative direction of the crowd becomes more standard, campaigns will start to emerge. I have a feeling you’ll start seeing this within the next year.
What role will market research play? Is it redundant when the crowd is responsible for execution?
All aspects are starting to blur and market research will blur [along with] with marketing itself. But we’ve seen this before, with the rise of WOM marketing. “Listening “(market research) and “Talking” (marketing) are both important parts of facilitating a dialogue with consumers. My sense is market research will become more real-time and more natural as the walls between marketing and market research blur. Crowds can be used for both parts of the conversation.
As you might expect, John believes crowdsourcing is here to stay. But will it overturn the existing agency model or be adopted by it? What are your thoughts?
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
November 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
It has long been pointed out that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The mass rush to adopt (or at least blog about) crowdsourcing by credulous marketing types is a great example of this. It is certainly true that Linux and Wikipedia are wonderful achievements and great examples of how, in the right circumstances, crowds can be terribly powerful things. However that is not at all the same as saying ANY task can be completed more cheaply and successfully by a crowd.
In particular, it is a telling comment on the intellectual and professional bankruptcy of much of the marketing profession, that this rhetoric of ‘letting go’ has become popular. The notion that one can ‘get ahead’ by relinquishing all control of one’s brand, while having a certain appeal to fans of Tolstoy’s worldview (War and Peace presumably tl;dr for the crowdsourcing posse, but I’m sure you guys can find the wikipedia entry), is pretty much saying that nothing is the best you can do and that your employer would be better off without you. If you can crowdsource the ad agency, why not the marketing director? All those pesky brand decisions can be taken care of by the “engaged consumer” and sensible people from procurement, sales and supply chain could certainly cover off those more administrative tasks.
Ultimately brands are there to make consumers’ lives easier by providing an assurance of quality. Advertising is there to consistently, over time, build an aura around those brands that supports a price premium. This task is one that involves both discipline and a creative leap in order to create powerful imagery and stick with it. Crowds excel at making small incremental improvements to a monolithic construct (Wikipedia, Linux) or in solving particular practical problems. They do not excel at creative endeavour. It was Shakespeare who wrote Hamlet, not the infinite number of monkeys…
November 9th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Hi Jacob, thanks for the comment. Hopefully it will provoke some discussion.
Just to be clear I have never been a fan of the “just let go” mentality (see this post from 2006). It seems the complete antithesis of what brand building is all about. Brands should lead not follow the crowd. They need to know what they stand for and communicate it consistently and effectively. That said, some brands do seem to have an opportunity to leverage the creativity and enthusiasm of their consumers. The big question in my mind, and the one John left unanswered, is can crowdsourcing move beyond individual events to a more consistent engagement or campaign. I guess Converse might be an example of a brand which has successfully engaged people in this way?
November 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am
I read a roundtable on crowdsourcing recently and one of the participants summed up my main issue with it: “people just can’t be arsed”. When one brand asks you to unlock your inner creativity to help design its new advert, it might be an entertaining diversion. When a hundred, or a thousand brands are doing it, it’s distracting and intrusive noise.
And motivation to produce good work for someone else isn’t easy to come by: in my other life running music websites I’ve seen amazing examples of groups where independent contributions coalesce into an amazing whole, and I’ve also seen examples where getting other people to participate ends up like pulling teeth. My advice would be to keep the task simple and quick and to draw on an existing community (so as to incorporate peer approval into yr incentives) rather than throw it wide open. But that’s just me.
The principle of open innovation is a good one, I think, but so much of its actual execution - especially in advertising - seems gimmicky. A lot of the case studies you see aren’t much beyond the “Blue Peter Competition” stage - the grown-up equivalent of designing a new monster to appear on Dr Who.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:27 am
In theory, many hands (minds) may make light work, but I do question the sustainability of this concept. How long can clients expect to get over 1,000 ideas? Once creatives realise they have such long odds of winning, how many will continue to invest the time required to produce high quality material?
Surely this large number of submissions also creates a massive filtering task? Perhaps the role of planners and researchers will then be helping clients to order the chaos, and filter and evaluate against a clear brand strategy?
November 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
It seems to me crowdsourcing has its parallel in a trend in media that took place several years ago: the reality show. Many bewailed the decline in television production values as script writers were replaced with editing teams. It was a different approach that filled a public craving for societal experimentation and/or vicarious experience, at least for some viewers. But it unsettled lots of people.
Hindsight show us that the reality genre, while successful did not ultimately come to dominate the airwaves. Lots of scripted drama, comedy, sci-fi and fantasy, etc. continue to be produced with production values stronger than ever. They co-exist and compete with reality television quite nicely, giving the public a more varied viewing landscape.
I suspect the same will be true for crowdsourcing. Duncan quite rightly points out the need for filtering - I think this gives rise to a new function: the editor of creative input. And like the reality show, the concept around which the creative product is solicited will be incredibly important to the quality of the material the editor has to work with. (And who will be in charge of the branding concept in these cases?)
Does the ability to crowdsource spell the demise of the more traditional ways of developing brand expressions? I think not. In the long run, technology is here to serve not to be served and the opportunities provided by it for crowdsourcing only allow more varieties of approach. Like the reality show, I believe crowdsourcing will find its successes for particular brands well suited for it, but for others, it will not displace creative processes already available. Sometimes we don’t want to participate. Sometimes we don’t care if the brand communications develop from grassroots. Sometimes we just want to be delighted with something great.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Interesting commentary, guys, thank you.
I am particularly struck by Mark’s comments about the parallel with reality TV. It makes a lot of sense. Just as with reality TV you need to understand your audience and select the right participants and content to appeal to them. I am sure that John Windsor and colleagues are aiming to fill the role of “editor of creative input.”
Robert Bain at Research Magazine also picked up on the post and added his thoughts at research-live.com He proposes that it is tough to separate the value of the content developed from the attendant PR.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:07 am
The Peperami contest has been won by two industry professionals. The ideas produced by the two winners will be combined to form a new campaign for next year.