#Crowdsourcing
Posted by Dan | Filed under Blog, Talk, Thinking
I have seen a lot of hype lately about Crowdsourcing, why so much? Do we think it is a good thing? Quite a few people have started talking and tweeting about this trending topic (so to speak), with lots of different views. I have a summary of some thoughts and opinions below…
We came across a few websites pushing this idea…
Idea Bounty is a website that allows clients to ask the world for creative ideas in exchange for a reward, or Bounty. The clients review the submissions and select the best Idea as the Bounty winner. Clients can only use Ideas that they pay the creative a Bounty for.
99designs is a disruptive startup which connects passionate designers from around the globe with savvy clients who need design projects completed in a timely fashion without the usual risk or cost associated with professional design.
I sent the 99designs website onto a friend of mine and this was his response (I have edited out the swearing):
I cheapens the whole design process and opens up the industry to a downward spiral that can only result with designers fighting against each other over cost/pricing rather than quality of concept and execution it will be like gladiators in the coliseum.
AND you give away all copyright for the work, given that the average pay from the site is $100-$600 they can suck my ####!!! – if I designed a logo for example a big bank and they had branches all over the world, i would expect to get a minimum of £5,000-£10,000 for complete copyright hand over and that is probably too cheap.
Sorry to rant but that is exactly the kind of thing I am against. It’s on par with free pitching. Crowdsourcing is a cheap way for c###s that dont wana pay for REAL quality, they just want something nice ‘n’ pretty for the least amount of money.
Bad days are just around the corner if sites like this start popping up everywhere.
This, as I am sure you have worked out, is a response from a designer. I can see his point here, although I don’t see free pitching as an issue. Going off topic for a second, in my opinion if you don’t get paid to pitch it ensures the agency presents their best work possible. It is a driver.
Back in the room… The same sort of POV as the above was posted on the blog of Amelia Torode, a planner in London. In the first paragraph we see Amelia state that it ‘cheapens outsourcing‘. Although this blog post was more of a discussion piece I think there are a few good points there. Do we need the ad agency if 1000’s of out-of-work creatives (assumption, I know) will deliver ideas for a lot less money?
I am a firm believer that good ideas can come from anyone… I also don’t think that ‘the creatives’ are the only source of these… But on that note, you do either have it or you don’t. Again I digress…
I guess we then touch upon economics to address another issue… If companies (or people, in this case) are competing against a fierce number of competitors, then more often than not the product or service comes down to price. Is this a problem or an advantage of Crowdsourcing? I think it depends on which side of the boardroom table you sit on.
We may be witnessing a revolution? A new ad agency has started up in the US called Victors & Spoils (wow, they have been getting a lot of press lately… first mover advantage?):
We are Victors & Spoils and this is what we do. As the world’s first creative (ad) agency built on crowdsourcing principles, it’s our goal to provide businesses with a better way to solve their marketing, advertising and product-design problems by engaging the world’s most talented creatives.
Why are we doing this? The way we see it, companies need an alternative to both current ad agencies as well as current crowdsourcing platforms. One that offers the strategic direction, engagement and relationship management that agencies deliver today, but one that also delivers the engagement, cultural relevance, results and return on investment that crowdsourcing {if managed and directed well} can deliver.
The old saying ‘two heads are better than one’ could be used as a analogy to describe Crowdsourcing, but does it matter who these heads are? On the one hand you have a team that works in an ad agency, doing it everyday, on the pulse with new technology (most are anyway), seasoned in developing creative ideas to meet a clients brief. Then you have potentially 1000’s of minds working away on your brief simultaneously – surely a few must be good ideas?
I guess we are assuming here that the people that partake in Crowdsourcing are not as experienced in meeting client briefs from a creative and strategic perspective.
The way I see it is as follows:
Go to an ad agency and you are pretty much guaranteed a solution that is based on thorough thinking about your brand/product. Agencies have planners that work with creatives for a reason; to ensure the quality of work that comes out meets the clients requirements. All good agencies will propose ideas that the believe (or intuitively know) will work.
The Crowdsource model is more of a gamble. You fire it out there, get loads back, then hope something will stick. Some will stick and could even be great, potentially the best marketing ideas to be developed… but are clients willing to take this risk, especially in times like these? Or even when things are good?
This post is lacking the clients view on this, so if you do work client side, please feel free to let us know your thoughts.
I am all about new developments, new technology and new thinking. Maybe I could even be accused of being resistant to change. Is this a good idea though? Clients use ad agencies as they are experts, can 1000’s of people that are not technically experts in a subject do better than a team of, say, 10 experts?
Tags: 99designs, crowdsource, crowdsourcing, Idea Bounty
We Are Shift F7 are on Twitter
Posted by Anna | Filed under Blog, Talk
Of course we are!
Follow us @WeAreShiftF7 and we might just follow you back!
Tags: Twitter
Word of the Week: Transmedia
Posted by Anna | Filed under Blog, Talk, Thinking
Is it just me or does the word ‘transmedia’ just keep on cropping up? Transmedia storytelling, transmedia entertainment, transmedia branding… it’s everywhere!
In leyman’s terms, transmedia literally means ‘across multiple forms of media’. The concept of transmedia storytelling simply refers to communicating a narrative through a variety of different media – be it online video, a comic book, a film, a website and so on.
A Storied Career contains an excellent blog post discussing the role of transmedia within today’s entertinament industry, citing The Matrix and The Blair Witch Project as early examples of transmedia storytelling, whilst experiencefreak cites the benchmark-for-all-marketers ARG for The Dark Knight as a seminal case study for transmedia branding:
This has got us thinking…
Are the ways in which we consume narrative-based media changing and evolving? Do we now look for more than one entry point in to the entertainment media we consume? Are we starting to expect to experience something rather than simply consume it? And without relying too heavily on the concept of ARGs, how can social media fit into this cycle of multiple narrative threads?
A bit of food for thought for you.
Tags: alternate reality game, ARG, entertainment, transmedia, transmedia storytelling, Why So Serious
A Twitter love story
Posted by Anna | Filed under Blog, Talk
Well this is a first.
A creative in the US has used social media to propose to his girlfriend, including using video banner ads and Twitter hastags. Adrants has the full scoop.
I love the way that people are using social media in new ways. Yes, this is probably the most geeky marriage proposal ever, but it shows how the role of social media in everyday life is evolving and being used in different ways to its original purpose.
All that remains to be said is congrats to Fred and Delila, the now happily engaged couple!
Tags: Social Media, Twitter
Re-appropriating Brands
Posted by Anna | Filed under Blog, Talk, Thinking
I am currently writing a piece for my day job on brands and the current trend for re-appropriating brand logos so I thought I would share some of my thoughts here…
The Cool Hunter recently ran an article on the trend for Generation Y to wear branded clothing and accessories in an ironic way. They coined the term Brand Whores for this group of people. Read it here.
This got me thinking about this changing idea of consumer brand culture and poses some questions…
- Is this act of re-appropriating brand logos a statement of anti-consumerism or counter culture?
- Does it simply reinforce the importance and strength of brands within today’s society as the seemingly uncool suddenly becomes cool by default?
- Who defines what is cool, what is uncool?
- How a brand can switch between the two?
- Ultimately, is there a blurring of boundaries between cool and uncool?
- How can we influence this?
- Is all brand awareness good awareness, despite the negative or ironic associations?
We are a digital creative & social media agency.