Blog

EXCERPT: The many experiments in crowdsourcing “professional-class creative” have given us something else to think about — the use of the word “creative” is a term that the advertising community has branded and defined too narrowly. As the entire universe of crowdsourcing has demonstrated, the work that people can be tapped to do is the most important stuff there is. For the essence of “creative” is creating, the making of things, without which there’d be nothing (literally).

This post was first published on AllThingsThatRise.

It’s not often I can point to a trend in social technology and get truly excited. The business benefits of social tech have long been established (the effectiveness and efficiency of networked communications), but so have the human costs (distraction and dependency on networked devices). But there’s a trend that’s (a) just beginning to mature and (b) shows real promise to benefit both business and the human condition — really. I’m talking about the many systems and platforms that have been used to “crowdsource creative” — that is, to tap human networks to create new ideas, products, and services. These platforms have been used to create everything ranging from t-shirts, corporate logos, to earnest solutions for world peace. Regarding world peace, that’s not exactly the kind of human benefit I’m thinking about (more about that in a moment). But the range of things that can be crowdsourced — both mundane and sublime — is worth considering. I like to bunch these things in three general groups:

*Platforms that crowdsource the creation of products and services. Perhaps the best known example of this is Dell IdeaStorm, an initiative that’s enabled the company to tap its most avid customers for ideas that contribute to product and service development.

*Platforms that crowdsource the creation of ideas. The idea here is to organize groups of people to innovate, develop new ideas, and solve problems that have eluded organizations that have attempted these things on their own. There are lots of examples of this, from the famed InnoCentive site (most recent challenge: clever solutions for responding to recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico); to the $1 million Netflix competition (which enabled the company to develop a superior recommendations system); to the very recent $1 million Edmunds Toyota Prius challenge (“re-create unintended acceleration in a car and then solve that problem and prove the whole thing to us”), to the many experiments that are being conducted at Ideascale, a platform that “empowers communities to drive innovation” by enabling them to collect ideas from “customers, give them a platform to vote, the most important ideas bubble to the top.”

*Platforms that crowdsource the creation of professional-class content. Of the three general classes of crowdsourcing creative, I find this to be the most interesting, for three reasons. First, most of these platforms tap communities of professional-class (or near professional-class) participants. No longer do businesses need to limit themselves to consumer-driven user-generated content (USG); they can avail themselves to professional-generated content (PGC) as well. Second, because of the professional standing of many participants, they are generally more Web savvy and better connected; a brand that engages one of these communities might get instant marketing at the start of a competition because so many members of the community are likely to publicize their participation. Third, the very fact that businesses have begun to crowdsource actual “creative” — the term that the advertising industry has given to any and all artifacts (design, images, video) — from the creative disciplines has serious implications for traditional business models in the world of marketing, communications, and, yes, advertising. Examples of PGC platforms are Logoworks (acquired by HP) and 99designs, which crowdsource the creation of logos and Web design; MOFILM, which helps brands crowdsource the creation of film and video; Aniboom, a global community of professional-class animators; and Talenthouse, perhaps the most audacious of all platforms, attempting to create a virtual marketplace for the entire “creative” community (art, fashion, film, music, design — and that’s just to start).

These many experiments have given us something else to think about — the use of the word “creative,” which, as I noted, is a term that the advertising community has branded and defined too narrowly. As the entire universe of crowdsourcing has demonstrated, the work that people can be tapped to do is the most important stuff there is. For the essence of “creative” is creating, the making of things, without which there’d be nothing (literally). And, as companies like MOFILM, Aniboom, and Talenthouse are demonstrating, the things we are talking about are potentially great things — this is not the world of amateurs, but a newly organized world of professionals — and people on their way up (e.g., MOFILM has done a great job connecting with students in film school) — who are motivated to work in environments that are less hierarchical and more network-centric. That, of course, has long been one of the promises of the Social Web, but I believe that “crowdsourcing creative” is pushing the outer edges of social technology design and that we can all learn a lot from it. I’ve been watching this market for quite some time (disclosure = Aniboom was a client of my agency a while back), and these are three things I’ve observed.

(1) The best platforms have defined value from the start. As I said, many of these platforms are looking to create important things for which there is a clear and compelling market need (from a cheaper logo for starting a new business, to breakthrough technology that can transform a business).

(2) The best platforms are driven by social design. It’s no accident that many platforms connect with their participants through contests and games. The challenge, always, is to devise the right kinds of incentives for the creative community in question (to put the “centive,” for example, in InnoCentive), and this is where innovators in social technology are spending most of their time. But the bigger lesson for all is just how important “game logic” has become for so many experiments on the Social Web (for a smart look at this opportunity, check out the recent Business Week article by John Hagel and John Seely Brown examining what businesses can learn from multi-player games like World of Warcraft).

(3) The best platforms have found a way to connect with the “out crowd,” the most talented professionals that are too remote, too invisible, too shy to rise inside the traditional enterprise. A colleague of mine recently pointed out that one of the cooler things about “crowdsourcing creative” is the opportunity to engage with someone who for any reason — too shy, too far away, invisible behind the corporate lens — to get noticed otherwise. This, I believe, can have a profoundly healthy effect on both the businesses that recruit talent and the people who have it. Healthy for business, because there’s nothing so vulnerable as a company that depends on a small “in crowd” mentality; better to tap the best talent there is, wherever it is. Healthy for the person who has creative talent, because the making of things is the bedrock of a happy life. Put the two together, and you’d have the kind of organizational culture that’s required to compete in the new digital/social economy. But whether or not that’s too idealistic, engaging and supporting “the out crowd” might make for a happier corporate life. As Freud said, “love and work are the two cornerstones of our humanness.” Solving for at least one of these challenges — shall we start a contest? — sounds like a good thing to do.

[Acknowledgement: Big thanks to Tatiana Josephy and Chris Advansun for their research and insights on companies featured in this post.]