Unilever's So-Called Crowdsourcing
Why This Marketing Prof Thinks the CPG Giant's Move Is a Cop-Out
| |
| Brian Sheehan | |
Last week an article hit the advertising press that sent shivers down the collective spines of Madison Avenue. Unilever, one of the world's largest advertisers, fired its agency, Lowe, London, on the Peperami brand. Peperami is a popular snack in the U.K. roughly equivalent to a Slim Jim.
What made the decision doubly painful for Lowe was that it was fired not for doing a bad job, but for doing a good one. Matt Burgess, managing director at Unilever, said, "Lowe has done great work on the account over the years. They've created a strong creative vehicle that's extremely well defined and portable. But their work has created a problem for them, because it makes Peperami the obvious candidate for crowdsourcing."
Agencies get fired every day. What makes this case unique, however, is that the agency was not replaced by another agency; it was replaced by what Unilever claims to be a "crowdsourcing" solution.
Now this all sounds very leading edge in a digital, social-media sort of way. But let's dig a little deeper and ask ourselves if Unilever's approach is actually crowdsourcing or something very different.
|
Related Story:
Crowdsourcing Done Wrong: the Vegemite iSnack Naming DisasterExercise in Crowdsourcing Turns into PR Nightmare |
First of all, what exactly is crowdsourcing? Perhaps the place to start is to ask what we mean by a "crowd," and more specifically, a digital crowd. The best place to look for that definition is in James Surowiecki's seminal 2004 book "The Wisdom of Crowds." It is safe to say that the term "crowdsourcing," which was coined in Wired magazine in 2006, owes its origins to Surowiecki.
Surowiecki tells us that a digital "wise crowd" must be diverse, so that lots of different opinions are represented. It must be decentralized so no single person can influence the outcome. It must be independent, so that "good" information can balance out "bad" information. Finally, it must be collaborative, so that it can result in "collective intelligence." Wikipedia, for example, is all of these things.
The last point about collective intelligence is critical. Crowdsourcing at its core is about mass collaboration. Unilever's move, on the other hand, is nothing of the sort. Unilever is looking for no collaboration here. What it is looking for is to get lots of high-quality creative ideas at a significantly lower price. End of story.
What it has created is nothing like crowdsourcing, but rather an ongoing contest to create new advertising executions at a vastly reduced price. Unilever is offering a bounty of $10,000 for the person who can develop the winning TV and print ideas. Unlike other famous brands that have sourced creative from consumers, for example Doritos for its Super Bowl ads, Unilever is specifically looking for professional ad people to put forward ideas. Advertising Age's story about the Peperami move, from a few weeks back, noted that professionals in creative businesses were specifically "who the pitch was marketed to."
The best entry will win. There will be no mass collaboration of the type Procter & Gamble uses when it taps InnoCentive.com to connect to a crowd of over 140,000 scientists and engineers worldwide to solve research and development dilemmas. Mr. Burgess admitted in the article that cost was a key factor, as well as the ability to get more ideas from more professional creatives.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Unilever's move. It may be a look into the future where professional ideas are more numerous and much cheaper, thanks to online outreach, fitting in nicely with the pronouncements of Ad Age's own Bob Garfield.
But please, Unilever, don't insult our intelligence by packaging it as a leading-edge mass-collaborative exercise, an exercise that truly represents a step forward toward creative collective intelligence.
| ABOUT THE AUTHOR | |
|
Brian Sheehan spent 25 years at Saatchi & Saatchi, the last nine years as chairman-CEO of Team One Advertising in Los Angeles. In 2008, he became associate professor of advertising at Syracuse University. |
|
RSS Feed›› DigitalNext
Most Recent Posts 
- We Still Have Plenty For Which to Be Thankful
- American Cancer Society Builds on Birthday Effort
- Google, This Side of $100 Billion
- We're Raising Superheroes, So Can You
- Sorry Rupert, News Content Is Not a Google Killer
- Tipsy Turkey Brought to You by Georgi Vodka
- AOL Kicks Running Man Out Of Bed
- 'Giving Thanks': Helping the Hungry
- More Asians in TV Spots? It's About Time
- Is the Promise of Viral Success Holding the Ad Industry Back?
- JC Penney's 'Doghouse' Returns
- Autism Speaks Hosts Chicago Fundraiser
- The Invisible Hand of Agency Culture
- Buffalo Soldiers Wings & Things
- Publicis' 'Boost' Wins Create for a Cause Contest
White Paper
The New Female Consumer: The Rise of the Real Mom
This Advertising Age and JWT white paper explores what multiple generations of American women want when it comes to family, work and life in the 21st century, decades after the women's liberation movement.
Bob Garfield
Verizon Exiles IPhone to Island of Misfit Toys for the Holidays
Too-Cool Apple Now Finding Itself on the Receiving End of Competitor Ridicule
Special Report
America's Hottest Brands
Advertising Age Honors the Top Brands of the Year -- and the Brains Behind Them
3 Minute Ad Age Video
Wal-Mart CMO Reflects on The Chaos of 2006
Marketing Side Was 'Out of Control' He Says
Special Report
Marketer of the Year: Hyundai
The carmaker won handily in our reader poll, besting Walmart, McDonald's, Lego and Amazon
Ad Age Video
Eddie Murphy's Long-Term Effect on Ad Agency Diversity
The Video Story of Dallas' Marcus Graham Project
Weekly Online Poll
Will small digital-production shops working directly with clients turn big digital agencies into unnecessary middlemen?
White Paper: 2010 America
What the 2010 Census Means for Marketing and Advertising
2010 America explains what you need to know about the biggest consumer market-research project of the decade: the 2010 U.S. census. Demographics expert Peter Francese, author of this highly readable Ad Age white paper, analyzes what the census will reveal about the changing face of consumers.
Most Read Most E-Mailed
Most Read Most E-mailed
Be part of the celebration at The Ad Age Media Mavens Awards Luncheon
Sponsored by ESPN. Join the world's leading media strategists for a celebration of creative thinking, innovation and a look at how the best are preparing for 2010. More
(What is RSS?)
On smaller stuff, I think crowdsourcing works, e.g., if you want a professionally designed logo, why pay tens of thousands if you can pay $250 at http://logotournament.com/
If we choose to totally devalue what we do we make it a generic commodity.
Either way, it seems like a pretty hairbrained experiment if you ask me. Certainly premature to fire the agency...
Snide comments aside, would you or I in this economy pass up a crack at $10K for a few hours developing a pitch? Oink!
The producer provides video footage or pictures, text if desired, then chooses from the animoto library rights free music and also other stock footage if needed.
The system then custom builds a short video to it's own liking. If producer/user doesn't like outcome, they can resubmit and it will provide a different outcome.
All the more, if the user wants to edit it, they can get a premium membership with user-friendly editing tools.
Here's an example spot from the site for Chicago Pizza Cafe in Frisco, TX that was literally created in five minutes with images shot on a tiny video camera.
http://animoto.com/play/zNyJV4iQpfuNd06kxnoDCA
Note - I don't have an affiliation with Google or animoto, I'm sharing the link just for frame of reference.
It may not win a clio, but this is just the beginning for social media spots. We cover this topic and others in our upcoming white paper XL Trends Chapter 2 coming out this week.
Rodney Mason, CMO
www.moosylvania.com
I appreciate that this is all semantics; I am only making the point because you chose to question the use of the term 'crowdsourcing' to describe the IdeaBounty site. Ultimately, IdeaBounty is an open market place for ideas - a forum that connects the worldwide creative community with brands looking for new, fresh ideas. Whether this is defined as 'crowdsourcing' or otherwise is beside the point. The fact that Unilever has chosen to work with IdeaBounty is in my mind progressive, brave and cost savvy. These are tough times for any brand, so I think we should applaud any marketers who are prepared to shake things up and give their consumers the chance to engage and shape their brands.
In response to Sarah's comment regarding the production of the winning idea - Unilever are working with an outsourced production company called Smartworks to produce the winning executions – which is another progressive step forward. They have experienced creative directors who shepherd the process. Furthermore, IdeaBounty does allow the winning creative to continue working on the execution of the idea, should they have the relevant skills and experience.
Finally, shouldn't we all be excited at the opportunity to earn $10k for a single idea for one of the worlds leading brands? Many of the comments on this article strike me as old school ad folk shaking in their boots.
Nic Ray
www.IdeaBounty.com
That there is a disagreement about the definition of crowdsourcing is hardly surprising given that it's a relatively new practice. Basing a critique on the definition you have chosen to adopt seems to me to be a way to get a new angle on the story.
I believe it's a brave move, but one which remains to be tested and people will certainly be watching to see the result. I'm definitely curious.
There is a nuance here though. It seems that ideabounty is disrupting the traditional agency business model by acting as the new creative intermediary. The website disintermediates agencies, creating a platform where companies can get multiple concepts straight from the creatives. The website in effect acts as the agency but can deliver more ideas for a lot less. And the price (prize) is high enough to get decent ideas/bids.
In the end, that creative, the web platform and whichever creative or agency executes the campaign accrue whatever value is left after you subtract out the premium that used to be paid to the agency.
At the same time, if I understand the model correctly, it leaves room for execution by appropriate professionals, which presumably is still important to big companies like Unilever.
I don't mind this crowdsourcing model as much a) because it does not ask individuals to work for free or deliver finished products and b) in the case of Peperami the prize money justifies the risk of spending time on spec work.
I think we are going to see a lot more intermediation by web platforms such as this wherever and whenever this can bring down costs but at the same assure quality and distribute compensation among the players involved.
Since when is 80-336 persons supplying finished designs for no compensation economically productive, not to mention sustainable?
I cannot imagine crowdspring will succeed on a large scale but I do think ideabounty will. The latter's model makes more sense.
Miguel Buckenmeyer
www.miguelbuckenmeyer.com
-------
Some designers may balk at the idea of creating a full-fledged work before having a guaranteed buyer. On the other hand, by allowing both established creative professionals and talented newcomers to compete based solely on their creativity and the quality of their ideas—rather than bids, proposals or portfolios—crowdSPRING could also level the competitive playing field for creative people worldwide. To wit: when the site launched into beta in March, it posted just a stark website and asked the crowd to redesign it for a winning prize of USD 5,000. A few weeks later, a student in the Netherlands beat out 80 creatives and 337 other entries with a winning design. Lesson: never underestimate the power of the crowds!
Good luck companies but I am glad Ad Age is keeping the record straight your just trying to get the same stuff for less.
In regard to the definition of crowdsourcing - it is definitely a debate of semantics. Simply put, it's many vs. few and the odds are in favor of the many, especially when you're dealing with such subjective impressions.
In regard to the outcome (ideas or finished product) - yes, part of it has to do with cost and why shouldn't it? I think everyone (accept ad agencies) are tired of paying big bucks for only a few ideas that come from a small group of big thinkers.
Embrace the change, it is not a passing fad and will remain to be a player in this game - just look at the numbers of people signing up on these sites like CrowdSpring, AdHack and Janggle.
As for winning a clio - it will happen and I bet it happens sooner than we think!
Cameron Sinclaire used this very effectively with Design Like You Give A Damn, and Architecture for Humanity. In this case, the briefs where inspired by the ambition to design a better world. (google his TED speech)
If you have a competition every time you need a brand idea, you'll get many ideas, but have no depth, no brand consistency,no bank of experience that's committed to your brand. That is not a reliable way to build a strong brand. Who will carry that vision to execution? It's not like seasoned professionals are spending their days participating in 'crowd-sourcing' competitions.
Sounds like a step up from 'user-generated content,' but going down the same path to mediocrity.
Trying to earn a living by being one of the crowd is akin to trying to earn a living by playing the lottery.
Ryan from Minneapilis has it exactly right.
There is not, nor will there ever be, an "Ad-o-matic" despite the wishful thinking of psudo-scientists.
It's not about Clios -- awards are just a byproduct of doing good work -- it's about making something that doesn't make the viewer barf.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/28/crowdsourcing-enterprise-innovation-technology-cio-network-jargonspy.html
One can quibble with the semantics around whether this is 'officially' crowdsourcing or something else, but the fact remains that this is (just) an experiment in collaborative creativity. Unilever can't be blamed for experimenting in an emerging field, surely. They are clearly aiming for better work at lower cost. We might not all agree with that as a particularly noble or philanthropic ambition, but they're a publicly-listed company . . . what do people expect? If was a shareholder I'd want them to spend less on marketing with greater upside, so if this works, bingo.
That said, Unilever will find that it's not easy, even if the results do in fact turn out to be of the highest quality. For one thing, filtering thousands of submissions is a hugely resource intensive exercise. Then there's the legal minefield around ownership & originality of the ideas submitted. And the question around who is best to execute something conceived by someone else entirely. Sure, many questions remain.
But I think this is a smart move by Unilever. Not least because they will learn a vast amount. It's agencies that should be worried by this, not Unilever. Out of the wreckage of this recession will surely emerge challenging new models powered by mass collaboration; if someone gets the recipe right - right level of incentives, the right level of creative filtering at the right stages, the right path through the legals issues, and so on - I imagine there's a huge opportunity here for a new business model.
Let's see what comes out and then judge this exercise accordingly.
To clear up a few points around the IdeaBounty model:
1. We do not see ourselves as an agency - but rather as a innovative platform for sourcing creativity. We have no ambitions to get involved in the production of the ideas, as this requires individuals / companies with formal training, experience, craft skills and the right tech / equiptment. Thus we believe the client should be using Idea Bounty to source their ideas, but use an agency or a production company to produce and craft it into the final execution.
2. Not all briefs are right for a crowdsourcing platform like IdeaBounty. Those that require high levels of insight or research into a category are best handled by an experienced agency. Briefs that involve a confidential product or service are also not suited. However, briefs that involve well-understood brands, that leverage existing brand properties or will benefit from 'man on the street' insight, are perfect.
3. IdeaBounty has invested heavily in the legal framework that governs the site. Both creatives and clients can rest assured that their IP is well protected.
4. The IdeaBounty team offer filtering and sorting of ideas to our clients as part of the service. Yes, this can be hard work, but its fun and you get a lot of insight into what consumers think about the brand in question.
Thanks
Nic
www.ideabounty.com
I had a chance to look at your link - and no offense - but it was exactly what I would expect from a site like that. Amateur adulterated dreck.
If clients choose that over real advertising it will only serve to make my clients more relevant, creditable, and wealthy.
And, Brian, it was great to see your name again.
If there is ever a brief which is right for crowd sourcing, this is it. The positioning and creative platform are well defined and the brief is tight.
Idea Bounty / crowdsourcing will never replace the agency model but for executional ideas of a marketing or advertising nature, it's certainly more cost effective and in some cases, I'm sure the end product will be better.