site map

 

April 21, 2009 | Tate Linden
I'm on record as supporting crowdsourcing as a solution to branding, though I tend to rant a bit about the ways in which people are trying to get the job done. 

Stokefire tried an experiment with naming and crowdsourcing and got pretty horrid results from the activity about a year ago.  A relatively new site called NameThis.com is gaining some notoriety as a source for cheap names.  Using the crowdsourcing model a creative brief is given and some basic guidelines provided so that creatives can submit ideas.  Someone then goes through and evaluates the ideas based on the original criteria and the winner and runners up are given a small cash payout.  They also reward reviewers for accurately identifying top candidates.  How do they do it?  Some proprietary programming and hidden math. 

Yay Math!

So, do we at Stokefire think this is the most awful, unethical, evil thing ever to happen to naming? 

No. 

Do we find it threatening?  Hell yes. 

In its current format the solution isn't very compelling and we can position ourselves effectively against it using the same tired arguments everyone uses against crowdsourcing, but eventually the technology will be there to make this sort of solution really work.  What happens when you start getting award-winning authors, big-name strategists, and perhaps even entire branding firms putting ideas on the system?  What happens when a system is put in place that trains creatives and art directors and clients in how to get a brilliant brand?  What happens?  The current model for branding will die a painful death.  That's what we find threatening.

But it's a good threat.  It shows that the creative industry is trying to adapt and grow. 

Designers seem to be the folks that are most dead-set against crowdsourcing.  Many have told me that I can't possibly understand until my industry is invaded by the 'cancer.'  Well, that's happened.  Stokefire is still breathing and adapting.  We're even trying to find ways to help crowdsourcing to evolve so that it answers the concerns of clients and designers. 

What's the point in pointing out the lack of effectiveness and that sitting on the sidelines as someone else comes along and solves all the problems?  Namethis.com has huge inadequacies, but someone is going to solve them.  Same with crowdSPRING.  And every other system that leverages the power of crowds. 

Imagine a system where the very best designers are creating teams on the fly to do groundbreaking work.  Screw all this popularity contest voting.  Imagine a solution where designs are evaluated by their ability to add value to a brand, where reviewers are given incentives to not just rate ideas, but to help the designers improve on execution as well.  Where the concerns being raised today are all resolved.  Fraud? Addressed.  Too many participants?  Addressed?  Spec work? Addressed.  Client interaction?  Addressed.  It can happen.

I may be stoned on caffeine, but I think I can just make out the world that will follow the agency model.  It's a world where you can be guaranteed to get the right creatives on your project because there aren't walls and doors between agencies anymore.  It's a world where great ideas can be identified and brought forward whether they were developed by a high-school sophomore or forty-year design veteran. 

I want that world to be here.  Just thinking about it gets my pulse rate up.  It will be incredibly painful for most professionals working in the creative space as it comes into being, but once it is here it has the potential to create the next renaissance. 

Do I want Namethis.com to go away?  Nope.  I want more of them.  I want to be a part of the team that looks at the gap between what they're doing now and where they need to be and helps 'em get over. 

I challenge creatives to give me a single argument about why crowdsourcing can't work.  I will go out on a limb and say that no matter what your single issue is I can come up with a solution that addresses your concern.  (I may create entirely new problems in the process, but that's an issue for another day.)

So, let's hear it.  Tell me why it won't work or what isn't fair and I'll show you why it will or how to make it so.  Or I'll do my best, anyhow. 

Bring it.
4 Comments
Karl Thomson April 22, 2009 9:37 AM

"I challenge creatives to give me a single argument about why crowdsourcing can't work."
As you know, I think crowdsourcing is flawed because it's entirely spec. Spec work drains a firm's (or individual's) by doing work for free in the hopes that it will garner some favor with the client who will then pay for it.

Well I don't know about you, Tate, but I don't work for free (or at least when I do, it's for a pro-bono client and a worthy cause).

But the real reason why crowdsourcing can't work is because at $250 for a logo, I'm pretty sure no one, not even a freelancer, can make any kind of a living.

That, and the end result of almost everything I've seen on crowdSpring is absolute, utter rubbish that does nothing to further the client's brand and deliver measurable value.

NameThis.com won't take too much business from Stokefire, I'll wager, because it's as flawed as all the other crowdsourcing sites. A few unsophisticated clients who don't know the value of a good name may use it, but you wouldn't want to work with them anyway, would you?

-k-

Tate Linden Author Profile Page April 22, 2009 12:39 PM

Thanks for stepping up and putting forth a first response, Karl.

I'm guessing that your argument is that the $250 level is just too low to enable anyone to make a living.

Well... I agree.

I don't however, think that this is a fault of crowdsourcing. The "I have $50 to give to you if you can draw a logo for me" people have always been there. Crowdsourcing is just making them come out of the woodwork.

I believe that once crowdsourcing has been figured out and the benefits made plain we'll see pricing moving upwards. Already Stokefire pays out around $1500 for crowdsourced design. $1000 to the 'winning' designer and a side pot split amongst the group of designers that provide promising work or are asked to make edits but don't get selected.

Technology can solve the issues you raise as well. If we build a system that puts a price on your participation (e.g., "I'm interested in the project, but it will cost you $X to see my ideas", or even a way to look through portfolios and invite designers you like for a fee they set in advance) it seems to address the "I will not work for free" angle. If clients know they can get a concept from Compass360 - a great design shop, by the way - for $1K or $15K or whatever price you set... it can add to your opportunities rather than take away from them.

We've got a couple projects we're art directing on crowdSPRING that are adding real value to the brand - but the amount invested in the project ($1500 for designs and at least as much for art direction and project management) enables us to treat it as legitimate brand development rather than a one-off idea-fest.

I've been known to float an idea or two on a project just because I found the project fascinating, so I can be a purist and say I will never work for free. One of our designs was a final contender for a Chuck Palahniuk book. No payment, but the fact that out of more than three hundred designs ours was in the top five? Believe it or not it's pretty validating. A smart buyer with good sense can make it feel worthwhile - and we learned a lot by experiencing crowdsourcing from the other side.

Last item - the low prices. There will always be people willing to design a logo for $50, or for the chance at $250. You and I both know that there's little chance that the design that will result isn't going to be good. If crowdsourcing begins to offer supporting services like art direction, validated qualitative rating systems, and project management you'll see a gravitation towards higher prices. We've already found that $3,000 invested in a project produces awesome results and attracts talented designers. Do we get some crap too? Yes. In fact, more than half of it isn't remotely usable - and we do our best to tell the designers that don't hit the mark why we can't use their work. But the stuff that comes in and is good can really rock our world. Just wait until the design for our latest client comes out. It's freakin' beautiful, and helps to position and contextualize the client in a crowded market.

I still see this as solvable. They're valid points, but not insurmountable.

Heck, just adding an evaluation metric and comment field on "How does this design further the client's brand" and giving evaluators a cash incentive to provide valuable commentary and evaluation can begin addressing your concern almost immediately.

Thanks for the challenge. Let me know if I've missed the mark somewhere and I'll try again.

Karl Thomson April 23, 2009 3:40 PM

"We've already found that $3,000 invested in a project produces awesome results and attracts talented designers."

If this is the budget you usually have, I have to wonder if you wouldn't be better developing a strong relationship with a proven design firm. The benefits, to my mind, are that you know you'd get an identity that would be spot-on strategy for the client while reducing your chance of ending up going through the process and having nothing of value to show for it. You'd also reduce the amount of time you have to weed through the poor-quality work and critiquing designs (and designers) that aren't up to par. You see, the disadvantages of crowd-sourcing cut both ways.
In the end, like almost everything else we buy, it comes down to budget. If you've got $250, crowdsourcing may be a perfectly acceptable way to get a logo, understanding that the quality of work you get will be difficult to be certain of until the process is complete. But if you've got ten times that amount, and will regularly work with the same design firm, I'm certain you can enter into an agreement with them and achieve vastly superior results.

As ever, my $0.02.

-k-

Tom August 24, 2009 11:10 AM

At the moment namethis.com, which is operated by Kluster, is not forwarding rewards to winners. It is scandalous that they are allowed to operate.

Leave a Reply