“Crowdsourcing is all the rage but is it just a fad? Can external stakeholders really help to co-create a brand?”

Arguing in support of crowdsourcing is Ben Hayman, deputy managing director of Promise, a co-creation company in the UK. Providing a sceptic’s view is Brendan Kownacki, a senior digital strategist at communications agency Spectrum.

Hi Ben,

I want to cut to the chase.

I find it funny that this trend has become popular: co-creation and crowd sourcing. For me, I am person who craves original thought, and as someone who has worked in the creative field for several years, I think it is a gift when you find that moment of inspiration and clarity to come up with a true meaningful idea or concept. Over collaboration and reaching out not just for help but farming for answers used to be labelled as laziness, cheating, letting others do your work. I think the trend in crowdsourcing has in part been spawned because day-by-day it seems like it is getting harder to come up with original ideas. If you farm the internet, you can find someone who has studied or discussed virtually every topic, and I think it is driving generations of professionals mad as they wait for the eureka moment that may never come… so they choose this collaborative method.

Crowdsourcing cuts the meaningful edge off any worthwhile concept because in the end, it is the amalgamation of anyone who was willing to participate. As the saying goes, too many cooks spoil the soup, and I think this is exactly what we get when we go with crowdsourcing.

In the end, does this method of working and collaboration actually lead to better ideas from the collective or does it encourage a sense of averaged mediocrity? Does crowdsourcing push individuals to do less, by relying on others or does it push them to move forward from the collaborative platform and do more?

Let me know your thoughts.

Brendan

Hi Brendan,

I think the debate on co-creation often becomes confused by two Ds: definition and defensiveness. In terms of definition, we think that an essential rule of co-creation is to invite a mixed group of cocreators. I would argue strongly that if you are able to bring together a room of customers, staff, ‘Experts’ and ‘Creatives’ to discuss and develop ideas, you are far more likely to create breakthrough ideas than if you limit your pool of resources. I love the idea that in any given co-creation project you may have a doctor, a truck driver, a designer and the CEO of the company all working together on a project that ultimately will benefit them all. True creativity is about inviting ideas and opinions, not shutting them out.

And this brings me on to defensiveness. Your hypotheses that over-collaboration encourages mediocrity might be relevant if the process is not nurtured and invested in by people like you and me. I don’t think that looking outside the world of communication agencies and marketing departments for inspiration and help is wrong, or lazy or that it breeds mediocrity. People from the creative industry especially have traditionally had an ‘us and them’ relationship with consumers. We all need to become more humble and recognise the opportunity of cocreation rather than see it as a threat.

Enlightened brands across the world from P&G to Lego are using co-creative techniques to generate product innovations and brand strategies that are both relevant and differentiated. Do you not agree that a rich mix of opinions - if managed professionally - could contribute to smart strategic thinking and creativity? Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Ben

Hi Ben,

I am fascinated by your take on the co-creation process, because I will admit first and foremost that your approach does seem to take into account counters to some of my objections.

I feel you are right that a diverse group brought together can provide useful insights. Let’s take focus groups, for example, that when diversified give an accurate picture of what a broad population might think because certain demographics are represented. The problem is, at what point are we empowering the uninformed too much?

I acknowledge the ‘us and them’ mentality that you describe, and it’s hard to speak against, because it happened for what some would say is good reason. There are people who study for years to make themselves excel in communication and to hone their skills in developing creative concepts, and how to reach an audience. At what point is there a threat when we allow the consumers to become the creators?

I do agree that management and nurturing may be the key. But for me, the question is how to achieve that. In media, you can see one of the greatest ways that the consumers are becoming the creators, when you look at the way citizen journalists who push information out on blogs, twitter, and every other platform are scooping major news sources, and becoming so-called threats to conventional journalists. I will admit that I see a place for this, because now, journalists need to realise that sometimes amateurs will have the more direct or convenient access before the press, but where does this leave people like myself who have worked in the news? How do you teach a reporter to shift into that nurturing, editor role as a guide, and how do you train the contributors to increase the calibre of their contribution?

When it comes to co-creation, what does it mean for the future of those who have invested time, energy, resources and money into becoming experts, when an idea amassed by group think could threaten their livelihood. I’d like to see how you view it.

Brendan

“Crowdsourcing cuts the meaningful edge off any worthwhile concept because, in the end, it is the amalgamation of anyone who was willing to participate. As the saying goes, too many cooks spoil the soup”

Hi Brendan,

I actually think that the most successful co-creation processes include experts who are able to work with consumers to deliver solutions. I think that the notion of ‘empowering the uninformed’ is interesting, but also dangerous. It is important to mitigate against proliferation of uninformed opinion by using professionals in the co-creation process who can develop and interpret outputs with a broader group. We have done this with some of the biggest brands in the world from Visa to McDonald’s who truly value the input and ideas of their customers. I think it’s risky to label all of your customers as ‘potentially uninformed’ rather than ‘potentially having the next big idea for your business’.

Some organisations go a step further and use extremely informed people to co-create with. P&G have expert collaborators all over the world who come together to co-create for them. It is crucial to remember that the ‘co’ in co-creation does not always mean just inviting consumers into the process.

I actually don’t think that the argument that cocreation will replace skilled professionals is a robust one. I think that there will always be a need for professionals who are able to build on ideas that are developed collaboratively, much in the same way skilled journalists will use the contributions of amateurs to interrogate and refine their stories.

Finally, we have to acknowledge that this is happening. It is the result of an open, efficient market that celebrates ideas and welcomes contributions - if they can deliver success. Whether we like it or not, we are all going to need to adapt to remain relevant. Surely you would want to be a part of this environment that is based on a very simple premise, that many heads are better than one? Do you think that there is anything in particular that couldn’t have been co-created?

Cheers, Ben

Ben,

At what point did we shrug off independent thought? Why is there such a heavy reliance on collaboration and what makes that okay? By encouraging and allowing this, are we actually promoting a nurturing a weaker generation for the future by saying that there is no need to stand on your own two feet because there will always be others to act as a crutch and hold you up?

I guess you are correct that anything can be cocreated, but going back to my original notion, is this for better or for worse? Are two heads always better than one? Is a supposedly better ‘product’ worthwhile if it has actually driven each creator to be a little less sharp than if they were left to their own devices?

What has become of the power of the individual? You are right to assume not all people are uninformed, but why wouldn’t we strive to encourage individuals to achieve more and do better by leading rather than moving as a member of the herd.

I know that adapting is a part of our future, but why does that mean relying on others when we are in a time in the world when the only person you can truly rely on is yourself?

The economy has faltered as banks and media and everyone was looking for a partner to bail them out, so why do we encourage people in today’s age to look for answers and inspiration elsewhere rather than in their own head.

Maybe that’s just me though.

Brendan

“There will always be a need for professionals who are able to build on ideas that are developed collaboratively, in much the same way journalists use the contributions of amateurs to interrogate and refine their stories”

Hi Brendan,

I would never argue against independent thought, and for me the philosophy of co-creation does not need to mean crushing independent thinking and encouraging reliance on others. The way I see co-creation is that the process should challenge people to think creatively and to build on ideas. It creates competition and encourages the group to think harder and more creatively in coming up with solutions to shared needs.

Co-creation is not a fad. It is an approach that many companies have been moving towards for a number of years. Would it surprise you to know that the first flat bed in business class (an industry defining innovation in the 1990’s) was an idea that was co-created by British Airways customers and then developed and produced by experts? Would there have been a better way of developing Kraft foods new vision and values than to engage its enormous customer base and workforce for their thinking?

It is not the right approach for every challenge or for every company (Apple being an often cited example), but I do think that it is an effective and efficient way of generating creative and customer relevant innovation ideas and brand strategies. I think that it is a particularly successful process because it is iterative. It allows the group to build, challenge, develop and interrogate ideas over a period of time. It allows the decision makers within a business to meet and work with the people that they are trying to attract or retain. It challenges traditional notions of brand marketing that creates a distance between brands and their customers which all too often means that an idea or strategy developed in isolation will simply not be relevant.

Ultimately we should be judging co-creation on the successful innovations and brand strategies that the process delivers. I’m confident we will be hearing about more of these in the future, but time will tell.

All the best, Ben