In Defense of Crowdsourcing

The legend of King Canute is a well-known one.

As the story goes, Canute was a wise but powerful king who was widely believed to have authority beyond reproach. One day, to prove he was mortal, his highness took his throne down to the beach, planted it at the water's edge, then ordered the tide to stop coming in. To the dismay of his public, it did not. Some things, were beyond even the divine influence of their legendary King.

The story of King Canute is used as a cautionary tale to remind us that sometimes things take place without regard for our opinions of them, and arguing their rightness or wrongness doesn't change the fact. As it went with the waves, it's doubtful King Canute would have had much luck today against the inexorable force of crowdsourcing -- it will happen regardless and is happening as we speak.

Despite its meteoric rise, crowdsourcing’s nature is polarizing and it’s fast becoming a topic that everyone must add their own two cents about. Additionally, it stokes the emotional fires like those other dinner party bugaboos -- religion and politics.

But why? After all, crowdsourcing is not a new concept. In 1715 the British Government held a crowdsourcing contest to find a maritime navigation solution –- the Longitude Prize. Several high profile companies have recently used crowdsourcing in their marketing campaigns. Mountain Dew’s “dewmocracy” and Starbucks’ mystarbucksidea.com are examples of this. More tellingly, companies like Threadless and Apple’s App store are reliant on crowdsourced creativity to sustain their business models.

Perhaps it is simply a matter of semantics. First coined by Jeff Howe in 2006, the portmanteau “crowdsourcing” smacks of “popularized exploitation” –- the way complex legislation is reduced to simplistic sound bites, or how cheap labor is outsourced to sweat shops in the developing world.

Semantics aside, it's worth mentioning that the most effective form of marketing, word of mouth, is founded upon the process of crowdsourcing opinions from our personal networks. We frequently solicit advice for recommendations on restaurants or bars in our personal lives. In this hyperconnected age it seems not just prudent, but sensible to do so. Why then is it ok to tap our network for a trivial recommendation, while it’s taboo when creative agencies solicit creativity on an as needed basis?

Its critics would have you believe crowdsourcing commoditizes and cheapens creativity, driving down the quality of work in the process. This in turn can jeopardize the livelihood of many professionals that make their living spruiking their creative wares.

Its supporters, most notably trailblazing agency Victors & Spoils, claim that we have moved from a world of scarcity to one of abundance, meaning that the capacity to crowdsource is here to stay whether we like it or not. V&S CEO John Winsor believes crowdsourcing is a voluntary, self-selecting process whereby people choose to participate or not based on their own set of beliefs. To me this seems like an inherently fair and pragmatic approach. To their credit, V&S also rewards the participants who were runners-up in each contest. This model of “compassionate crowdsourcing” paired with the creative bona fides of the V&S team will prove to be a powerful competitive advantage. Sure, other agencies could copy their business model, but how many can claim the brains trust of the V&S C-suite of John Winsor, Evan Fry and Claudia Batten?

SUMMARY
Like King Canute and the waves, the outcome of the crowdsourcing conundrum is not good or bad, it just is. Your opinion will differ depending on your own point of view and professional position. As a final word, I think it’s hard to go past the measured assessment of the ever-quotable Clay Shirky:
“The spread of cheap and widely available creative tools is sad for people in the advertising business the same way that movable type was sad for scribes -– the loss from this kind of change is real but limited and is accompanied by a generally beneficial social change.”

What do you think?

* For a more comprehensive take on crowdsourcing. Check out Rick Liebling’s great e-book, “Everyone Is Illuminated.”

Building A Loss Proof-Brand

Not before time, but here is my presentation from last year's Sport Marketing Association's 6th annual conference.

I have made some tweaks to to the content and style to make it more Slideshare friendly.

Enjoy!

Building And Leveraging A Loss Proof Brand

View more presentations from Charlie Quirk.

Brand As A Unifying Force

A tribe. A community. A movement.

Whatever term is used to describe it, brands must seek to become it.

The wall that used to stand between employees and consumers no longer exists. This has something to do with that fact both are human beings first and foremost. Brands like Apple and Nike attract staff and customers for the same reasons -- and money (whether it be salaries or price), ain’t got nothing to do with either.

Believing in and becoming part of something that transcends function is the cost of entry to play in the market today. And this is easy to lose sight of on the never ending carousel of tactical execution. Brands that stop asking themselves “Would anyone care if we stopped existing?” do so at their peril. Just ask Pontiac or Circuit City.

But brands that commit to meaning something more than a fat bottom line are well positioned to thrive while others falter. Brands like Patagonia, Seventh Generation and TOMS Shoes all speak to an idealism and timelessness that transcend tough economic times.

So before slashing prices and ordering a raft of social media tactics, brand managers must aim higher. Aspiring to a differentiating idealism not only inspires and attracts employees and customers, it also ensures the brand is better equipped to fend off competitors focused only the functional.

The Evolution Of Apple

The graphic on the left is meant to depict one thing – that a brand has very little to do with a logo.

Sure, iconography is important – the instantly recognizable Coke bottle silhouette or the Nike Swoosh are testament to that. But any logo itself is an inanimate shape – its meaning is derived from the sum total of what the brand stands for.

Apple was not recently listed by Fortune Magazine as the most admired company in the world for having a sexy logo, but by embodying a set of values and beliefs that its users find cool and aspirational. So while its logo and products have evolved over the years (I'm sure its designers would prefer to forget its notorious beige phase!), the values that define Apple have stood the test of time.

So just what is Apple? How do you distill the essence of the Apple brand? Many people talk about its sleek design or its user intuitivity. These are important attributes to be sure, but they are not what make the Apple brand admired.

The answer lies in the message behind the famed 1984 and Think Different TV spots. Not unlike its pugnacious visionary Steve Jobs, Apple is a fierce independence symbolizing a free-spirited creativity. This is the reason people have Apple bumper stickers and tattoos of the logo - because they are a member of the Apple "tribe." What the brand stands for resonates with them.

However, with growing popularity comes a host of new challenges for Apple. How does a brand remain cool as it becomes as ubiquitous as white ear buds on a college campus? A former periphery brand used by a niche market of designers and creative professionals, the Apple juggernaut continues to gain market share across all its categories. Going forward its greatest challenge will be to avoid becoming commoditized - like Starbucks before it - a victim of its own success.

For some reason, I wouldn’t bet on it...

The Death of the Focus Group?

Danish brand guru Martin Lindstrom’s new book Buyology is a crackerjack.

I am only 100 or so pages in but am finding it riveting - one of those few branding books that is an absolute must read. Buyology's subtitle "The Truth and Lies about What We Buy" is right on the money.

The essence of the book is the presentation of Lindstrom’s findings from the 3 year, multi-million dollar study on neuromarketing he began in 2004. Taking aim at the bona fides of some time old marketing practices (health warnings on cigarette packets and the belief that sex sells), while giving numerous examples of how the strongest brands find ways to subliminally trigger our senses and instincts (Apple and Corona to name a couple), Buyology forces us to realize that a critical part of brand engagement takes place in the subconscious mind.

It may be a little early to tell as the efficacy of neuromarketing is still hotly debated, but perhaps Lindstrom’s next book might be called, The Death of The Focus Group.

Steps To Becoming A Nation Brand

Wikipedia describes a nation as, "A cultural and social community in as much as members may never meet each other, yet feel a common bond. Nations are defined by a shared culture... Unlike a language, a national culture is unique to the nation."

After reading the literal definition of nation, I felt it much more appropriate to the world of brands than the oft used term "Movement brand." This was the genesis of the "Nation Brand Staircase" diagram on the left that captures the various degrees of engagement that brands elicit from their users.

Starting at the ground level, Cadbury's "glass and a half of full cream dairy milk" emphasizes the ingredients at the expense of a meaningful purpose beyond its utility. The next step up, Coke is well regarded and held in esteem by its drinkers, although accessible and ubiquitous, there is no distinct cachet in being a coke drinker.

At step three, a brand like Ferrari conveys status and a certain lifestyle that its owners find aspirational. Finally at the top step are two of the quintessential nation brands of today, Apple and Harley Davidson.

Just as Loss-Proof sporting franchises do, Apple and Harley inspire voluntary enlistment to their brands. In living, breathing and communicating this message, brands become nations - a unique cultural community where users feel a common bond despite never having met each other.

As famous Irish nationalist George William Russell wrote, "After the spiritual powers, there is no thing in the world more unconquerable than the spirit of nationality."

Cycle Of A Fan

Here is a great diagram by Geno Church at Brains on Fire.

Inspired by David Armano, one of today's masters of visual thinking, the diagram captures the cyclical, self-perpetuating nature of sports fandom beautifully.

Not unlike movement brands like Apple and Harley Davidson, the most compelling sports teams manage to enlist thousands of volunteer brand evangelists. The key for franchises is to create a Loss-Proof Brand that speeds up the rate of enlistment.

Now this is easier said than done. With two notable exceptions (Major League Baseball and European soccer), most sporting leagues around the world enforce salary caps and award draft picks to level the playing field in both money and talent. As such, a team must be able to remain popular and draw crowds and sponsors even when on-field performances head south.

Some teams have made weathering these rough seas an art form. In fact, some of the world's most famous sports franchises like the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Chicago Cubs have managed to sell out stadiums even when the team is performing poorly.

It is only the franchise that can create (and maintain) a Loss-Proof Brand that is both appealing to fans but also highly differentiating from its competitors that will stop fans taking their support somewhere else when the times are tough.