I own a bat, a fairly good one at that – it’s a Kashmir
willow. But when I wield it, I am hardly the best even in my own team.
Owning a bat does not make me a good batsman and I’d hope
that no selector of any repute in any league would consider me for a place in
his side.
Why is this analogy relevant to “crowdsourcing”?
Because that is exactly what crowdsourcing is interpreted
as. Its basic premise is that because more people have access to smart phones
and computers with internet connections, they are all “creative” individuals.
Hence, their creative talent should be tapped into, since it
is the most promising way to create relevant, enjoyable content.
I own a bat, so I must be a good batsman. People own
smartphones, so they can create good content.
See the problem?
This perception is more prevalent in advertising and
communication creation circles. Movie studios and news creators still operate
with the view that scripts and opinion articles are the purview of the
specialist, the trained. A scriptwriter or a journalist seldom relies on
“crowdsourcing” to create their content. Of course, there is the occasional lip
service to the concept through “citizen journalism” initiatives but they never
become prime time news.
Advertising, on the other hand, believes that “Consumers are
the new creative director”. Words like “collaboration” are bandied around as
the new norm. The need to work with consumers and tap into their “creative
potential” to create memorable advertising is the new advertising mantra.
Creative directors view the power of digital as that – to create the bridge
between them and consumers.
There are two problems with this misplaced belief – the
first being the one stated earlier; not every person has trained creative
skill; i.e. the skill to crack a great platform idea or the ability to create a
great piece of content that moves people. True, there are some bright sparks,
but using a cricket analogy again; it’s not every day that Imran Khan would
find an extremely talented but unknown Wasim Akram walking randomly into a nets session.
The 2nd is an almost self-defeating prophecy – if
indeed consumers are the new creative directors, then what will the creative
directors and art directors do? Curate? Wouldn’t that be a little limiting, frustrating and eventually spell
the extinction of the “creative department” in agencies?
The truth is that
“crowdsourcing” can always be extremely useful in creating engagement, when
given direction. “Selfie” driven campaigns, ones where consumers are meant to
respond to specific stimuli (Old Spice, Mentos “Dimaag ki batti”) are ones that
work because they provide consumers direction to their creativity – it provides
the contour that makes the creative output useful, much like a sharp brief.
It allows the brand to own and associate with content that
it does not need to pay to create but makes the brand look cool, hip,
meaningful and most importantly approachable.
But to expect crowdsourcing to drive thought leadership is akin to expecting a Shivaji park rookie to score a century at the MCG. Miracles happen occasionally, but banking on them can be foolhardy
Comments