When the Apollo 11 mission was gearing up to flip the switch and go full thrust on its way to the moon, do you have any idea how many people scoffed, jeered, harrumphed, grumbled or just generally pontificated on its overall folly? Well, we don’t either. But we looked it up. And though we didn’t find a very good answer, we will venture to say it was a lot. And in our searching for a quantifable naysayer number, notable among the shitload of grumpy bastards we found was one Mr. Ned Jacobsen, of Jacksonville Mississippi. Back in 1969, Mr. Jacobsen repeatedly went on record that not only would this ludicrous idea work about as well as a rubber crutch, but he also spouted on and on about what a bunch of baloney it was to even TRY. But, much to Mr. Jacobsens’s dismay, try they did. Success was theirs. And Mr. Jacobsen was left to choke down more crow than anyone ever thought a human could shove into one face.
So, given this moonshot example, as well as myriad other examples throughout modern history where some yay-hoo or another was stupid enough to try something new, break new ground or shake something up – and given how many of those examples ended up being successful – why would anyone ever hate on anything? Especially in a public forum. Because if history can offer us anything about those crazy or brave enough to try something new, it offers us lesson after lesson that those with enough brainpower and ballsack to give it a go, most often succeed. And those who put their energies toward pissing all over the idea most often end up looking like total jackasses.
So if you’re one of the many people out there who think that our idea of merging the principles of crowdsourcing with the strategic and creative direction of a top-tier creative ad agency will never work, is pure folly, stupid, terrible, blasphemous, caustic, the devil’s spawn etc etc etc, you might want to take a lesson from history and keep your views to yourself. Just a thought. Because it occurs to us that the best that can come from spending your energy poo-pooing is riling up others who will end up eating crow right alongside you. (That’s not only bad for your ego, it’s also bad for crows.) Why not instead just watch it unfold with your poisonous skepticism kept to yourself and your anger bottled up inside where it belongs. Or kindly ignore it. We know it’s hard to do that. And we know where you’re coming from because this shit is scary. It’s a potential massive change akin to what professional photography went through and it’s going to force us all to adapt. But keeping quiet and/or positive would make a lot more sense in the long run. Think about it. If we fail, you can always say you knew we would. But if we succeed, you can sit back, grin from ear to ear in smug fashion and say, “man I knew that was going to work. Great idea. I actually had the same idea. Shoulda done it myself.”
The other metaphor we’d like to butcher the crap out of while we have you here is the one where that fish-like tadpole thing wriggles itself out of the prehistoric pond and into the mud, its little leg-like nubbins scratching around trying to take the first steps on an evolutionary path that led to, you guessed it, us. Now that prehistoric-fishy-tadpole-walking-thing from eons ago may or may not be correctly referred to as a tadpole, but for the sake of this post that’s what we’re calling it. A prehistoric-fishy-tadpole-walking-thing. Which is really pretty much how we see “crowdsourcing.” Crowdsourcing is barely even in its infancy. And it’s only just beginning along its evolutionary path as it applies to our industry. There it is now. Over there struggling in the mud, its little fin-things working as hard as they can to mimic legs, its little gill/lung contraptions pumping like bellows just trying to survive. To say it’s young would be the understatement of all time.
Yes, crowdsourcing is currently nothing more than a prehistoric-fishy-tadpole-walking-thing. Which is precisely why we say we’re based on crowdsourcing principles. Not crowdsourcing as it is currently known right now. We know that we’ve only been around for a week and it’s easy enough to lose that point. But it’s an important one. So let us explain further. We believe in crowdsourcing. We believe in its power. But we also think its application in our industry has a long, long, long way to go. And we’re here to give it a lot more forward momentum. To invent new ways of using it. To attempt to successfully leverage it as a foundation for, yes, a new agency model. One that works like gangbusters. One that clients adore. One that lifts up creatives instead of exploiting them. One that puts quality over quantity. And yes, one that can potentially even reinvent the entire industry. And guess what? Just like those crazy bastards who walked on the moon, that’s what we’re going to do. And we could use your help as we do it.
We’re going to solve the dilemma known as “free work/no-spec(!)/die-pigs-die(!)/whatever it’s called. By building a new system whereby everyone who contributes is paid with cash, guidance, reputation score, community involvement and portfolio development. A new system where a creative director can pick willing participants from his or her pool of talent (the crowd as creative department), brief them, keep them all working in a constructive way, and where everyone involved is paid. And anyone else who wants to contribute outside the core group could. And if their idea is chosen, they get paid too. Now, depending on the project, that could be 10 creatives or 1,000 or 3. We don’t know yet. We’re developing it now. And using existing platforms as we explore (which are awesome by the way). But we are going to make this happen. Because we’re serious when we say Victors (plural). Everyone will win in more than one way. Just because it’s not working this way yet does not mean it won’t be changed. That’s how progression and evolution works. What is currently available grows and changes for the better. (Especially when everyone agrees to work together like the Amish did in that movie with Harrison Ford and that chick from Top Gun). And we intend to spur this on. So that its evolution doesn’t take billions of years the way it did for fish to grow legs. Because we just don’t have that much time.
I applaud you guys for trying, and as a creative I would love the idea of moving to my little patch of land in the Caribbean and working remotely. I think we might achieve that one of these days. I liked you post and agree with all of what you state but you didn’t address one of the biggest arguments I have read against Victors and Spoils on the blogs. That is the thought of lots of Creatives submitting work with no guarantee of being compensated only if their idea is chosen, and even then from what the blogs say not very fair. Then you have all the “dead ideas or concepts ” which is the same work can then be the spark of a new great idea, or otherwise later used in a different way.
I have not read the contract, some of this bloggers make it sound as they did… what are your thoughts on it, are they totally of base and inventing it?
Thanks and good luck!!!! Speaking of myself, like I mentioned, I am all for it.
Cheers!
Your strange ideas of “evolution” frighten me. The next thing you know, you’ll be saying that Adam and Eve didn’t have a pet dinosaur. You might as well call it “evil-ution.” But I’ll withhold judgment, just in case it works our for you. If it doesn’t, you’ll burn for eternity in the fiery pit of Hell. So, either way, I’m cool. BTW, thanks again for the bfa.cc pointer. I’m lovin’ it.
I wasn’t really buying it unti the Amish thing.
Love you.
You can count with my work, my mind and my willing.
Kudos to you guys & lady – Edison did over 1000 experiments before he cracked the light bulb , viva the mighty tadpole !
we are with you every step of the way,
osmosisfutzing !
Times are changing and agencies need to change. I love it when people break things, especially models in insular industries/professions.
There is no real ‘crowdsourcing’ of creative or ideas right now (most of the players are just enabling competition not distributing problem solving) BUT there will be and it will be a game changer when it’s figured out.
V&S might be the agency of the future or it might be a quick flame-out. Kudos for trying and good luck on your journey. I watch with fascination…
Call a tadpole a tadpole… or spec work.
Your meandering arguments do little more than set up a straw dummy. Rather than juvenile lashings, you ought to give potential future employees/victims some explanation.
At the end of the day, your false impression of crowdsourcing (which, in essence, is as old as government, and little more than a buzzword), will only cost producers time and money and demean your clients’ purchase.
Despite your general ignorance, you were spot on with the name, spoils are usually the gain of a robbery.
Maybe it was Fry on the Brammo campaign…
http://no-spec.com
looks like you’re getting the usual agency people bitching about your balls.
I say well done. Of course you will succeed.
Sounds like a bugger to manage, but you’re smart, by the sounds of it. It’s exactly 20 years since the berlin wall came down. A good time to remember that impossible things can be done. And that’s what pushes us forward.
So I salute, applaud, acclaim and heartily back-slap you.
If I was looking for a job, yours would be the agency I’d camp outside. Even though Boulder probably gets colder than Scotland.
all the best mate(s). And if you ever get to Scotland you’ve earned a Tunnock’s TeaCake and a pint of Tennent’s. Drop in anytime.
http://angstwalker.wordpress.com/
Evan,
With as much respect as I can express – this piece is arrogant, unprofessional and disappointing.
First, you compare yourselves with the Apollo Program – specifically citing the Apollo 11 mission. It’s appalling to consider you initiative compared with such a noble and patriotic, human endeavor. Reread your history books to fully understand Kennedy’s motivations in 1961.
Forgetting the emotional ties you conjure, let’s look at the facts that cut holes in your argument. First, the Apollo program was backed by science and built on a decade of aeronautics engineering, rocket propulsion testing and actual launches by a team of people fully invested in its success. Millions of man–hours, reams of data, countless failures and even deaths led up to that moment before flipping the switch on the Apollo 11 rocket.
Even with a decade of try, try, try again, there were naysayers. Yes, there always will be people who have the right to believe whether or not something will work. I am sure, Evan that you have looked at a colleague’s or, yes, a competitor’s campaign and said some of those awful words. Yet, when it ran, it was a winner. But, that is not the point.
Where the Apollo program and Victors & Spoils differ – granted there are many more – is that no person ever said, “We are going to put a man on the moon. And we are going to do it with an airplane.” Which is effectively what you did. You launched your endeavor saying you were going to use crowdsourcing. Great, that’s interesting and you have my attention, but you followed that by procuring your own logo from an existing platform – like the airplane – of spec work on a massive scale. By soliciting what ended up being 1100+ logo designs from faceless people with a “chance” of being paid for their efforts you engaged in spec work – not crowdsourcing. Therein lies another problem, the widespread misuse of crowdsourcing to cover up spec work. Don’t call it “torture” call it “enhanced interrogation”. I personally was expecting crowdsourcing in its benevolent form where all participants are invested in the outcome and collaboration is the rule. Not this.
You jumped out there without an indication of a plan. No details about the way things were going to work. Just “crowdsourcing” – the mot du jour – and a spec work project. How else were we to react to your perceived motives?
You continue: “So, given this moonshot example, as well as myriad other examples throughout modern history where some yay–hoo or another was stupid enough to try something new, break new ground or shake something up – and given how many of those examples ended up being successful – why would anyone ever hate on anything?” You say this to support your argument without really providing a basis for how often these “ya–hoo” ideas end–up actually working. Hint: it’s rare.
Further, not everyone is “hating”, as you say, which a derisive and dismissive term for all criticism whether it be hateful or not. There have been some well rounded questions asked about what you are doing. Yet, for almost the last two weeks we still have yet to see any detailed explanation about what you are ACTUALLY doing; only what you have done (the spec logo). And you have yet to engage these in a professional manner.
And you do a stellar job of that in this post:
“… you might want to take a lesson from history and keep your views to yourself.”
“Why not instead just watch it unfold with your poisonous skepticism kept to yourself and your anger bottled up inside where it belongs.”
“But keeping quiet and/or positive would make a lot more sense in the long run.”
What a wonderful way to engage and be a part of the community. Disrespect is a sure fire way to impress. Do you address disagreeable clients in this manner?
Again, not all the push–back has been “poisonous”. And, if you can’t filter that out and address legitimate concerns about your perceived practices then you need to reconsider launching so large via the NY Times and other media outlets. If you were not ready to talk about it but rather effectively tell people to shut up, then you were not ready to launch. Because all the public can go by is what you give us.
You go on to say about your proposed system that it will be, “One that lifts up creatives instead of exploiting them. One that puts quality over quantity.” But how do we take that when you chose to launch on a platform (crowdspring.com) that has exploited countless hours of both professional and hobbyist designers for their time and creative efforts. They have done this, along with others like 99designs, by not requiring awards be made, by not enforcing their own rules, by claiming that the work is done as “work–for–hire” and by submission the entrant loses all rights to their work. How does this lift up and not exploit the creative? This is a legitimate question.
Yet, for almost two weeks, you have chosen to not address concerns; returning here to tell us to “keep your views to yourself.” There are a few choice historical references that can be made if we took the time.
You do attempt to state what it is you are going to do. But, you don’t. You still don’t have it figured out – “We don’t know yet,” is salient. You follow by effectively asking [us] to help you create your business model. It makes me think that if we had not asked these questions – or not spit poison at you – that you would simply go on with what you planned and actually did from the outset. If you think about it, the people that were reactionary and angry have actually participated in crowdsourcing your business model. Oh, the irony.
What’s more, you ARE going to have to address it. You ARE going to have to figure it out. Based on what was delivered in those 1100+ entries for your logo, they are a product of a poorly written brief (you said so yourself in so many words). Look at where you ended up, with a lot of fists, swords, pirates, crowns and skulls placed with a complement of grungy and Garalde/Trajan style typographic approaches. Striking evidence that a couple of decently paid designers – rather than a few hundred unpaid participants, giving up their work – could have collaborated with you.
Together, you could have worked through the obvious, strived for the different and ended up with something great. Perhaps a powerful identity befitting an agency that I will hopefully look upon and proudly say, “I was wrong.”
Sincerely,
Brady Bone
Crowdsharing sounds like a Linux open source system to me. That worked pretty well. Just ask Apple. But like you say, it’s early days. There are a lot of tadpoles that won’t make it. RIP Netscape, Napster and Wordperfect.
You can’t even come up with an original thought for a post.
This column was inspired by an entry at your Crowdspring logo contest of a walking fish.
An entry that lost to some of the most obvious, cliched logo concepts posted. A pirate ship? People with eye patches? At least you could have gone with Somalian pirates.
http://www.crowdspring.com/projects/graphic_design/logo/v_s_001_design_the_victors_spoils_logo/gallery/revolution
Even the illustrations on your home page are unoriginal.
http://hhh.lawaloca.com/node/14431
Pretentious.
Self absorbed.
Your “Who We Are” pictures are a case study.
Plus I see you’re moderating comments.
A cowardly way to protect yourself from criticism.
Real groundbreakers your lot.
What an oddly defensive post. If your critics are destined to eat crow, why waste the space worrying about them? And let us not forget that while there are indeed plenty of examples throughout history where the naysayers were proven to be incorrect, there are just as many — if not more so — where they turned out to be right, from the Hindenburg to the Edsel to New Coke to the war in Iraq. Rank cynicism may have no place in this brave new world of yours but a little properly applied skepticism wouldn’t hurt either.
And anyway, from what I’ve read on various blogs, a lot of people aren’t necessarily objecting to the idea of crowdsourcing creative per se as they are your claim to be the very first agency to harness it. Apparently there are a number of firms out there who thought of this idea before you did.
Personally, I wish you all the best. But unearned hubris is no better than “poisonous skepticism.”
A good metaphor does not equate a good business model. Then again, Apollo 11 isn’t even a good metaphor. Apollo 11 had years of planning and research and testing and engineering. Oh, and failure as well–remember Apollo 1? Oooops.
Your admonishment to “keep your views to yourself” is both arrogant and ignorant. I remember the same sentiment being expressed to those who warned of the dot com bubble, the tech bubble and the housing bubble. Maybe someone should have listened then.
But, hey….let’s get back to that rocket science analogy, I like that. Remember the Space Shuttle Challenger? When Rockwell engineers expressed grave concerns over launching a heavily-iced vehicle in freezing conditions. They were told, in effect, “keep your views to yourself.” Oooops. I saw that one blow up with my own eyes.
Look….I wish you well. Anyone who can make a go in this business in this economy deserves credit. But reading the arrogant, shallow crap above, I’ve got to think you’re going to learn the real lesson of evolution–most adaptations are ill-suited or useless, and fail.
Jacking around 1,000+ designers is somehow sympatico with the Apollo 11 moon mission? Fuck me. I had no idea. Truly.
Kudos to Brady Bone for the best comment. Does that mean he gets paid, while the rest of us settle for “reputation score” Whatever the hell that is.
By the way, this one point type is enough to make you go blind.
Cheers/George
Do y’all have any clients yet?
I’m not saying crowd-sourcing can’t work, but since it seems to me that what most clients are really purchasing is the reliability of consistent delivery, it would need to be a somewhat special client to agree to be your guinea pig since your very model is one of tossing spaghetti at the wall and hoping for the best. If a brand manager hires you, and you screw up an assignment (or even just seem like you’re going to), how long do think he would last at his company? The rest of the afternoon?
How would you crowd source something like a sensitive product launch, where the particulars are proprietary and secret and success depends on not telegraphing to the competition what the next move is going to be?
I’m thinking that once the rumpus dies out, you guys are going to have to somehow deliver work for people who are going to be willing to pay, and it doesn’t really matter how you produce it.
Good luck, I guess.
I’m with Brady Bone, fully.
All I would add, and it’s not really an add because Brady said it, too, is that criticism is not hate. Still, I kinda hate you guys. I mean, damn, you are a condescending lot, already bitter and arrogant, an odd pairing all too common in adland.
But here’s another thought: where are you? Where are your replies to comments, a spirited defense of what you do, a spine? Come on, if you’re truly all about the crowd then wade into it. Take on Brady Bone (by the way, how cool is that dude’s name?), show your convictions, fight hate with love, whatever.
Jeff
http://www.cerebellumblues.com (If you visit, listen to the tunes!)
interesting approach, but how can it work? really, how? in the current financial climate, clients are cutting marketing spend and face-to-face talks turn into more cost-cutting bad news for agencies with established relationships… how will you convince someone that less money spent on unknown, untested and un-meetable talent is a smart way to go?
V&S: “we have a new concept to address your marketing needs… faster, cheaper and with great potential…”
client: “tell me more…”
V&S: “we meet and discuss your needs, agree on insight and strategy and post your details on our site, where (potentially) thousands of interested and (potentially) talented AD’s, designers, writers, directors, illustrators and photogs submit work. we pick the best together and bob’s your uncle…”
client: “you release our sensitive information out to the public? people you haven’t met? or worked with? people we have NO traction with or control over? people we can’t ever meet to see if they’re right for the assignment? no real review and redirect process? no real back and forth communication? no real understanding of whether they know how to anything more than turn on their Macs?”
V&S: “yes, by cutting through all the agency ‘process’ that’s bogged down advertising for the past 50 years, we speed up the time to press and market, cut costs dramatically and get ready for the next assignment in record time…”
client: “all with what oversight?”
V&S: “we trust the people out there to be honest, forthcoming and not to ‘appropriate’ any work and be original, dependable, responsible and knowledgeable so the work won’t backfire on press or edits…we have NDA pdf files we send them, after all…”
client: “these are all people you haven’t worked with ever? or met?”
V&S: “yes, but trust us, the idea is fantastic!”
client: “call accounting and see if we can get Goodby or Weiden on the phone, thank you for your time, we’ve heard enough…”
sorry for the cynical scenario, but you can see how that might very easily play out…
what’s the real plan, other than tapping into a vast array of unknowns with an undetermined skill set or set of experiences to draw upon, for small amounts of payment with potentially large picky clients?
I’m not a huge fan of this post.
The analogy to Apollo missions may have been misplaced too, but like the Apollo missions who had the full weight of history behind their accomplishments, its fair to say that a crowd sourced communication model may well be just as historic.
At least this blog has more discussion than the Enfatico rubbish. Which is every reason to be optimistic. Good luck and I’ll be keeping an eye on you.
seeing that Evan introduced the new V&S logo imbedded in a huge pile of defensiveness begged the question: where does crowdsourcing start and stop?
in the case of the V&S logo project, carried out in the crowdSpring forum, the beginning has a finite moment. but the unveiling and introduction of the chosen result seemingly has no real definitive moment or conclusion, per se, as a crowdsourcing example.
why wouldn’t all of the input, comments – for or against the chosen logo – be considered an extension of the whole crowdsourcing concept?
why would it stop short of a much larger crowd of constituent input?
perhaps the most demonstrative thing to do, in favor of crowdsourcing, would be to put the logo up for a vote? too bad you’ve already paid the designer, or could then put up the final 3 for a vote.
crowdsourcing is not a new concept in the ad agency world. i have many times been on deadline to produce some “sketches” or concepts for a project and had to farm some of the thinking outside of the agency to qualified resources. maybe 4-5 would be engaged to come up with ideas, concepts, thumbnails etc for my consideration.
if any of the concepts seemed worth pursuing, i would art direct further progress in hopes of having something viable to show the client, or the very least internal folks.
this is one type of crowdsourcing. BUT the huge difference is EVERYONE GOT PAID! hell, even focus group (god do i loathe focus groups) participants get compensated in some way.
i challenge Evan et al to put your money where your ego is and produce an explanation as to exactly how you intend your “crowdsourcing” concept to work and benefit all parties.
[...] spirited discussion was catalyzed by the launch of a new ad agency called Victors & Spoils, which has been trumpeting this rather dubious claim (pulled directly from the V&C website): [...]
I represent a major consumer products firm (I can’t of course, tell you who they may be). Was wondering if you could (along with the other thousand or so uber innovative ad agencies I’ve notified) provide an RFP followed by a full media campaign, on spec, with little or no guaranteed renumeration for your efforts. Contingent, of course, that the three of you serial narcissists can break away from the mirror for any extended period of time.
I know of only one bird – the parrot – that talks; and it can’t fly very high.
I wonder how many of your designers are using purchased, licensed software. Interesting to see when Adobe investigates.
I know of only one bird – the parrot – that talks; and it can’t fly very high.
[...] this debate (with some stunningly arrogant claims that don’t help themselves – see this, and @bradybone’s response for more on that). I’m happy to add my voice (for what [...]
Of one thing I am certain, the body is not the measure of healing – peace is the measure.
Dear Author victorsandspoils.com !
Bravo, what words…, a magnificent idea
Posts like this are what make the internet great, thanks for sharing.