Commentary
What's The Price Of Creativity?
- by Alex Bogusky , Op-Ed Contributor, July 23, 2009
The crowd sourcing of creative is erupting in popularity and with this eruption several questions are bubbling up as well. The one I keep getting asked is, "Could creativity ever become a
commodity?"
Probably the most pertinent definition of commodity in Webster's is, "a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the
importance of factors other than price." Well, by that definition I think that if you examine crowd sourcing as it most often works today you would have to agree that creativity has already become a
commodity. At least some creativity. A logo assignment on CrowdSpring seems to average about 500 bucks to the winning design. And on the recent Wolverine Network solutions I counted at least 20
different designers submitting ideas. Now, only the winner get the 500 bucks, but if you divide 20 into 500 it means the going rate for a logo designer's ideas is less than 25 bucks.
Logo
design is currently a commodity. That doesn't mean absolutely every logo will be designed this way. Like any commodity there will be exceptions. Just because pork bellies are a commodity doesn't
prevent some pigs from rising to celebrity.
All I'm suggesting is that the question of creativity becoming a commodity has already been answered. And the answer is yes. The question that
is still left to be answered is, "How much of creativity will become a commodity?" And perhaps, "How will we adjust to this new reality?"
My first adjustment may be to stop entering creativity contests...
Writing too may become a commodity of sorts. There are services and companies that assemble pieces in similar ways to way CrowdSpring does -- by throwing out assignments to the crowd. But thus far, these methods have really only been used (sparingly and experimentally) for commercial purposes. News hasn't gone down this route, and it's almost inconceivable that fiction could (though some might argue Nora Roberts and James Patterson are a step in the right direction). Steven "The Savior of Journalism" Brill's plan for a pay news web site could be one step in a commoditization process in a way that say, The New York Times' charging for content isn't.
I was thinking, we may try to defend this idea of creativity being so special because we make our living at it. But setting that aside, I'd like to live in a world where creativity was the ultimate commodity. NASA did that study with kids and at five years old 95 percent of them were in the highly creative problem solver category. Then by the time they graduated high school only like five percent of the same kids were still highly creative. (May have the numbers wrong here but you get what i'm laying down) We teach creativity out of our kids, but our most natural state is to be highly creative. If the entire population was highly creative I might not be able to get paid to think of ads but I bet life would be a lot of fun. Bring on ubiquitous creativity.
Tough one. I dig the "ubiquitous creativity," but to answer the "Could creativity ever become a commodity?" question, I think no.
Webster's defines "to create" as: to bring into existence.
And they say that a commodity is: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors other than price
I believe in order to for something to be a commodity, it must be replicable. Meaning, you can (and want to) predict the result/product, and reproduce THAT. Does that make sense? What rises to the top in the ad biz are the things that make you say, whoa, where'd that come from? Not, hey, I've seen that a million times before.
To use your logo example, unless all 20 designers created identical designs, that's not commodification. It's still creation, granted to varying degrees, as most of it is just variations of old stuff. And the going rate for logo design isn't reduced to $25 a piece. I read it as good creative is worth $500, inferior creative is worth nothing. And as with any creative work, 'good' and 'inferior' are judged by the eye of the dude with $500 to spend. That's always been the story.
I think "ubiquitous creativity" is my new favorite paradox. The thing that would be widespread, is the absence of commodity.
I would steal it, and replicate it, but . . . well, you see how this goes.
And on that note, I have to say, I've always been rubbed the wrong way by the the 'copy' in 'copywriter.' I create—I don't copy. Any chance you can work some magic on that, lemme know.
Jen/@MissIve
The majority of the population struggles with expressing creativity, traditionally, because there was little "safety" in presenting ideas or creative works to others. Most of us would not risk our inner artist to ridicule or criticism. We all know that safe groups are more productive groups - it only takes one naysayer, or even a group participant with negative body language to get others to self censor. But, I think the Internet has changed all of this. Now that people can remain virtually anonymous, there is no longer any risk associated with putting your creative work out there for the world to see, thus the logo design contests, etc. What does happen, in my opinion, is that the bar for creativity in general is lowered with the masses begin to "regain" their inner creative. (Think "American Idol," but for advertising...!) Therefore, I don't think truly good creative will ever become a commodity. I believe it's far too subjective a topic to even establish a definition of "truly good creative."
The majority of the population struggles with expressing creativity, traditionally, because there was little "safety" in presenting ideas or creative works to others. Most of us would not risk our inner artist to ridicule or criticism. We all know that safe groups are more productive groups - it only takes one naysayer, or even a group participant with negative body language to get others to self censor. But, I think the Internet has changed all of this. Now that people can remain virtually anonymous, there is no longer any risk associated with putting your creative work out there for the world to see, thus the logo design contests, etc. What does happen, in my opinion, is that the bar for creativity in general is lowered with the masses begin to "regain" their inner creative. (Think "American Idol," but for advertising...!) Therefore, I don't think truly good creative will ever become a commodity. I believe it's far too subjective a topic to even establish a definition of "truly good creative."
First of all Mr. Bogusky, my hat's off to you sir, huge fan. Although I differ in this subject, creativity can't be a commodity simply because it (and everything that has to do with advertising) doesn't respond to the laws of supply and demand. Logo design is one thing, but creativity is a whole different ball game, it's a different league. Simply because creativity requires strategic thinking, we all know that strategy comes before creativity, thus creativity exists with that added bonus. That's the reason why I have a job, why CP+B is what it is, and why your name is on the door I guess. Oh and crowd sourcing, is just a another attempt at fighting unemployment and people who've quit trying to land a job in advertising, hey it's a tough business. One must have vision to be creative, and that's what ad agencies are for, to give that vision.
We're growing out of creativity, schools grow us into fearing to be wrong.
I guess we, creatives, have managed to ignore rules, more or less.
We never were A-students, were we?
That's why we have jobs.
I hate this article. It threatens the very core of my cuddly world view, that the one thing that can't be commoditizedis creativity. I'm going into the corner now to sulk.
But encrouching fears of my ability to pay my children's future college tuition aside, I think you might be looking at this inthe wrong way. I've always hated that industry-aggrandizing term "creatives" anyway, as if to suggest that advertising holds some kind of monopolyon creativity. I would love nothing more than a greater abundance of creativity in the world. Creative people are the best appreciators and consumers of creative ideas. Imagine how much more interesting advertising and media would be in aspciety of creative abundance, let alone Sunday church services!
Yet an intrinsic principle of human social organisation is the revered status of brilliance. Increasing the pool of participants only raises the bar. And all that done on my iPhone. Very tired index finger.
Our business has always been an uncomfortable collision of art and commerce. Alex, you're dead on in saying "commercial creative" (developed with the purpose to sell) has been commoditized--in the business world, everything is assigned a valuation. The issue is not to "avoid" commoditization, but to improve the valuation of the work we do. Looking at it as one would other "commodities," the value of creative is determined by the supply/demand dynamic. The way to up its value is for its creators to put some skin in the game. Tie compensation to results. Agree on metrics up front, then let the numbers fall where they may. Outstanding creative that drives engagement (however you wish to define it) earns big, mediocre creative not so much. Agency holding companies are scared shitless of a model like this, because they won't be able to predict their quarterlies. But it's time for agencies to put their money where their mouths are.
I'm not ready to surrender creativity, but some creative products are ready for the commodities market. If logos are worth $25, photographs are under $10 and 30 sec. spots are under $2000.
What value can a creative business add? Editing. When there is unlimited choice we still must choose. We choose the right logo, we choose where to point the camera or what Flickr image suits our needs. Creative products may become commodities but aesthetic judgment is critical.
Everything is a camera and everyone is a photographer but as a professional, I'm hired not just to take another great shot but to bring a value to the finished product that is often illusive when crowd sourcing.
I say bring it on. Some creativity will be commoditized. And some of that work will be good––really good. I think what will happen as a result is that boutique shops will have a harder time peddling their creativity. But full service agencies that offer creative execution supported by effective proprietary research and strategic insight will still have a place. The trick will be for these agencies to improve their relationships with their clients so that they really are experts on their business, their products and their customers. The creative thinking will still be the end product, but the strategy behind it will become more important than ever because that is the thing that will separate agencies from an anonymous cloud of low-cost creative thinkers.
Seen as it's separate parts.. then all things design/creative/marketing/coding/branding/production become a commodity. But seen as a collective of offerings that are greater that the whole, some individuals can marketing their companies as solutions to challenges that will always command a higher price in market as they are needed by a smaller exclusive group of customers.
Langston Richardson / VP, Digital Brand Strategy, Creative / LazBro, Inc. / www.lazbro.com / twitter: @MATSNL65 @lazbro
I thought this is an interesting article to read within the context of what business could be like if creativity and insight took the place of structure and bean counting. I found it after a friend commented that it would be nice if creativity replaced McKinseyism
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/53/peters.html
My conclusion: Commodity and creativity - true creativity - is oxymoronic. That be the case, how much commercial "creative" products are truly creative as apposed to applied creative? Can companies like IDEO replace their staff through crowd sourcing? Not likely.
to answer this question you must first ask another one... what is creativity? how many types of creative approach do we know? what defines a true 'creative'? (hate that word) from a copywriter who uses same schemes and methods everyday to produce some 'regular creative' work every day? In matters of advertising industry I believe creativity has already become a commodity...it's a product done in the same way, same procedure, same structure and the outcome is sometimes good, sometimes better and sometimes brilliant but it's still one type of creative approach whether you wrap it into cool philosophy of Burnetts, Saatchis or whatever. They sell one type of product and that's a commodity .... however this goes much further, I personally work in the region of Central Europe and around here huge network agencies are mostly producing absolutely same types of ideas and even sell them for same price. And that's my another point - I believe that at the point when creativity becomes a commodity - it's not a creativity anymore. That's why I don't believe in advertising, or traditional agency models anymore. But that's for a much longer discussion :)
"Bring on ubiquitous creativity." - Alex Bogusky
Can it ever be all that ubiquitous though? I will not be a cheerleader for the old-media theory of the few telling the many what to think because those days are most certainly waning, but can you teach something like creativity? This world is full of people whose biggest strengths are things like execution, analysis, detail, and organization. Your own agency runs as well as it does because of (I'm guessing) an underlying network of people who will keep you on task, keep you focused, and remind you that at some point you need to go home and see your wife.
Do these people have nothing to contribute to the creative process? Of course not. Everyone is good at something as the saying goes, and if nothing else they can help us remember who we are crafting these messages for, who we need to reach and touch and motivate. Creatives tend to lose that direction every once in a while and must be pulled back from "What if we" to "What can we."
If we're all creative, then no one is creative. And we'd all miss a LOT of traffic deadlines. And without the organizers, executors, and analyzers, all we have is a great piece of creative and nothing to do with it.
What if you get paid for the quality of your ideas instead of the hours of service rendered? When you see a painting you love, do you ask how many hours it took the artist to make it? The skill of painting is a craft. Some painters paint houses. Others paint ideas. The idea guys are the ones that you notice and remember. Our advertising craft is a commodity and always has been. Our inventiveness, originality, imagination, insight (aka. creativity) are what separate us from the crowd. Regardless of what ideas cause social trends that alter civilization's landscape the human mind continues to come up with more ideas that continue the cycle. So, if you are betting the house on a craft like typesetting, or search engine optimization, there's a chance you might get hosed somewhere down the road. But if your greatest skill is coming up with ideas, you're not only going to survive, you might just change the world. I feel like you should be compensated accordingly.
I tend to agree more with Matt Dugas' take on creativity than that of Mr. Bogusky. Just because a logo was "bought", does not mean it was a creative product or a product of creativity. Many of those submitting concepts were probably motivated/rewarded as much by the prospect of recognition as by the money. And, did there HAVE to be a winner in that CrowdSpring experiment? If so, who is to say how much better a design might have been submitted by a truly creative professional graphic designer? I think one way of recognizing creativity is how well it has solved several problems at once, which is usually the nature of real life problems faced in advertising or graphic design. I think creativity should be defined as those very best solutions that very few have the talent to produce. And, I think it undermines one of the fundamental assets of the advertising community to even hint at allowing the merest suggestion to ever cross their clients' mind that creativity is not really of such great value.