Comments on: Creativity is to crowds as friends are to Facebook

By: Bruce DeBoer

Bruce DeBoer — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:02:29 +0000

Good question – another friend of mine commented on a previous post that complex projects benefit from small teams – the smaller the better. I think if we look to music we may find the answer. How big can a band get before improvisation gets out of control. We need improv desperately from band members but if they aren’t in synch it can be messy. I’m not sure there is a definite answer the how large is too large.

By: Rasmus

Rasmus — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:52:25 +0000

My immediate thought was that the opposite of ‘Crowd Wisdom’ is the much older and more widely used term ‘mob mentality’. What you’re pointing out is essentially, if I read it right, that too many cooks spoil the broth. I agree to a certain extent. Too many hands means too many compromises, possibly resulting in a more easily sold product, but usually at the cost of creativity.

But I am left with the question: when is a ‘crowd’ too big? It’s common for creatives to work together in small teams for example, often with highly creative results.

In my experience, the creativity begins to suffer around the 6-8 people mark, which is a tiny number compared to typical crowdsourcing concepts. But my experience is just that, my own.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:36:47 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by SteveTalkowski: Creativity is to crowds as friends are to Facebook – http://www.permissiontosuck.com/value-of-creatives/...

By: Bruce DeBoer

Bruce DeBoer — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:07:50 +0000

James – it’s entirely possible that I’ve shortchanged crowdsourcing. I guess I’m waiting for brilliance and haven’t seen it yet. I’ll definitely check out AdHack though.

The more I think about it, the more the relationship holds up. The more one puts into Facebook the more they get out of it but in the end it’s the excellence of a relationship that wins.

In the end isn’t it the thinking that makes a difference? Brilliance comes from individuals but projects are complex and require collaboration, so if the individuals don’t share a relationship it will fall short. It’s the same reason virtual agencies didn’t fulfill their promise; you can farm out the pieces but if you can’t collaborate it’ll take too long if it works at all.

I’m taking a wild guess here but it’s my expectation that crowdsourcing will never be the go to solution unless the trade-off is price. I’m fully prepared to be dead wrong on that one however.

By: James

James — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:41:36 +0000

Hi Bruce,

Good, thoughtful post on creativity, tools of production and organization and their effects on the people involved.

I like the construction ‘creativity is to crowds as friends are to Facebook’ for its catchiness but I think you’re being hugely reductive in your judgement.

As a company that helps ad agencies and buyers of creative services do the sourcing, I can see every day in action that the process of crowdsourcing is what people make of it. Just like communicating with friends of Facebook. Just like any business and creative relationship.

To some ad agencies and buyers, crowdsourcing is a low-cost source for talent. They want volume, they want speed, they want production — they can get it. They get out of crowdsourcing what they put into it.

To other ad agencies and buyers, crowdsourcing is a way to find new talent, to explore new ideas and to connect with a diversity of sources and perspectives.

This is the sustainable vision I want to pursue, where the connections of the web allow the right people to find each other, supported by the right tools, generating great creative work.

Just like Facebook has become a key way for people to meet who end up married, crowdsourcing can provide the connections for great, lasting creative relationships.

We’re working to make that happen on AdHack. I’d love to hear your feedback on the how we’re doing.