i like it. i like what they're doing and i like how they go about doing it. i dunno what all the fuss is about. prior to this, everyone was all "oooh, ad agencies are broken, the model is busted, it's going to have to change or else!" and now that some folks go about introducing ONE way in which it could change, the people lamenting the agency model are all "oh no! these guys are screwing it all up! this is terrible! creative is not a commodity! we don't work for free!" yes you do, you've done it on god-awful RFP's for half your career.
i'm on board with V&S and clearly i'm not the only one. good on ya.
I've been ruminating on this since I read the article, by FINS, interviewing Evan Fry from the 'Wall Street Journal' that was posted.
Watching the video definately helps illustrate the question answered by Evan, about why the old agency model is broken and what Victor & Spoils is trying to do. To paraphrase in my own words, basically, it is the result of the changes the internet has created in the last ten years and how it connects people on a level that was unprecedented.
It made sense to me that he had prior experience from CP+B. I remember reading their Facebook page and the only thing that stuck out in my mind to this day, is the line, keep on contributing and we'll let you know when we can step in to help. It also reminds me of an article I read years ago about voyage TV & how their owners operate. People watching people and gathering ideas that they are uninformed about. Really? Like, I don't have an inkling? This resonates a couple of comments I've recently read on here. One was just from Frank, on the Illegal Pete's comments, and another from a woman, on the topic that they were lucky to be so creative on the Moxie Sozo new ads.
I like Victor & Spoils, sure people go about issues differently and some are more efficient than others. They are a modern agency that exisits within a group of all types of agencies. That is what separates extremely succesful individuals from succesful. Just like other fields, & believe me I went to school for one of the stuffiest and most judgemental fields. There is nothing wrong with getting ideas and researching using the internet. Everybody does not need to be so paranoid. However, on the same note there is a big difference in ripping of ideas and having respect of others in your field! It is a collective effort, crowdsourcing, if you will, which is what The Egotist is here for...no?
My favorite things that Evan said were that,"It's commerce, not just arts.", and about his mentor, Alex Bogusky. "Clients are not the enemy. There is an assumption that they're there to keep the work from being great & they are an obstacle. It's not true." I couldn't agree more, infact, I've been in some of these situations, and it is important on all fronts to do extensive research and to know about companies/clients before you proceed. Some people obviously have no idea who they are themselves, so they have an exception of an excuse. I'm pretty sure that's why I've been judged as being a creative that can't communicate, before I even had a chance of a chance. We are all a collective that makes good and bad names for eachother.
To all my Boulder friends...It is my alma mater, afterall...There are cool kids that drink the kool-aid, cool kids who don't drink the kool-aid, & those who watch others drink the kool-aid.
M.Wilde (not verified)
February 10th, 2011, 3:41pm
I forgot to mention, that Evan's interview was great at all levels of advice in the advertising industry, from hearing about his own history and experience! It is nice that people take the time to be open and let others learn.
M.Wilde (not verified)
February 10th, 2011, 4:03pm
"We exist to change the industry. For clients and creatives. For the better."
Good luck on changing the industry and how would creative be better off with this business model. I can only see how this would kill creative, but really your not going to change this industry. So I won't lose any sleep tonight.
Can't label myself as a hater but you bring to the table a high controversial, debatable subject.
Anonymous
February 10th, 2011, 5:47pm
Yeah...I'm not going to loose any sleep either! & I not affraid to look at myself in the mirror. I am too qualified, and ready for the next level, before most of the rest. It is time to co-exist, and do it!
I'm not going to throw anybody under the bus, either! The industry changes whether your are there and do it or not!
Fucking stand face to face and give your name!
M.Wilde (not verified)
February 10th, 2011, 6:10pm
I think that their model has one flaw: The best minds for this kind of work are already in agencies and probably don't have the time required to do all of the grunt work for a new campaign. They're left with the fired, the laid-off, the unhireable and the unskilled. Sure, they'll have some cool ideas once in a while because the CDs there are obviously very talented, but I think eventually creatives will be burnt out on taking the time to submit work and seeing it go nowhere again and again.
anon (not verified)
February 10th, 2011, 11:47pm
It's a great resource for students, though.
anon (not verified)
February 10th, 2011, 11:48pm
Funny to see all these people saying "it's not gonna work"... because well, it's not a hypothetical anymore. It IS working. And very well, from what I can see. Hard to believe that they've hardly been around for more than a year considering the work they've been producing.
Paying only for the ideas the client wants means the thousands in the "crowd" are not getting paid for their time. It used to be called spec work, now it's being spun as crowd sourcing.
I'd guess that you don't work for free, so why should other creatives? They might be students or juniors trying to get some experience, but you can do that for a non-profit and actually help a cause instead of for someone trying to make a profit by taking advantage of the "crowd". These hopeful creatives have bills to pay just like the V&S guys do, but 99% won't get paid their value, if they get paid at all.
Of course it is going to work. It is a really profitable business model to pick and choose who you pay and even then pay based on the project instead of the amount of time put in to it. They'll get more clients by raping the living bejeesus out of creatives to offer a lower price than a normal agency can offer.
Should this read "creatives who are matched to the brief are paid for the work that they do" ? And by "matched to the brief", do they mean we'll pay you if your work is picked?
Great video...It reminds of 'advertising 10'1 or 'advertising for dummies'. I remember how old it got, for us to pay for our professors "graduate work".
M.Wilde (not verified)
February 11th, 2011, 12:33pm
Does this model work? Sure. Who benefits from this model? V&S, the client, and a very small percentage of the thousands signed up as creatives under this agency.
About a year has passed and we know this model "works". V&S has gained clients and grown (as far as I can tell). So it works for them. The only voice I'm hearing from is V&S, though. Where is the voice of their workforce? Is there somewhere I can hear from them? Do these creatives survive purely on spec work? Really, can we open up the floor to the folks who work this way and hear who they are?
To me, it's a huge grey area that needs clarification. I think V&S clients deserve to know, too. A graphic representation of a thousand stick figures and only a few being paid isn't how I would represent any business model. There's no guarantees, no clarity to what you are really paying for.
Obviously, I'm a staunch critic of crowdsourcing. I always have been. I see it as a big cop-out for anyone trying to make a living from their work. You typically find crowdsourcing in marketing and advertising because this is an industry that can easily translate ideas within digital mediums. You would never ask a thousand plumbers to work for free and you would never ask a thousand farmers to grow for free, only promising payment under your discretion to a select few. You wouldn't ask a thousand factory workers at Harley Davidson to build you custom bikes and say, "I'll only pay the person who makes the one I like... maybe".
Sure, everyone has a choice to work under this model. But freelancers should be defining their relationships with clients within contracts that outline timeline, goals and expectations and ultimately define payment for those services. I can only see this working for a) students or creatives early in their careers, b) creatives looking for an anonymous side stream of income outside of their dayjob or c) really desperate individuals with hopes of a payout. This is a lottery. Not a creative department.
Most likely I will hear flack from posting my opinion on this, but I stick behind it and don't mind putting my name to it.
I work with a guy who was just paid for an idea. For the record, he was paid well. He made the same amount selling one idea that I make in a month on salary at an agency.
The Squirrel fights can be a great outlet. It's not like you have to break your back and do 100 logos to maybe make $500 bucks. You can submit 1 scrip or a marker comp of an idea and get paid and paid well. You invest as little or as much as you choose.
It's definitely a touchy subject and if the whole industry went this way, there might not be an industry, but try it before you knock it. You just might build your book, have some fun and make some money.
On the Fence (not verified)
February 11th, 2011, 4:12pm
Don't you guys find it's a wee bit arrogant to think that the only people that can come up with creative, innovative marketing ideas are already working 12 hour days at an agency? I was an agency geek for many years and I work corporate-side now. I was never a creative but plenty of my ideas made it into produced work. I don't get my creative side fed by my current job so sometimes I'll jump in on a V&S project to see what I can come up with. It's fun, plain and simple.
So there, you've heard from one person. I haven't made any cash yet and honestly, it's not the main reason I contribute my ideas.
The whole idea that creative ideation and development is anything like a line worker at Harley doesn't pass the sniff test for me. The whole fabric of what the ad world is built upon is different. We always have the tools with us to do our jobs and I would bet dollars to donuts that most of us are passionate than the average laborer. So, we do more, we strive more, we think more, we create more. By doing so are we really threatening the industry agency model? The ivory tower of creative prowess that MUST live in as a salaried position in a big shop or as a successful freelancer? If the model is in danger of good ideas coming from people outside of the agency world, then agencies need to fix for that. Not the rest of us.
Finally, I can only take it on faith that the inner circle projects vs. squirrel fight work operates very differently. But the idea of a "blended" crowdsourcing model kind of cuts down on the "lottery" issue...at least, one would hope.
(P.S. regardless, good debate! interesting topic and i like the opposing POV...if we were having a beer, this would be way more fun.)
I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about, if creatives want to participate, they do. They know how the model works and how they're only paid if their idea is up to snuff.
I love Evan, Noah, John and everyone over at V&S. I sincerely hope the best for them, and the thousands of people they give a creative outlet to, in the future.
Sure,good point. I didn't think about the possibility that some may work under this model for the benefit of flexing their creative muscles more than as a compensation model. That reminds me of the first interview Bogusky did with his dad at the FearLess cottage. His dad contributes logos on 99designs to stay in the game. Basically, more for his benefit than anything else. And he does great work. So yes, this model works for the client and they can get some great creative out of it.
The point I made about comparing lineworkers at Harley to a creative department was more about the econimcs of it, less about the actual end product. A career must be sustainable in the long run. The crowd sourcing model either asks many folks to put their time and product (i.e. ideas and creations) on the line for free, with a slim chance of being paid. They understand this and that understanding draws folks who are (in my mind) less likely to stay involved in the long run. This doesn't seem to offer the client any constant in the ideation. Maybe that's ok with them though, maybe that's what V&S clients are looking for. Basically a raffle of ideas. Maybe I'm totally wrong.
The reader's digest version of my rant is, no matter if you are a creative ad man or woman or the average american worker, you must be able to make a living. Talent = value. Talent that easily translates into a digital medium isn't less valuable than any other department in advertising. So why must curators of ideas be placed more and more in the position to risk their livelihood for nothing?
Really, I'm not trying to stab at anyone's abilities or level of work. I just don't see this attracting those who are seriously dedicated to creative work as their career. It's for those who want some side cash, some avenue of creative expression outside of a "normal" day job, or someone who can risk giving away their livelihood for free. You can get some good work from that pool of types, but a lot of people get f'd in the a during the process. That should be made clear to everyone involved.
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Comments
"Crowd" is a special magic word for "Freelancer". Isn't it?
i like it. i like what they're doing and i like how they go about doing it. i dunno what all the fuss is about. prior to this, everyone was all "oooh, ad agencies are broken, the model is busted, it's going to have to change or else!" and now that some folks go about introducing ONE way in which it could change, the people lamenting the agency model are all "oh no! these guys are screwing it all up! this is terrible! creative is not a commodity! we don't work for free!" yes you do, you've done it on god-awful RFP's for half your career.
i'm on board with V&S and clearly i'm not the only one. good on ya.
haters gonna hate.
Nice Jessica!
I've been ruminating on this since I read the article, by FINS, interviewing Evan Fry from the 'Wall Street Journal' that was posted.
Watching the video definately helps illustrate the question answered by Evan, about why the old agency model is broken and what Victor & Spoils is trying to do. To paraphrase in my own words, basically, it is the result of the changes the internet has created in the last ten years and how it connects people on a level that was unprecedented.
It made sense to me that he had prior experience from CP+B. I remember reading their Facebook page and the only thing that stuck out in my mind to this day, is the line, keep on contributing and we'll let you know when we can step in to help. It also reminds me of an article I read years ago about voyage TV & how their owners operate. People watching people and gathering ideas that they are uninformed about. Really? Like, I don't have an inkling? This resonates a couple of comments I've recently read on here. One was just from Frank, on the Illegal Pete's comments, and another from a woman, on the topic that they were lucky to be so creative on the Moxie Sozo new ads.
I like Victor & Spoils, sure people go about issues differently and some are more efficient than others. They are a modern agency that exisits within a group of all types of agencies. That is what separates extremely succesful individuals from succesful. Just like other fields, & believe me I went to school for one of the stuffiest and most judgemental fields. There is nothing wrong with getting ideas and researching using the internet. Everybody does not need to be so paranoid. However, on the same note there is a big difference in ripping of ideas and having respect of others in your field! It is a collective effort, crowdsourcing, if you will, which is what The Egotist is here for...no?
My favorite things that Evan said were that,"It's commerce, not just arts.", and about his mentor, Alex Bogusky. "Clients are not the enemy. There is an assumption that they're there to keep the work from being great & they are an obstacle. It's not true." I couldn't agree more, infact, I've been in some of these situations, and it is important on all fronts to do extensive research and to know about companies/clients before you proceed. Some people obviously have no idea who they are themselves, so they have an exception of an excuse. I'm pretty sure that's why I've been judged as being a creative that can't communicate, before I even had a chance of a chance. We are all a collective that makes good and bad names for eachother.
To all my Boulder friends...It is my alma mater, afterall...There are cool kids that drink the kool-aid, cool kids who don't drink the kool-aid, & those who watch others drink the kool-aid.
I forgot to mention, that Evan's interview was great at all levels of advice in the advertising industry, from hearing about his own history and experience! It is nice that people take the time to be open and let others learn.
"We exist to change the industry. For clients and creatives. For the better."
Good luck on changing the industry and how would creative be better off with this business model. I can only see how this would kill creative, but really your not going to change this industry. So I won't lose any sleep tonight.
Can't label myself as a hater but you bring to the table a high controversial, debatable subject.
Yeah...I'm not going to loose any sleep either! & I not affraid to look at myself in the mirror. I am too qualified, and ready for the next level, before most of the rest. It is time to co-exist, and do it!
I'm not going to throw anybody under the bus, either! The industry changes whether your are there and do it or not!
Fucking stand face to face and give your name!
I think that their model has one flaw: The best minds for this kind of work are already in agencies and probably don't have the time required to do all of the grunt work for a new campaign. They're left with the fired, the laid-off, the unhireable and the unskilled. Sure, they'll have some cool ideas once in a while because the CDs there are obviously very talented, but I think eventually creatives will be burnt out on taking the time to submit work and seeing it go nowhere again and again.
It's a great resource for students, though.
Funny to see all these people saying "it's not gonna work"... because well, it's not a hypothetical anymore. It IS working. And very well, from what I can see. Hard to believe that they've hardly been around for more than a year considering the work they've been producing.
Good video too.
Paying only for the ideas the client wants means the thousands in the "crowd" are not getting paid for their time. It used to be called spec work, now it's being spun as crowd sourcing.
I'd guess that you don't work for free, so why should other creatives? They might be students or juniors trying to get some experience, but you can do that for a non-profit and actually help a cause instead of for someone trying to make a profit by taking advantage of the "crowd". These hopeful creatives have bills to pay just like the V&S guys do, but 99% won't get paid their value, if they get paid at all.
Of course it is going to work. It is a really profitable business model to pick and choose who you pay and even then pay based on the project instead of the amount of time put in to it. They'll get more clients by raping the living bejeesus out of creatives to offer a lower price than a normal agency can offer.
"creatives who are matched to the right brief."
"they're paid for the work that they do."
Should this read "creatives who are matched to the brief are paid for the work that they do" ? And by "matched to the brief", do they mean we'll pay you if your work is picked?
Randall
Nice thoughts, buddies.
Great video...It reminds of 'advertising 10'1 or 'advertising for dummies'. I remember how old it got, for us to pay for our professors "graduate work".
Does this model work? Sure. Who benefits from this model? V&S, the client, and a very small percentage of the thousands signed up as creatives under this agency.
About a year has passed and we know this model "works". V&S has gained clients and grown (as far as I can tell). So it works for them. The only voice I'm hearing from is V&S, though. Where is the voice of their workforce? Is there somewhere I can hear from them? Do these creatives survive purely on spec work? Really, can we open up the floor to the folks who work this way and hear who they are?
To me, it's a huge grey area that needs clarification. I think V&S clients deserve to know, too. A graphic representation of a thousand stick figures and only a few being paid isn't how I would represent any business model. There's no guarantees, no clarity to what you are really paying for.
Obviously, I'm a staunch critic of crowdsourcing. I always have been. I see it as a big cop-out for anyone trying to make a living from their work. You typically find crowdsourcing in marketing and advertising because this is an industry that can easily translate ideas within digital mediums. You would never ask a thousand plumbers to work for free and you would never ask a thousand farmers to grow for free, only promising payment under your discretion to a select few. You wouldn't ask a thousand factory workers at Harley Davidson to build you custom bikes and say, "I'll only pay the person who makes the one I like... maybe".
Sure, everyone has a choice to work under this model. But freelancers should be defining their relationships with clients within contracts that outline timeline, goals and expectations and ultimately define payment for those services. I can only see this working for a) students or creatives early in their careers, b) creatives looking for an anonymous side stream of income outside of their dayjob or c) really desperate individuals with hopes of a payout. This is a lottery. Not a creative department.
Most likely I will hear flack from posting my opinion on this, but I stick behind it and don't mind putting my name to it.
I work with a guy who was just paid for an idea. For the record, he was paid well. He made the same amount selling one idea that I make in a month on salary at an agency.
The Squirrel fights can be a great outlet. It's not like you have to break your back and do 100 logos to maybe make $500 bucks. You can submit 1 scrip or a marker comp of an idea and get paid and paid well. You invest as little or as much as you choose.
It's definitely a touchy subject and if the whole industry went this way, there might not be an industry, but try it before you knock it. You just might build your book, have some fun and make some money.
Don't you guys find it's a wee bit arrogant to think that the only people that can come up with creative, innovative marketing ideas are already working 12 hour days at an agency? I was an agency geek for many years and I work corporate-side now. I was never a creative but plenty of my ideas made it into produced work. I don't get my creative side fed by my current job so sometimes I'll jump in on a V&S project to see what I can come up with. It's fun, plain and simple.
So there, you've heard from one person. I haven't made any cash yet and honestly, it's not the main reason I contribute my ideas.
The whole idea that creative ideation and development is anything like a line worker at Harley doesn't pass the sniff test for me. The whole fabric of what the ad world is built upon is different. We always have the tools with us to do our jobs and I would bet dollars to donuts that most of us are passionate than the average laborer. So, we do more, we strive more, we think more, we create more. By doing so are we really threatening the industry agency model? The ivory tower of creative prowess that MUST live in as a salaried position in a big shop or as a successful freelancer? If the model is in danger of good ideas coming from people outside of the agency world, then agencies need to fix for that. Not the rest of us.
Finally, I can only take it on faith that the inner circle projects vs. squirrel fight work operates very differently. But the idea of a "blended" crowdsourcing model kind of cuts down on the "lottery" issue...at least, one would hope.
(P.S. regardless, good debate! interesting topic and i like the opposing POV...if we were having a beer, this would be way more fun.)
I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about, if creatives want to participate, they do. They know how the model works and how they're only paid if their idea is up to snuff.
I love Evan, Noah, John and everyone over at V&S. I sincerely hope the best for them, and the thousands of people they give a creative outlet to, in the future.
Sure,good point. I didn't think about the possibility that some may work under this model for the benefit of flexing their creative muscles more than as a compensation model. That reminds me of the first interview Bogusky did with his dad at the FearLess cottage. His dad contributes logos on 99designs to stay in the game. Basically, more for his benefit than anything else. And he does great work. So yes, this model works for the client and they can get some great creative out of it.
The point I made about comparing lineworkers at Harley to a creative department was more about the econimcs of it, less about the actual end product. A career must be sustainable in the long run. The crowd sourcing model either asks many folks to put their time and product (i.e. ideas and creations) on the line for free, with a slim chance of being paid. They understand this and that understanding draws folks who are (in my mind) less likely to stay involved in the long run. This doesn't seem to offer the client any constant in the ideation. Maybe that's ok with them though, maybe that's what V&S clients are looking for. Basically a raffle of ideas. Maybe I'm totally wrong.
The reader's digest version of my rant is, no matter if you are a creative ad man or woman or the average american worker, you must be able to make a living. Talent = value. Talent that easily translates into a digital medium isn't less valuable than any other department in advertising. So why must curators of ideas be placed more and more in the position to risk their livelihood for nothing?
Really, I'm not trying to stab at anyone's abilities or level of work. I just don't see this attracting those who are seriously dedicated to creative work as their career. It's for those who want some side cash, some avenue of creative expression outside of a "normal" day job, or someone who can risk giving away their livelihood for free. You can get some good work from that pool of types, but a lot of people get f'd in the a during the process. That should be made clear to everyone involved.
Post new comment