Instead, it comes from those who don’t not create nor steer the work, yet believe they understand it because it’s made to look so easy. Hence the rise of ‘curators’ – all selecting the same thing they think is quality, reinforcing each other’s views, creating stagnation.

Creativity and design need to constantly agitate to evolve. That’s how change and disruption happens.

The yearning since the beginning of all creativity-driven businesses has been ‘yes, but how do we get rid of the pain in the ass creative types’ to be more efficient?’

Well, you can’t. Not until there’s a perfect algorithm to solve your problems. Which, a creative person from the peripherals will then outmaneuver.

As Don Draper so eloquently put it to Peggy: ‘They wish they could do what we do, and they hate us for it.’

I’ve used crowdsourcing with great success on creative projects. The key is respecting the sources. Compensation, or even just credit, needs to comparable to the output expected.

The problem is, most of the crowdsourcing models we encounter are set up not with the contributor’s interest in mind, but the crowdource model’s. That’s an inherent flaw, and its true scent is easily picked up.

You can employ crowdsourcing without devaluing people, talent or skills. That’s when it becomes a great tool.

But attempting to use crowdsourcing in order to circumvent what the organization may see as an ‘inefficiency’ – ie; the high cost of talent, ect – will only net the quality of results that type of setup deserves, which is crap.