Is this really a reason not to crowd-source?

Interesting article here in Mashable about Pepsi’s attempts to crowd-source their Superbowl commercial. Just because Pepsi chose to feature in some way (I don’t know how prominently) the Doritos/Communion Wafer submission — a submission that offended Catholic groups — doesn’t mean we should throw the crowd-sourcing baby out with the bathwater. The outcome should not be a judgement on the value of crowd-sourcing.

When a large, savvy, and well-funded brand such as Pepsi chooses to walk on the wild side, and undertake crowd-sourcing, or social media “stunts” of any sort — they have to take responsibility for their actions. Perhaps “someone” should have thought this through. “Hmm, I love this commercial. It’s fun. Irreverent. But, well, might offend some. Should we feature it?”
Crowd-sourcing is exciting. It helps brands think in a new way about their brand. They get to see how people out there in the real world think about them. It shakes things up. I say, bring it on! But be judicial. Know that there will be submissions and content that may not reflect your brand’s values. In which case, it’s “thanks, love it, but no thanks.”

One thought on “Is this really a reason not to crowd-source?”

  1. Companies are so scared of having any detractors at all. It's controversy which spikes attention and from the article it seems like Pepsi got both some additional attention and then used the right judgment in not making the ad a finalist. Much ado about nothing but I suspect they'll get more coverage value from the catholic ad than they do from the winner.

    Thanks for sharing Alice

Comments are closed.