Crowdsourcing this, crowdsourcing that. In design terms, is it just a fancy name for online free pitching? There is now a host site for various crowd-source fuelled projects – Talenthouse. The Talenthouse “community” gets the chance to, for example, design and apply decoration to a pair of Adidas ski goggles. If they win then their reward is to see the goggles worn at the 2010 Winter Olympics. No mention of payment that I could see (although the site has a few open ended suggestions that compensation can be “negotiated”). Sound cynical to you? “This opportunity for all the artists out there is like a blessing” Russell Simmons, founder of the pioneering hip-hop label Def Jam, opines as a site “supporter”. In his YouTube video he goes on to explain that for many creative people getting the work “out there” is reward in itself. Perhaps, but does this approach arguably have the whiff of exploitation about it?

Assuming your heart isn’t bleeding for the creative participant side of this transaction, is there a downside for the brands? Well, perhaps crowdsourcing is a bit like asking a favourably inclined acquaintance for a favour. Fine the first time, but subject to a rapidly diminishing sense of continued goodwill if you keep on asking. To the cynically inclined, it also suggests the brand is less interested in collaboration than in getting some cheap work, which does not exactly reflect well on them. Crowdsourcing per se is a neat concept. But I would suggest it should be selectively and judiciously used, and that the rewards offered should be greater than “the winner’s design gets produced” if the particular initiative is to have gravitas and help build the brand. As it stands, many brands seem to be entering the crowdsource universe with less than altruistic intentions.