The Most Polarizing Ad Agency on the Planet

I don't understand why people think it's ok for artists to create work for free and only the "winner" gets paid. Especially other creatives - makes my blood boil. Does any other industry have to put up with this nonsense?

Remember that show Dr. Fad?

Now this is actually a great idea. It saves money, time, and offers a lot of people the opportunity to work while allowing the company to tap into a pool of people to come up with new ideas.

 

Crowd Sourcing from first royalty software is the next great thing that is going to employ a lot of professionals who want to work from anywhere in the world.

This is really nothing new. They are just describing it in words that make it feel worse.

They are a small agency who can't or don't want to commit to full-time employees. So they want to do work using freelancers. Many places do that.

The problem is when they talk about compensation. If you do not have a team vested in the work/project, it is doubtful you will get the best work repeatedly.

To do this, you need to pay a good rate, and be consistent with the freelancers they use.

It would be much more tolerable if they paid for the spec work. If they want to use a 'data base' of freelancers, thats fine.

Like Rifkin said, they will never get top quality work this way.

I think it's a little bold to call them "polarizing," if only because more people would a) have to know about them, and b) care.

It's a model that's worth experimenting with, if it worked that well we'd see it a lot more frequently. At some point that might happen, that time has not yet come, perhaps some day it will.

In the meantime, good luck to them, hope they do good work and continue to grow in whatever way it is they want to grow.

@Brad It only takes one look at the comments above to justify "polarizing" in the title.

Watch this video to see how this would fly in the "real" word!
http://youtu.be/R2a8TRSgzZY