- Understanding the Risks of Engaging a Freelance Logo Designer
- Getting a logo, the journey continues
- Real v. Manufactured Dance Flash Mobs
- The Importance of the Experience – NHL v. NBA
- Cube Grenades
- Putting the Public Back in Public Relations
- Battle at Kruger – The best piece of shared media ever
- Smart People / Smart Ideas May Round Up
- Shared Media v. Social Media: A variety of viewpoints
- Agency Nil, Crispin Porter + Bogusky & BBH Labs on agency models
Today Eyecube presents the second in a series of Guest Editorials from Ben Johnson of Logoinn, a custom logo design service provider based in the UK. Chances are if you're reading this you've been redirected from my old site, www.eyecube.wordpress.com, to my new site, www.rickliebling.com. And if so, you'll see the new Eyecube logo at the top, designed by Logoinn. What do you think, pretty snazzy, huh? But back to Ben… There is an adage that you need to pay attention to when you are in the market for a logo designer: “You get what you pay for …” Of course, we are living in challenging economic times. As the owner of a business, you do need to make sure that your marketing and advertising budget goes as far as it possibly can. Therefore, when you are seeking logo design services, you definitely (and understandably) will be inclined to obtain assistance from a provider who bids the lowest. In this day and age it oftentimes is the freelance logo designer who will bid the lowest when it comes to your own project. In most cases, a professional logo design firm will charge at least somewhat more for its services than will be the case with an individual who is freelancing. Through this article you are provided some points to ponder seriously if you are considering hiring a solo freelancer to undertake the task of designing your logo for you. By paying attention to the information that is presented to you in this article you will be able to make a wise and educated decision in regard to whether or not selecting a solo freelancer is the best course for you to take when it comes to the important task of designing a logo for your business enterprise. _LIMITED RESOURCES_ One problem area associated with individual freelance logo designers rests in the fact that they probably lack the full of array of resources that will be available at a firm. For example, there are some very powerful software applications that a professional logo design firm will have – applications that will be out of reach due to expense and other issues from a solo freelance logo designer. Obviously, when you are seeking a logo for your business, you are best served when you have a provider like a design firm that has access to the full of array of design and related tools and resources. _POOR QUALITY_ Unfortunately, in this day and age a considerable number of unqualified people are setting themselves up as solo freelancers. These individuals can be found in all creative and technical service arenas. This includes in the realm of logo design. In the end, while these individuals can talk a great game, when all is said and done they simply are unable to provide to you the quality logo design and development services that you must have. You can end up paying such an individual a generous fee and have nothing to show for your investment when all is said and done. _LACK OF GUARANTEE_ Another risk associated with going the solo freelancer route rather than to a pro design firm when you are seeking the creation of a logo rests in the reality that such a freelancer working on his or her own will not offer you any type of guarantee. In point of fact, even if a guarantee is extended, the question then becomes will the solo freelancer honor that guarantee when all is said and done. In the end, you can end up being better served through engaging a logo design firm because such an operation will have an established track record when it comes to offering – and honoring – guarantees of their work. _LACK OF CUSTOMER SUPPORT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE_ Customer support and technical assistance is vital when it comes to obtaining services for your business. This holds very true when it comes to engaging a firm or a solo freelancer to provide logo design services for your business venture. The simple reality is that a freelancer working alone simply will not have the time to provide to you the type of customer support or technical assistance that you really must have when it comes to logo development and related matters. When all is said and done, you want to know that you will have a provider at your side that will be there when necessary … the type of support that you will be more likely to be able to access through a professional logo design firm. _CONCLUSION_ While there are some talented solo freelancers providing logo design services in business today, when all factors are taken into consideration, you likely will be best served by engaging a firm to provide you the assistance you need in regard to logo design, branding and developing the image of your business enterprise. _Disclaimer: I entered into an agreement with __Logoinn__ in which they received the opportunity to write guest editorials on Eyecube in exchange for the creation of the logo. No money changed hands in either direction._
Regular readers will recall I recently announced my intention to get a logo for eyecube. I've partnered with Logoinn for the creation (see there first guest post here) and you'll be hearing more from them later this week. Today I wanted to touch upon a key learning I've uncovered as part of this process. If you're a business owner, freelancer, marketer or really anyone who manages a brand you feel a sense of ownership. You live the brand a feel you know it better than anyone else (and you probably do). But now you're thinking about bringing in someone from the outside to help you build upon your vision. Believe me, things can get a bit tricky here. Trying to explain to anyone, even a really talented designer, what you want is extremely difficult. Here's why: * It's in _YOUR _head, not the designer's * Not being a professional designer yourself, it's difficult to articulate exactly what you want * The designer, no matter how well briefed, is bringing their experiences to the table, not yours * If you are starting from scratch, there's nothing to base it on * Nobody knows what is right until you see it There's more I'm sure, but you get the idea. It's really a scary process. I didn't know what I wanted exactly, but I knew what I didn't want. The toughest part is letting go and just being open. If you are locked in to one idea you're going to miss out on a lot of cool design possibilities. Try to approach the project with an attitude that says, "let's see what happens" rather than "I must have exactly 'x'." Ultimately I think you'll get a better result if you work with the designer, taking their input as well as giving direction.
Seen this one yet? Seth Godin and Faris Yakob have both featured it (and many others I'm sure): Both Seth and Faris point out the subtle nuances that make this dance party take off. For me, the big issue is authenticity. Would all those people have jumped up and joined in with a bunch of professional dancers? Probably not. As much as I love this Improv Everywhere-inspired bit from A&E, they are a self-contained group for the most part. Take a look at this recent MC Hammer-TV show promo event: Fun stuff, but notice that no 'civilians' are participating. Some are bemused, some seem even a bit frightened at first. Compare that to the first dance video whic has a far more powerful vibe. You can feel the electricity and it isn't manufactured, it's real. As I noted in my earlier post, experience is important and you can see the difference in these two videos.
So often we (marketing bloggers) write about the theoretical or our own experiences, which are influenced by the SocMed Marketing echo chamber we inhabit, that it's nice to see a fresh perspective on things. Can't get more fresh that seeing it through the eyes of a 10-year old.
My son and I can't wait till Friday! Go Wings!Last night was a big one for sports fans, especially in the New York area. Mets v. Phillies and Yanks v. Red Sox would normally get top billing, but with the NBA Finals and NHL Stanley Cup finals in full swing, regular season baseball takes a seat in the back. So, I asked my son, "NBA Finals or Stanley Cup?" No hesitation - playoff hockey was his choice. So, what factors led to this decision? Yes, I'm a Red Wings fan, but my son hasn't seemed to pick that up as he has for the Steelers, a team we both root for. On the other side, he's certainly gotten in to Dwight Howard of the NBA's Orlando Magic, often asking if Superman (Howard's nickname) was playing tonight. My son has played on basketball teams for a couple of years, but has never played hockey. On the surface it would seem to be a wash, with basketball maybe even having an edge. So, why the interest in hockey? Back in February my son and I went with some friends to a mid-season New Jersey Nets game against the San Antonio Spurs. Spurs won easy against a Nets team that put little to no effort into the game, in front of a crowd that was listless at best - thus creating a symbiotic death-spiral of intertia. Then in April my son had the opportunity to go to a New Jersey Devils game. An NHL playoff game. An NHL Game 7 playoff game! The one where the Devils gave up to goals in the last 72 seconds to end their season. Probably the most dramatic sporting event, outside of a FIFA World Cup final, you can attend. So, now my son has a school project - he decides to create a New Jersey Devils t-shirt. He has a choice of what to watch, he chooses NHL hockey. During the game he says he's interested in maybe playing hockey too. You simply can't underestimate the power of a truly compelling live experience. Whether it's an event or just the engagement a consumer has at your store, what are you doing to make it memorable?
his site bookmarked and that you are following him on Twitter. Become a Crazy Deranged Fool while you are at it. Hugh's latest concept is Cube Grenades. What's that? Here's Hugh… _1. LIKE I SAID, MY CARTOONS WORK BEST WHEN THEY'RE USED AS "CUBE GRENADES" I.E. SMALL OBJECTS THAT YOU "THROW" IN THERE IN ORDER TO CAUSE SOME DAMAGE- TO START A CONVERSATION, TO SPREAD AN IDEA ETC. But other __social objects__ can be used as well- purple milk cartons, homemade cookies, funky mousepads, rubber toys, newspaper clippings etc. It's the people that matter, not the object they socialize around. I don't claim to have a monopoly._ _2. REPEAT AFTER ME: Cube Grenades are __Social Objects__. Cube Grenades are __Social Objects__. Cube Grenades are __Social Objects__…_ _3. ALL BIG CHANGE IN COMPANIES COME FROM THE PEOPLE IN THE TRENCHES, who do the actual day-to-day work. To change their behavior, you have to change the way they interact. People interact around social objects. Change the social objects, and you change the company._ He continues the list and thought here. Well worth the read. PSFK has further thoughts on the concept: _Cartoonist and marketing theorist Hugh MacLeod has been developing his concept of “__social objects__,” now reifined in the form of his “__cube grenade__” series of illustrations, which he believes are representative of the future of both brands and marketing as a whole. Though it may sound opaque at first, the concept of social objects can be summed up by MacLeod’s thesis that people socialize around objects in meaningful ways, and these peripheral interactions are far more important than the objects themselves._ Making and throwing your own Cube Grenades is a big idea. Maybe too big for you right now. But that doesn't mean you should sit on the sidelines. Start by printing out on of Hugh's pictures and put it up on your wall/cubicle/desktop. Start a conversation. Do it today.
Long overdue, but I finally finished _Putting the Public Back in Public Relations_ by Brian Solis and Deirdre Breakendridge. Here's my blurb for the back cover of the paperback edition: _"IF DINOSAURS HAD THE EQUIVALENT OF THIS BOOK MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, THEY'D STILL BE ROAMING THE EARTH TODAY."_ Solis and Breakenridge have really done the industry a service with this book, a must-read for the PR community. Several elements particularly stuck out for me: 1. The book is written in a no-nonsense manner, devoid of gimmicks. They got some valuable information to impart and they do so in a straight-forward manner that is easy to understand for the novice, but detailed enough for the seasoned practitioner to get some meaningful insights. 2. It's also very comprehensive. The book provides real "how-to"-style information on a variety of topics, from blogger relations or VNRs (Video News Release); Social Networks to breaking news in a disintermediated media landscape. 3. They tackled the always difficult area of metrics. PR as an industry needs to get a better handle on this and Solis and Breakenridge don't shy away from tackling the subject head on. 4. This isn't a "PR good, advertising bad" book. The authors are willing to call the PR industry out for poor practices that have hurt the industry and call for better efforts and accountability. 5. This book is worth reading even if you dont' agree with them. Let's say you think all this new media stuff is just a fad, and PR was, is and forever will be about blasting press releases to lists. Fine, that's your prerogative. But at least by reading this book you'll understand what PR 2.0 really is, so when you dismiss it, you'll at least know what you're railing against. You can then go join your friends, the dimetrodon and the brontosaurus at the watering hole, commenting on how chilly it's gotten recently. Whether you're new to the PR industry - this would be a great read for all the graduating PR students out there - or you've been around 10+ years like me, _PUTTING THE PUBLIC BACK IN PUBLIC RELATIONS_ is a good book, and one you should read sooner rather than later.
I'm not crazy about the term viral video. It's over-used and misused. I've talked a lot recently about why I like the term 'Shared Media,' but whatever you call it, the trend of massively viewed online video is real. We've seen all sorts of video become popular this way - from comic dancing to drumming gorillas; from Drama Queens (NSFW) to geographically-challenged beauty queens. But for my money, The Battle at Kruger is the best piece of shared video ever. Not familar with The Battle at Kruger? Take a couple of minutes and watch this: Yes, amazing video, but why do I think it's the best? It has so many elements of classic storytelling: IT'S IMMERSIVE You feel like you're in the car with the rest of the witnesses, part of their conversations. Very few videos give you that 'you are there' feeling. IT HAS CLASSIC NARRATIVE PLOT STRUCTURE You meet the protagonist, the antagonist is then introduced, followed by a surprise third party. The drama continues to build until it looks like our hero will perish, only for a dramatic turn of events at the last moment. IT'S UNPREDICTABLE Crocodiles? A water buffalo fightback? No way you saw those things coming. By the end I was ready Ninja Giraffes. Unpredictability really is one of the key factors, and often an overlooked one, when brands create online video content. Content that makes viewers say, "Whoa, I didn't see that coming!" is the type that gets shared. IT'S UNIQUE Make a funny song video and somebody else can make one too. Got an adorable kid throwing a wiffle ball at his daddy's groin? Get in line. But Battle at Kruger is a virtually unrepeatable, unbeatable piece of footage. Can you imagine a more remarkable piece of "found" footage? IT'S AUTHENTIC Alright, here's what really separates Battle at Kruger from the rest of the popular videos for me. No staged comedy bits, no CGI trickery, no scripted dialoague. The reactions of the witnesses are real, and the actions of the animals are life & death-real. No professional voice-over, no slick editing. Kids bouncing their eyebrows, keyboard playing cats, even Susan Boyle's performance has a staged element to it. So before you commit to spending thousands of dollars on your 'viral video,' keep in mind the elements that will appeal to viewers and connect with them emotionally.
Do you follow me on Twitter? Then you know all about Smart People / Smart Ideas. It's my way of sharing the great stuff I see from really great people. I then pull a month's worth and post them here: Smart People / Smart Ideas #156 @rohitbhargava on live-Blogginh/Tweeting an event http://bit.ly/e4D5n Smart People / Smart Ideas #157 @jasonfalls on the Sustainability of Social Media http://is.gd/wCCF [h/t @dmullen & @shannonpaul] Smart People / Smart Ideas #158 @ikepigott thinks network TV needs to hit the refresh button on their thinking: http://snurl.com/hhslx Smart People / Smart Ideas #159 @jaybaer hops on the tractor for some SocMed Farming http://bit.ly/1593LL [cool analogy] Smart People / Smart Ideas #160 @jasonhiner on the four stages of a Twitter user. http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=17722 [hat tip @scottjuba] Smart People / Smart Ideas #161 @gladyssantiago on fictional product placement http://tinyurl.com/plcm4s [via Murketing AND @psfk] Smart People / Smart Ideas #162 Some great PR tips/reminders from Ad Age's @jonahbloom http://bit.ly/abUjJ Smart People / Smart Ideas #163 @LouisGray on Early Adopters and Finding "The Next Shiny Object" http://bit.ly/CqtFG [ht @JesseNewhart] Smart People / Smart Ideas #164 @ambercadabra on being able to let go of your ideas http://tinyurl.com/oznn5b Smart People/Smart Ideas #165 @briansolis has a Directory of Twitter Tools for Community & Communications Professionals. http://bit.ly/8CPA Smart People / Smart Ideas #166 @adambroitman with a must read SocMed post: Whose job is it anyway? http://bit.ly/bt8qa Smart People / Smart Ideas #167 @geoffliving on why your message fails in SocMed: http://bit.ly/oCThd
Regular Eyecube readers (both of you) will remember my post from last week asking if the term Shared Media wasn't more accurate than Social Media. It generated some good conversation here and on Twitter, so I felt it was worth exploring further. I reached out to several people I highly respect and asked for their thoughts on the matter. The results were as insightful as they were varied. I wanted to collect them here and share them with you in hopes that we can continue the discussion. First, DJ Francis from the OnlineMarketerBlog lays out a really well-reasoned argument before ultimately disagreeing with me, stating _"ALL SOCIAL MEDIA IS SHARED, BUT NOT ALL SHARED MEDIA IS SOCIAL." _Bonus points to DJ for this passage: _In a past life, I was an apostle of structuralist literary theorist Roland Barthes and his __Death of the Author__ essay. I concur with Barthes that “[t]o give a text [or content] an Author” and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it “is to impose a limit on that text.”_ Um, yeah, I was just discussing Barthes the other night while watching the Real Housewives of New Jersey. Right then, moving on… Matt Hames, who writes a blog called _People Like to Share__ _will surely be on my side, right? Well, not exactly. He likes the term _PARTICIPATION:_ _So instead of social media, or earned media, or interactive, or whatever title you want to put on this new world where people can share stuff, I say call it what it is: participation._ _These day, things are obviously different, and we’re all working on a definition for that difference. But I think it’s simple: consumers can participate in an unprecedented way. They can review, comment, share, disparage, or celebrate a brand._ _So marketers need to craft communications that encourage the participation that will work best. And here’s the best part: the place that has the least amount of silos has a head-start._ Patricia McDonald of BBH Labs (one of my new favorites) had some great thoughts on the subject: I think Social Media is fundamentally about people. Social media doesn't necessarily require content in any traditional sense, it requires a purpose for individuals to congregate around. That might be a piece of content to share but it's just as likely to be a cause, a utility, a value exchange or a collaboration. "Social media" is undoubtedly a seriously overused phrase right now-and when it's used to describe any and all kinds of user generated content, it probably doesn't fit any more. Is a blog really "social media" if it doesn't empower the community to come together, act together and be more powerful and useful together than they are individually? My real bugbear though is that because its strongest association at the moment is with social networking, it's hard for some businesses to understand the profundity of what's really happening with things like social lending, social product development and do on. _I'm not a huge fan of semantic debate for the sake of it, but I do think there are some genuine nuances here that are worth exploring not purely for the intellectual satisfaction but because they come back to the fundamental question for all marketeers; what are we trying to achieve? What is the commercial imperative facing this brand, what is the role of digital in helping us solve it and what, therefore, do I need consumers to do differently? When we address those questions some of these distinctions do become important in practice not just in theory. So in some cases I may want to make my consumers my media channel and bring down the cost of paid for channels (earned media), in others I may want to build a utility my consumers return to again and again, driving frequency of interaction with the brand, in which case I may be in the business of social media. Nuance may actually become quite important in giving social or indeed shared media (which I do believe are different) a clear and demonstrable commercial effect._ Ross Popoff-Walker, who writes the Annoying Design blog asked some interesting questions: What's the larger behavioral trend that would make "sharable" relevant now? Or is "shareable" just a more proper term than "social" ever was? Two trends I've been talking with clients about lately: - Consumers trust peers and friends more than brands, eg: consumer reviews hold more weight than ads. - The audience for social networks is widening, extending to Boomers and Seniors. _All media is indeed sharable, because it's just data on the web. But two things effect if/how people share any media:_ _1) where they see it -- if it appears on a blog like Boing Boing it'll be sure become viral, as opposed to say, my blog _ 2) the content itself -- does it incite conversation by being simple, culturally relevant, and cool. So, the conclusion I've come to, is that this is mostly semantics. But that as consumers trust peers more, they're more likely to share content from smaller and more diverse sources. Increasingly, it won't just be boing boing posts that lead to the next highly-shared link -- it can come from anywhere. Tim Malbon, from MadebyMany puts forth the following: _I agree with you that Social Media is a problematic term in so many ways. I'm not sure that the term Shared Media is an awful lot better - I understand your point of view but I think that this ultimately boils down to a semantic gloop that gets you twisted up and not a lot further forward. As always we come at this from a different angle - we've been designing and building community platforms and applications since 2001 (I did two massive online communities that year - one for British Gas called __YourSource.co.uk__, and a start-up motorcycling community called __madaboutbikes.com__). TIt was all about community then. This debate has been taking place whilst I have been re-reading The Perfect Storm, the story of eBay. What struck me very powerfully is the total absence of the term 'social media'. I don't think it existed before about 2004, by which time "online community" was already *at least* ten years old._ _"Community" as a term is so much more accurate, so much bigger and all-encompassing. The Internet and WWW has always been about communities. I don't know the real provenance of "social media", no idea who coined it, but I strongly suspect that it hails from the moment when marketing people started to reduce Teh Interwebs to the status of a marketing channel. This was a crime against humanity. It probably also arises from the period when online ad revenues took off seriously (I think they picked up hugely in 2004 after the low point of the dot com crash in the early noughties). _ _We still use the term community wherever possible over and above social media, which I find it very narrowing. The Web is *a lot bigger* than a marketing channel. It's not merely 'media' - not Shared Media, not People Media, not any type of media. Calling it media of any sort sounds as stupid as calling the offline world 'media' - as in, "Look outside the window child, up above the fields and houses… look at the lovely media…" It's not a channel, it's a jihad. However, having got all incensed I think we should also all just calm down and remember that we'll need to constantly change words and evolve our terminology. We're trying to hit a moving target, things are still moving rapidly and we're living ina period of constant and sustained change - which is pretty exciting. I'm glad I don't live in a world where everything is well-defined and has cast-iron meaning._ __Juicy stuff there from Tim, bravo. For the last word, let's turn to Faris Yakob, author of the _Talent Imitates, Genius Steals_ blog: 1) where they see it -- if it appears on a blog like Boing Boing it'll be sure become viral, as opposed to say, my blog 2) the content itself -- does it incite conversation by being simple, culturally relevant, and cool. So, the conclusion I've come to, is that this is mostly semantics. But that as consumers trust peers more, they're more likely to share content from smaller and more diverse sources. Increasingly, it won't just be boing boing posts that lead to the next highly-shared link -- it can come from anywhere. _“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”_ _“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”_ _“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”_ On that note I turn it over to you, the reader. Your comments are encouraged.
Hank Leber has created Agency Nil, a haven for out of work and freelance creatives. The hook: _THEY'LL DO THE WORK, YOU PAY THEM WHAT YOU THINK IT'S WORTH._ That's the sort of bold thinking you'd expect from a guy just starting out in the business. (By the way, one look at their website and you tell can Hank and his guys are the real deal). Hank is clearly a take no prisoners-type of guy. He's put his stake in the ground with Agency Nil and he's putting his mouth where his 'pay me what it's worth' is:
_I've found this project particularly interesting because of the range of reactions it's gotten. Some people are very much against the "pay what you want" model, and others are totally for it. I think I've pissed some people off - and that's ok. It's to be expected._
_A business model is a product of a market; it exists because conditions allow it to exist. If those conditions weren't there, then the model wouldn't have had the environment to grow into reality. There are no exceptions to this rule - only stronger and stronger cases._
_New models are supposed to be disruptive. If they didn't disrupt anything, they wouldn't be new. It's because of this truth that I can understand the opposition to Agency Nil. It threatens the stability of the industry and causes people to rethink the way things are working. Maybe they should have been rethinking already. At least now they are forced to. Regardless, the conversation has been started, which is what I'm happiest about - ideas are contagious, and I hope more can come from this start._
_Because things are moving so fast now and "disruptive thought" has become stylish, we will see many more new business models challenge the way things have traditionally been run. We're seeing them pop up every day now, and many of them touch our daily lives, because they are smart and relevant. These ideas and models will come and go as the world of commerce struggles to figure out what to do with the Internet and business, and their new thoughts - one by one - will be what shape the changes we get._
_Free online content is ruining entire empires of media channels as we speak, and venture capitalists and those gripping onto an old system can only last so long. It will be up to the lively brains everywhere, cooking up different ways to go about business to figure out what is next. There is no way it won't happen._
_It's about being fearless, optimistic, and confident that you can make it new - do it better - and show the world that you can. Everyone's a naysayer until it works, and then they cheer. Wal-Mart, Hulu, Zappos, Amelia Earhart, Obama, and about a million others (or ten million). The examples are in front of us everywhere, every day. It's amazing that more people don't take chances on a good idea._
_Only time will tell if Hank's theories regarding business models are viable, but there's no doubt about his moxie, and from what little I know about the Ad game, that counts for something._
_Ben Malbon of BBH Labs, who provided some early guidance to Hank, adds:_
_"Hank's had a rollercoaster ride over the last few weeks. I've got 100%_
_respect for him because he's trying something new at a time when it's tougher than ever to break into the industry. He'll put some noses out of joint and his proposition won't be to everyone's taste - but that's far from the first time that's happened in the ad world. Yet he's already got a contacts book that make most of us look lame in comparison, is learning exponentially fast, and has resisted the initial wave of knee-jerk job offers that came his way. _
_And despite all that, somehow he hasn't yet 'wrecked the ad industry' as some commentators suggested he would when he launched a few weeks ago. Hank's latest idea, 'CrispinvsAgencyNil' is just more evidence of his creativity and his determination not to settle for the status quo. I look forward to seeing what unfolds. He's awesome."_
THE (BURGER) KING OF THE HILLOn the other end of the spectrum is Crispin Porter + Bogusky, a well-established ad agency that has turned out some of the most talked about creative in recent years (I talked about it here, here and here). Recently CP+B had an intern auction on eBay, where brands could bid for the services of CP+B interns. Clever idea and it raised $17, 655 for the interns. So good at generating buzz for their clients, CP+B, did a bang up job for themselves on this one: AdFreak, UberFarm, SuperPunch, and Chris Rawlinson were just some of the blogs covering the story. Here's AdAge with a post-mortem on the event and the winner: Brammo. Ultimately CP+B was having some fun (and earning some publicity) with the intern auction. Agency Nil jumped in to mix it up a bit and quite frankly, I hope they both turn out as winners in this (the interns too!). But the serious question of business models remains. I got in touch with Alex Bogusky of CP+B and he was kind enough to share some of his thoughts: _EYECUBE: WHAT IF THE WINNER OF YOUR AUCTION IS EXTREMELY SATISFIED WITH THE RESULTS - COULD THAT POSE A THREAT TO YOUR TRADITIONAL BUSINESS MODEL?_ _AB: Well first off let me comment on the traditional business model. First I don’t feel vested in it so any change that works better would be welcome. Second, the model that I believe is more broken is the corporate model and public ownership. That system has taken a hundred years to reach where we are now but it’s not a good place. The pressure of quarterly earnings combined with the limited liability constantly conspires and encourages short term and unsustainable behavior. _ _That issue is a lot bigger than the intern auction and as I think models for the future my head is more in that space. Now to answer your specific question I don’t think the intern auction could be a path to a better model. Unless the model was to have a steady stream of free/intern labor. I guess that’s possible but for a client looking for a long term partner that would be a frightening prospect. So from both the employee and client perspective I don’t think it’s a long term solution. The truth is there have been some agencies that have used pretty much all intern/free creative labor as a rule and it worked okay but they hid this reality from clients._ _EYECUBE: COULD AUCTION-BASED AD WORK BE A VIABLE BIZ MODEL FOR AN AGENCY?_ _AB: I don’t think in the current environment it’s very realistic but certainly it works better for smaller clients than larger. Project based stuff can work this way. And right now the reality is all RFPs come down to a reverse auction. With the agencies all fighting to do it most affordably. Each intern will receive their share of the 17K. About 500 bucks before taxes for three months work. We’ll pay them more than they make from the auction. That doesn’t strike me as sustainable. This is about doing something special and fun for a great group of interns. I don’t think it’s more than that._ _EYECUBE: DOES THIS RISK COMMODITIZING AGENCY WORK?_ _AB: Probably. Sites like Crowdspring are probably the greatest risk. I’m curious to see how it pans out. People had the same fears with desktop publishing but they turned out to be unfounded. In the end the categories that become commodities do so because they in fact are a commodity. So we shall see. Is creativity a commodity?_ _EYECUBE: IF AGENCY NIL PROVES SUCCESSFUL, COULD YOU SEE OTHER AGENCIES TRYING THAT MODEL?_ _AB: Copying somebody else’s model is a lot easier than coming up with something new so I would say it will happen in a New York minute._ Hank and the Agency Nil gang, like all good Ad Men, know an opportunity when they see it. In response, they've launched CrispinvsAgencyNil, an open letter to the losing bidders in the CP+B intern auction. The offer? They'll do the work for _HALF_ of the $17,655, and they've offering this for two brands. So, Agency Nil sees CP+B's clever and raises them one. Well played. I hope my readers will continue this conversation here in the comments section. I'd like to say a big thank you to Alex, Hank and Ben who really made this post, your insight, time and contributions are very much appreciated.