Super Bowl Ads and the Rise of the Prize Economy

Mark Walsh, chief executive of the start-up Genius Rocket, loved this year’s Super Bowl — not so much the game, but the hit Doritos ad, the $1 million prize it won for the two brothers from Indiana and what their triumph represents. “The match lit the fuse with that Doritos ad,” Mr. Walsh said.

Mr. Walsh is truly an Internet commerce veteran. His online credentials go back more than two decades to Compucard and then through General Electric’s GEnie, America Online and VerticalNet.

His current venture, Genius Rocket, runs an online marketplace where people compete to get paid for their work, ranging from 90-second video ads for the Web to product logos and book covers.

Genius Rocket had nothing to do with the Doritos Super Bowl ad contest. But the site aims to be the kind of place where people like Joe and Dave Herbert, whose “Free Doritos” spot won the competition, can find customers for their creative work.

The buyers, mainly consumer marketers, issue a request for work, describing what they want. Then, far-flung creators submit their work and the buying company picks one or a few winners. The prizes typically range from $5,000 to $500, Mr. Walsh said.

By now, Genius Rocket, founded in 2007, has 8,000 registered “creative collaborators,” as Mr. Walsh calls the prize contest entrants, spread across 100 nations. To date, Genius Rocket has conducted contests for 50 projects for 40 companies.

His stable of enterprising amateurs and freelancers possess “incredible talent,” Mr. Walsh said, and they can do advertising and marketing projects for a tenth the cost of traditional ad agencies.

Genius Rocket is another proof point in a larger trend that may just be getting underway — the rise of the prize economy. It is already well established in science, as a more efficient way of eliciting breakthroughs than traditional federal financing or grant-making.

The Pentagon’s DARPA research agency awarded $1 million in 2007 to the winner of its Urban Challenge for the best and fastest unmanned vehicle. The X Prize Foundation is offering multimillion-dollar prizes for path-breaking advances in genomics, alternative-energy cars and private space exploration.

Economists have suggested federally sponsored prizes as the most promising path to deliver breakthrough technologies to combat climate change, and the Obama science team likes the prize model.

In big science, the prize model has great appeal. The participants in those contests are mainly tenured professors and graduate students supported by scholarship financing — categories of laborers utterly insulated from the rigors of the market economy.

If the prize model of buying work takes off, it would mean a huge transfer in the balance of power to the buyers — corporations — and from most workers. Maybe that’s inevitable, efficient and another byproduct of the Internet (which greatly reduces the transaction costs of running contests as Genius Rocket does). “The Internet disintermediates everything it hits,” Mr. Walsh observed.

Still, Mr. Walsh is no Dickensian capitalist. He is a lifelong liberal who handed out bumper stickers for Hubert Humphrey as a youth, served as a technology adviser for the Democratic National Committee, and was a former chief executive of liberal radio network Air America (where he still sits on the board). He is a big Obama backer. Another Genius Rocket founder is Joe Trippi, the grass-roots strategist and Internet mastermind behind former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign.

“Like you, I am concerned about how we all make a buck in this world,” Mr. Walsh said. “But the free-agent nation is going to happen.”

Comments are no longer being accepted.

While this model has several appealing characteristics, particularly for the winners, I think it could have disastrous effects if it began to replace the existing employment model. It seems to be the ultimate in risk transference from the organization to the individual, and generally speaking large organizations are better able to handle risk than individuals. If we all lose our jobs and have to compete for each piece of work we deliver, how will we get health insurance? How will we be able to sign a mortgage, or sign our children up for private school or college with no solid income stream to provide guidance for what we can expect to be able to afford? We went through a period of labor reforms beginning with the industrial revolution designed to provide security and fairness to the labor class. These issues are no less valid when the labor class ceases to become an employee class. What happens with the revenue that the government and our social security system typically gets from payroll taxes? While the winners of the prize are certainly well rewarded for their efforts, what of the time spent by those who weren’t selected? If we added up all of that time, might we find that this “job” paid less than minimum wage?
Most states have a lottery, and while the lottery is always great for the winner, that’s not the whole picture.

The so-called “prize economy” has an inherent flaw, at least as far as we have seen in the science and engineering realms. Attention-grabbing as they are, the prizes don’t form the basis of innovation but rather skim the cream and generate media attention. The dollars driving the real infrastructure and innovation come not from the prizes but from more traditional sources: in the DARPA Urban Challenge these were foundations, corporate philanthropy and R&D, and the academic institutions themselves (in terms of direct dollars and provision of the people, facilities and overhead to undertake the projects). The X-Prize seems to be funded more on the model of latter-day patronage – the Medicis of our age now being called “Angel Investors” or some such thing. In either case, the prizes may provide some concentrating force, but the real economics, in terms of resources allocated, are not coming from the prizes themselves, or even the discounted promise of a the prizes’ payoffs. The danger in all of this is that the pool of support for innovation will be diverted away from the place where the work is effectively done (in grants and sponsored research) and into prize funds, creating a structure without a sound basis for growth.

“[The prize economy] is already well established in science, as a more efficient way of eliciting breakthroughs than traditional federal funding or grant-making.”

Really? Where, exactly, can you point to successes?

There were more than a few prizes offered over the past 350 years for discovering a proof of Fermat’s last theorem. All they did was encourage a bunch of submissions, none of which worked. And surely Andrew Wiles was not motivated by prize money.

As for the cited example of the DARPA automated vehicle challenge, all those teams spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their vehicles. Obviously they didn’t all get prize money. Where do you think they got that money? If there’s only one prize winner, why on earth would dozens of teams compete?

Also, as you point out, “If the prize model of buying work takes off, it would mean a huge transfer in the balance of power to the buyers — corporations — and from most workers.” So why would any rational worker participate?

it seems that you have missed one example of “prize economy” which has been on going for hundreds of years: the architectural competition.

one wonders if mr. lohr is aware of the history of the building he works within……

Tom is absolutely right in pointing out that the model is no more efficient than work provided by employed creative professionals for their employers and clients. The difference is that it’s aguably MORE efficient for the no-longer-an-employer and LESS efficient for the no-longer-employees who is making more inventory of work than can be used or paid for. This is not acceptable in a world where we know all boats float on the same wave of economic well being, which is based on solid employment.

Another liekly casualty of doing creative this way is consistency in brand messaging and identity. Good luck piecing out work and having a coherent presence.

At //www.VidOpp.com we have been aggregating video contests for years, and covered over $2 million in contests in 2008, up from $1 million in 2007. We draw thousands of visitors looking for opportunities, and have an active community sharing ideas and support.

These contests are a terrific way for up-and-coming talent to build a portfolio working on projects for major brands. The individual prizes are not as important as the experience and feedback.

The industry is growing, interest is growing, and the prizes are growing. We are looking forward to another great year of video contests at VidOpp.

At Poptent.net, we’re hoping to create a hybridized version of this model where creators have a free and open gateway to break into commercial filmmaking, but are constantly building a portfolio to that help them earn paying jobs – through our site and on their own.

There are so many amateur and semi-professional filmmakers that do not have entree into the professional creative industry, it’s only a matter of time before the digitization of media brings that playing field into more of an equilibrium. We hope to play a role in facilitating that process by bringing those creators to the companies who want to hire them.

Prize-based innovation certainly has its place for creative ideation (marketing and work-product like videos, logos, etc. that is based on a person’s expertise), and other good examples abound (i.e., Article One Partners: bounties/prizes related to finding prior art for patent studies). However, when it comes to technical and scientific innovation as well as product development, existing intellectual property rules make this type of model impractical. Even if a bounty can be used to entice people to respond, real business negotiation is needed to create a winning collaboration between a big company and another small company/university/consultant/etc. Often, funded or joint development is what it takes to make real breakthroughs – rarely is this a one-time simple transfer of technology. We (NineSigma) hear all the time “why would I want to give up my invention/technology that could make a company $$$$ for peanuts?”. People may give away IP, but companies and universities don’t.

-Kevin Stark at NineSigma.com

Forbes this month has an article on a similar website called //www.crowdspring.com. It seems to have a lot more activity on it than Genius Rocket does. I would even go as far to say it’s better than all other sites listed above.

I discovered Genius Rocket several months ago and have been impressed with the “product” their talented “Geniuses” deliver. As more companies discover the significant bang for the buck they can get from a quality video I see this taking off for them and their talented community.

As for the long term trend towards more specialization and becoming a workforce of “free-agents” it’s going to continue imo although it will take a long time as companies will continue to want their key people “locked down”.

In the government contracting industry there is an active market for “free agents” and there’s a “Genius Rocket” like company connecting this set of free agents with government and government contractors called ‘mySBX’ //www.mySBX.com.

These networks are popping up everywhere and removing some of the friction involved in matching resource availability with resource needs.

Per Timothy’s comment, there are a few companies on the web that use Crowdsourcing to tackle different angles of the creative industry.

Here are a few that I know of:

Pop-Tent/XlntAds – Crowdsources Video

Crowdspring – Crowdsources Logos and Graphic Design

GeniusRocket – Crowdsources Video, Animation, Graphic Design, Logo, Motion Graphics, and Copy Writing.

99Designs – Crowdsources Logos and Graphic Design