The Co-Creativity Manifesto

I recently wrote another blog item for CHAORDIX and the graphics folks did up a lovely infographic for it and tweaked it a bit for the site. (The goal of my piece is to establish a clear understanding for readers of the difference between basic crowdsourcing and real co-creativity for brands.) Below is the original piece and a link to the CHAORDIX blog version:

The time has come for the world's innovative brands to reach beyond crowdsourcing to fully embrace co-creativity.

A new era of participation marketing has dawned and co-creativity is at the heart of this highly-collaborative business model. While crowdsourcing may have decentralized some aspects of marketing, creativity and innovation through open calls to the public ... co-creativity has democratized the relationship between brands, employees and customers by building a trusted community of collaborative peers. The hallmarks of co-creativity, in comparison to crowdsourcing, are as follows:

When brands provide a creative and productive platform for their most engaged customers and employees to express their ingenuity, the long-term value to all stakeholders grows. People want to participate. They want to belong. And they want to co-create by contributing their ideas, enthusiasm and energy to the brands they care about most.

Sharon McIntyre, Chief Social Scientist, CHAORDIX

9 things we've learned about creativity and innovation since 2009


This is a piece I wrote recently for Chaordix:

At Chaordix, we launched our software platform back in 2009, and we’ve had the honour of working with some of the world’s leading brands in developing co-creation and open innovation communities. Here are 9 of the many things we’ve learned in working with brands such as IBM, The LEGO Group, KPMG, Rust-Oleum, HSBC, American Airlines, FutureBrand, Virgin Money, P&G, Centrica, 100%Open, Omni Hotels, HTC, Reckitt Benckiser, and Ford:

1.     Digital suggestion boxes and basic idea contests don’t work in the long run.   The Chaordix platform emerged from one of the first business experiments in crowdsourced, gamified idea contests. While early site traffic rates and idea submission levels may have been exciting ... the downside of a torrent of unvetted ideas, raised expectations from participant “inventors,” and declining visitor enthusiasm made the model unsustainable. Over the years, we’ve been contacted by well-intentioned companies and organizations who have run their own idea contest programs and found themselves with thousands of ideas in a database, volumes of unstructured discussion data, fatigued employees or customers, and big challenges with implementation. We’ve helped them turn this around; the first step is helping them realize that ideas are only one part of a successful creativity and innovation program.

2.     Not all communities are created equal.   At Chaordix, we’re very careful when we use the word “community” because we know it’s so often misunderstood in the era of social media. And we know the important role a real sense of community plays in sustainable innovation and creativity capacity. True community isn’t a group of strangers who all like the same social page. It’s not a panel of customers who answer sporadic product questions and give feedback on marketing concepts for monetary rewards. And it’s not a group of people who just work in the same building. True community takes time to build: it takes effort to build trust, reciprocity, loyalty and a shared history; and it takes patience to build shared standards, a community economy, affinity for other community members, and a place for authentic creative exchange. But it’s worth the journey because a true community will astonish you with their willingness and ability to help your organization be successful with their collective ingenuity.

3.     To paraphrase a well-worn business adage, “Community eats insularity for breakfast.”   We’ve learned that a traditional tendency in companies to want to keep the development of a game-changing product completely in-house and secret from competitors and customers all-too-often backfires and results in a market failure. P&G’s then-CEO, A.G. Lafley famously revealed that only 15% of P&G’s new product launches were a commercial success before they embraced open innovation and developed market-leading products like Oil of Olay Regenerist and Swiffer. By opening up the innovation process to include a community of co-designers and co-developers, organizations can tap the knowledge found in unexpected employees, creative suppliers, enterprising citizens, and ingenious customers.

4.     You will find the right balance between co-creativity and open innovation.   Open innovation takes co-creativity to the “next level” by creating an open ecosystem of ideas and insights, where ideas that don’t serve your business innovation model can be released back into the ecosystem for others to bring to market. We know that most organizations are not comfortable with the notion of such a wide-open process, particularly when it comes to competitive intelligence and intellectual property development. In fact, for almost all companies, the bulk of their innovation efforts will be focused on refining current products (incremental innovation) or modifying their core offerings for new markets or uses (adaptive innovation). Only a small portion of efforts and resources are focused directly on diversifying into a new market with a new product (disruptive innovation). So we help clients focus their community programming on co-creativity activities that improve products, create novel marketing content, improve processes, and find new uses or customers for existing products. When insights for more disruptive innovation are desired, we can create private and semi-private activities that help keep the degree of openness in each brand’s comfort zone.

5.     Insights that inspire innovation don’t come from a questionnaire or user group.   When innovators like Steve Jobs and (Sony co founder) Akio Morita famously declare, “We don’t do market research,” what they really mean is that they know tools like traditional surveys, focus groups and customer panels tend to gather customers’ imperfect recollections of past choices and their guesses about future behaviour. This feedback data doesn’t paint an accurate picture for a company’s developers and designers of what a new-to-the-market product innovation should be. To tap into hidden customer motivations, unspoken preferences, and tacit feelings, expert researchers put on their social anthropologist hat for brands like Coca-Cola, Intel, LEGO, Herman Miller, IKEA, and (yes) Apple and Sony to conduct ethnographic observation of people in natural settings so they can understand the context of product use and gain glimpses into the future. This type of research is time-consuming and expensive, but it provides insights that traditional market research techniques can’t. At Chaordix, we’ve found that observing a digital co-creation community that is collaborating daily on creative projects, sharing stories and photos of their lives and memories, building upon each other’s ideas, celebrating participant successes, and hanging out in the community café to chat gives brands the opportunity to scale their access to this type of observational insight data that sparks innovation.

6.     Constraints drive creativity and innovation.   We’ve learned that too many broad, open-ended discussions (“Let’s talk about how our product makes you feel.”) and vague aspirational challenges (“Let’s reinvent the retail experience!”) tend to diminish meaningful participation. Whereas activities and creative challenges that are designed with the right mix of constraints or limitations will actually drive more participation. So our Chaordix methodology draws upon the best creativity and innovation workflows (Design Thinking, Creative Problem Solving, LEGO Serious Play, etc.), proven constraint-based creative techniques (analogy, metaphor, photo elicitation, attribute configuration, rich storytelling, etc.), and our own unique methods to create a playful and powerful participant experience.

7.     Good gamification heightens participation and delight.   We were early implementers of basic gamification techniques including recognition badges, competition points, leaderboards and so forth. Over the years, we’ve also learned the value of building in more advanced gamification designs and incentives that are important to help support a community culture that is in harmony with a brand’s values, as well as bringing shared moments of excitement, delight and fun to the participation experience.

8.     People crave variety and it’s the biggest single driver of engagement and creativity.   We’ve been inspired by the best digital and print designers to ensure the activity content and creative challenges in Chaordix-powered communities are fresh, differentiated, and highly visual. Innovation research has shown that giving participants a variety of things to do, and including visual media/stimulation, creates more interest and engagement in participants, as well as helping them contribute more novel submissions.

9.     Let them love your brand.   One of our great sources of inspiration at Chaordix is designer and entrepreneur, Yves Béhar, who said in a 2010 interview, “Participation is the new brand loyalty.” Customers and employees truly want to participate directly in the future of the brands they care about the most. Co-creation asks that companies see these brand community participants as peers in the innovation process. Let them behind your brand’s “velvet rope” and they’ll surprise you with how much they care and what they can contribute to your success. We see it every day at Chaordix.

Sharon M. McIntyre, Chief Social Scientist, Chaordix


When a referendum doesn't make sense

When significant change is in the air, there can be a natural reaction to say, "Let's poll everyone and see if a majority agrees." But sometimes, that doesn't make sense. Especially when anticipation of that change may bring rise to feelings of fear, perceived loss of status, or a conflict with long-standing tradition among the majority population. In cases where the proposed change is congruent with human rights, and is in the best interests of the health and safety of a population, great leaders need to lead. A referendum may be a very bad idea ...

Here is a simple case study that demonstrates this clearly. In 1955, a referendum in Sweden asked the population whether they wanted to switch from driving on the left side of the road, to driving on the right side of the road. The referendum result was that 83% of the population voted to stay driving on the left-hand side. Citizens voted this way despite the fact that many deaths resulted from head-on collisions of left-hand vehicles on narrow Swedish roads, all Sweden's immediate neighbours (including Norway, Denmark and Finland) already drove on the right with approximately 5 million of their vehicles crossing the borders annually, and Sweden was already manufacturing right-hand vehicles that were built for export (but many were ending up on Swedish roads). Driving on the left was an anachronism harkening back to days when people travelled on horseback and wanted their right hand free to greet passers or hold their swords in case of attack; moving to driving on the right began to happen with the rising popularity of horse-drawn carriage teams when the driver wanted to guide the reins with their right hand. But despite all data and reason ... the majority feared a change from the status quo.

Sweden's government leadership went ahead and decided to make the change to right-hand side driving, despite the referendum results and expressed fears of the population, for the sake of the population's and visitors' safety. It was a complex process as they had to create new government departments, public campaigns, innovative products, and even held a song contest to facilitate the transition. On September 3, 1967, or "H-Day," Sweden made the change-over which proceeded quite smoothly despite fears. Accidents and deaths were reduced immediately following the change. See this Wikipedia entry on Sweden's "H Day" and this 99% Invisible episode on H-Day, including video of the changeover.

Kungsgatan, Stockholm, on Dagen H, September 3, 1967 (Source:  99% Invisible, H-Day )

Kungsgatan, Stockholm, on Dagen H, September 3, 1967 (Source: 99% Invisible, H-Day)

As we consider legislative reforms in Canada that are in the best interests of giving voice to the disenfranchised, honouring the rights of minorities, and upholding our cultural value of egalitarianism ... let's reconsider if referenda are the best way to achieve this, or if we can avoid "the tyranny of the majority" by having our democratically-elected leaders collaborate with each other in a bipartisan spirit to do the right thing for all Canadians. 


When a Community is not a Community - and why getting it right matters to innovative brands

It seems that not so long ago, the word community didn't used to be so ... complicated. People lived in a geographic community with neighbours, family, and friends. Many found a sense of community through their collective work, pastimes, school, faith, and/or shared history. And people fostered community spirit through local volunteering, project collaboration, celebratory events, civic participation, supporting local merchants, and so forth. 

The proliferation of the internet and social networking has changed how marketers use the word community. While these traditional meanings of community remain, today, a group of strangers who all happen to use the same dishwashing liquid or telephone app are often referred to as a community. Why do brands refer to their passive Facebook page 'likers' as their online community? Where's the true community in a web-based customer panel that gets activated sporadically for a few days or weeks of facilitator-guided discussions and multiple-choice questions? Where's the sense of community in drive-by idea hunting forums that offer so little reciprocity for contributors? The concept of open-innovation communities is gaining popularity as a highly-desirable method to tap the ingenuity of customers, citizens, suppliers and employees – but which organizations have invested in true community building? And why are user group feedback sessions on brand-conceived product prototypes mislabelled as 'co-creation communities' when very little collaboration or co-creativity is evident?

Let's explore why we think marketers have replaced traditional descriptions of audience, group or segment with community in these situations ... [READ MORE]  LINK TO REST OF PAPER ON ACADEMIA.EDU HERE

Barn raising, Brampton Ontario, Canada, 1900, (PHOTO: LIBRARY & ARCHIVES CANADA, CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE)

Barn raising, Brampton Ontario, Canada, 1900, (PHOTO: LIBRARY & ARCHIVES CANADA, CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE)


New words for our times: What is "harshmallowing?"

Our airways and screens are teeming with talk about gender equality, misogyny, sexism, paternalism, old boys networks, equal pay, women's rights, glass ceilings, etc. Whether it's because of the American presidential candidates, chauvinistic advertising executives, a feminist Canadian prime minister, tone-deaf reporters announcing female Olympic winners, or something else ... #feminism is definitely taking centre stage in important discussions today. 

I was recently challenged by a friend to take the gender out of the term "mansplaining" after reading a satirical article entitled, "9 Non-threatening Leadership Strategies for Women" from via The Guardian. While satirical, the strategies hit very close to home for many women who had actually been counseled to do some of the silly things such as "thanking a male coworker for stealing and presenting your idea" and "softening direct instructions to staff to make them seem less harsh."

I took on the challenge with gusto, and created the following neologisms to help people call out these inappropriate and/or unnecessary behaviours for all genders:

RESPLAINING - when someone explains a basic concept to you that you already understand, and does so in a plodding, pedantic manner.

IDEACARNATION - when your old idea gets presented back to you as their new idea

DOPPELSAYER - the person who hears you express an idea, then proceeds to immediately restate the idea as theirs, with no attribution to the original

HARSHMALLOWING - when you believe you have to pad a direct request or instruction with all kinds of soft/apologetic/puffy words so as not to appear threatening and 'harsh'

SANDBRAGGING - burying your idea in a opaque, diminishing, often self-deprecating statement so as not to appear boastful or 'uppity'

SHRILLINESS - when someone confuses bold, loud, declarative speech with yelling or screaming because the speaker's natural voice is in a relatively high pitch