As the name implies, crowdsourcing represents the act of a company taking a function once performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined network of people via an open call. To be effective, the network must be large. While a business can outsource the final result to the crowd, it’s important to remember that crowdsourcing isn’t the same as outsourcing. There are still significant resources that must be applied to produce the open call, generate interest, evaluate submissions, and announce winners.

Predictions for this year’s crowdsourced campaigns: The Old G in Super Bowl crowdsourcing, Doritos, is back again, and the brand is joined by Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Pizza Hut, Lincoln, Audi, and newbie, Dunder Mifflin.

Doritos: this crowdsourcing pioneer is revisiting its “Crash the Super Bowl” campaign for the sixth year in a row. It’s become a familiar favorite, but the audience’s appetite for a repeat next year will hinge on the quality of the winning submission. In this case, Doritos has thoroughly handed its brand over to its consumers, and the Super Bowl ad is the ultimate trust fall.

Pepsi: The use of user-submitted images during the half-time show with Beyonce teeters on the line of user-submitted content and true crowdsourcing. It’s an easy campaign to participate in, and the timing of its release is predictable enough that audience members will stay tuned in. It doesn’t exactly break any new ground, but it’s simple and fun.

Coca-Cola: The “Mirage” spots follow three different teams as they pursue a mirage of a Coke bottle in a hot desert. Coca-Cola has a massive social following, so even “weak” response will deliver enough content to make the spots effective. The drama of the race may be overshadowed by the excitement of the game.

Pizza Hut: The call to action for this campaign is simple: Submit videos that use the phrase, “hut hut hut” – it’s a terrific tie in to the game, and easy to participate in. Pizza Hut will show 18 clips as part of a campaign to take maximum advantage of “the big game.”

Lincoln: This brand is shaking up their stodgy image by airing humorous dramatizations of tweets regarding wacky road trips taken in a Lincoln. There will be enough elements of surprise that we expect viewers to stay tuned. This could be an important step in Lincoln’s efforts to reenergize their brand.

Audi: Audi kept the campaign simple and the risk low by allowing fans to vote on three different ads, with the ultimate choice being aired during the game. The stakes are so much lower than even the Doritos campaign, that it will be tough for the crowdsourcing gamble to pay off in any measurable way.

Dunder Mifflin: This paper company, named after the fictional paper company on “The Office” is going to garner curiosity simply by the odd nature of their brand. Dunder Mifflin has actually partnered with a crowdsourcing platform, Tongal, to create the spot, which will air in Scranton. This one is weird enough that people will likely be talking about it on Monday.

It’s critical to consider the complexity of your brand positioning if you are going to hand your brand message over to the public. Doritos fans simply need to articulate, “Doritos taste good.” Will Audi have the same success with a more complex message? Crowdsourcing is most effective for brands with well-established social channels. Brands should not use crowdsourcing to establish a social community; it’s best to build momentum within an existing and engaged community.

Every one of Armstrong’s major sponsors ended their endorsement contracts with him immediately after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency released its report in October. Further, some sponsors are suing Armstrong for breaching their endorsement contracts. These aren’t the only organizations troubled by Armstrong’s confessions, though. Hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations and public figures, including Rick Reilly of ESPN, have unofficially endorsed Armstrong and had their reputations tarnished by his recent confession.

Brand Risks To Consider

While having a celebrity or athlete endorser can substantially increase brand recognition and awareness, there are risks involved with aligning with them. This image taken from a Facebook community page calling for a Nike boycott shows how sponsorships can backfire.

When high-visibility influencers like Armstrong come under fire, companies must evaluate whether the negative actions of their endorser could overshadow the partnership that the brand has with the athlete or celebrity. In some cases, athletes or celebrities will make poor personal decisions that are newsworthy, but don’t necessarily reflect on their talents or their sponsors. For instance, when Tiger Woods cheated on his wife in 2009 and was highly criticized in the news, Nike and EA Sports stuck by him because the allegations had little to do with his ability to golf. In Armstrong’s case, his ability to win races (what he was ultimately sponsored for) is in question, and so there is no longer a reason to sponsor him.

All celebrity and athlete endorsement contracts should have a morals clause that allows the brand’s owners to disconnect themselves when a violation occurs. These clauses can be tough to negotiate, and while they can protect monetary investments, they can’t protect the brand from being tarnished by the endorser’s actions. When negotiating morals clauses, it’s important to consider the actions or behavior covered in the clause and the remedy for a violation. As with any legal contract, you should consult a legal professional.

When publishing content about high-profile influencers or events, it’s not always about endorsements. As a social media strategist, I often find brands taking an unofficial stance on the actions of celebrities and athletes by sharing news on social networks like Facebook. Injecting your brand into the day’s news, or “newsjacking,” is often used by content strategists to take advantage of the increased traffic and engagement associated with newsworthy stories. If done improperly, newsjacking can cause backlashes, as we saw when American Apparel offered a 20% discount to the victims of Hurricane Sandy "in case you are bored during the storm."

At least one business has capitalized on Armstrong’s downfall via newsjacking. In October, Biz Community wrote about a clever newspaper ad by Alpecin that used the headline "A shampoo with a warning for competitive athletes." This timely public service ad made no mention of Armstrong, but at the time of publishing, Armstrong’s doping scandal was top of mind. Two days later, the South African Press Association picked up the advertorial and published a comical news story titled “Hair-loss shampoo a doping risk.” It’s hard to quantify the benefit of Alpecin’s newsjacking tactics, but they earned brand awareness simply by being clever and topical.

Next time your brand decides to leverage a high-profile influencer or story, consider the risks and rewards involved, protect your brand with a morality clause, and plan ahead.

Has your brand successfully leveraged a high-profile influencer or been the topic of a backlash? Share your experience in the comments section below!