In principle, I'm in favour of a policy of radical transparency. I believe that opening up issues to a larger audience leads to unusual and unexpected solutions (incidentally, it also leads to a lot of shitty ideas, but that's not the point), and the crowdsourcing approach of Walkers "do us a flavour (win a packet)" and the Netflix $1 million algorithm recommendation competition never troubled me in the way that the Peperami case does.
So what's different about Peperami? It might be to do with the monetary reward that Peperami put up - $10,000 for an integrated advertising campaign. That's £6,000 in the UK. Now, I don't know about you, but I think that's a bit of a rip-off. Because, let's be honest, this initiative wasn't PR-ed in developing countries where that amount of money would be worth considerably more.
I also have issues with the creative role that Idea Bounty (the "crowdsource" website) takes. It's up to it to whittle the 1,000 entrants down to a managable number for the client to choose from.
Suddenly Idea Bounty is the creative authority. That just doesn't feel right to me.
It takes real skill to ascertain whether there's a brilliant creative idea lurking under the surface of an idea that might not sound that good initially.