If you’ve been following the design and advertising industry news over the past month or so, you’ve probably bumped into someone sqwaking about the CP+B (Crispin, Porter & Bogusky) crowdsourced project for the Brammo company, creator of the Enteria electric ‘power bike’. If not, let’s recap quickly. CP+B, a big thing among trendy ad agencies, held a $1000 logo design contest for one of their clients, Brammo, on Crowdspring, a Chicago-based design contest (they like to call themselves “crowdsourcing”) website and company. Half the industry freaked out, caterwalling about the gig for days on Twitter and on blogs across the internet. Designers have been carping about design contests (guilty as charged) for years, preaching mostly to the choir – other designers – through organizations like the AIGA and advocacy groups like No-Spec and recent addition Spec Watch. This time was different. This was an ad agency for chrissake, went the thinking. Designers having their lawn mowed by contest sites and so-called crowdsourcing platforms was one thing. An ad agency, high profile one at that, farming out their work was a little bit much (at this point, we could probably insert some “we should all stick together” platitude, but as this is a post that slams platitudes, we’ll leave that for another day). At points the fracas took on a ‘theater of the absurd’ as “Up Yours CP+B” tweets were fed, by RSS, right into the company’s new website home page. When dissenters realized that, their Tweets and messages got a whole bunch of creative.
Yes, we got another spec-work fracas going on.
In the end, CP+B had touched off yet another spec work firestorm (personally, I avoided the mess, and opined on Twitter that if designers had an issue with a company like Brammo crowdsourcing their logo, simply refrain from buying one of their silly, and over-priced, electric motorcycles. But I digress). Whether it was, as some thought, a cynical ploy to get some ‘buzz’ going, or a genuine experiment in logo design contestry (if it’s not a word, it is now) is anyone’s guess. At the end of it all, Brammo took some heat, as did CP+B, while Crowdspring got another load of publicity as people on both sides of the equation hotly debated whether the company itself was a darling of design innovation, or robber barons of the highest magnitude. And whether designers were defending their profession, or carrying on like a gaggle of crybabies, reluctant to sign on to the inevitable result of the global ‘village’.
Defending & opposing spec work and design contests.
There’s lots of blogs that tackled the subject – Creativity Unbound (pro), Fast Company (not so much) to name two – but now CP+B’s Alex Bogusky has weighed in, launching a long blog post over on Posterous entitled “I’ll take ideas for a thousand, Alex“. In it, Bogusky talks about creativity in general, the Crowdspring project in specific as well as throwing out the usual platitudes that are used to defend spec work, design contests and its repackaged cousin “crowdsourcing”. An interesting read, but it misses the point about spec work and CP+B’s contest on Crowdspring entirely.
Is it only about ‘ideas’?
Bogusky talks about everyone having ideas (goes as far to say they’re a “dime a dozen”) and that companies like Crowdspring allow the masses to unleash those ideas. That’s a wonderful sentiment. Truly. And if it were true, hell, I’d be one of the blogs supporting spec work and design contests. Trouble is, this isn’t just about ideas. That’s the concept part. In context, that idea would be me coming up with an “idea” for a logo in the Brammo contest to whit “Hey, I got an idea. Lets use a Bull. A red bull. Just the head. Make the horns into motorcycle handlebars. Have lightning bolts coming out of the snout” (I know it’s lame, but its 7 am and the first cup of coffee hasn’t kicked in just yet). In the context of the Brammo Crowdspring contest, that ‘idea’ isn’t enough. I now have to render the design using software that takes a couple of years to really learn. Unless I’m using a hacked warez version, cost me about a G note to buy. Then I have to upload this rendering to the Crowdspring server, agreeing (through their ‘user’s agreement’) to give Crowdspring an “worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform the content in connection with the Site, in any media known now or in the future.” Usually, I’ll then have to perform a series of revisions to my ‘idea’, completely at the ‘buyer’s’ whim, in order to stay in the running for the vaunted prize (this doesn’t apply to the CP+B contest, something which we’ll get to in a minute). At the end of most design contests, chances are my beloved “idea” has been bastardized into oblivion by the buyer’s “move this, move that, take this other thing out” directions. My “idea”, 21 versions ago, is no longer my “idea”.
Democratization of design or cynical tool for free stuff?
Granted, none of this sounds as romantic as “everybody can be creative and shit”, but hey, what’s a few platitudes between friends. See, Crowdspring (and to be fair 99designs, Logo Tournament, Design Bay, Hatch Wise, Mycroburst, Design Tourney et al) aren’t about “ideas”. They’re about free design work. Concept. Production. Revisions. The works. People who are pro spec-work keep trying to pivot the argument to one of airy-fairy defendobabble (my word, use at will). Because “getting free shit from a whole bunch of designers” doesn’t sound half as nice as “leveling the playing field” and “democratizing design”. Alas, I’ve always been of the “if the shoe fits” variety.
The value of a ‘creative’s time.
So let’s take a look at the Brammo contest itself. $1000 bucks. Over 700 entries. A number that Bogusky tells us “blew everybody’s mind involved”. Fair enough. 700 plus entries would blow anyone’s mind I suppose. But it didn’t blow Brammo or CP+B’s collective minds enough for them to comment, or even leave a “out of five” star ranking, on over 600 of those entries. Why’s that a big deal? Well, over 500 designers submitted their work, without any chance of being selected, obstensibly for the “honor” of being critiqued and receiving feedback on their work from a major ad agency. I didn’t make that up from whole cloth, by the way. It is part and parcel of Crowdspring’s come-hither pitch to designers. They even tell buyers the following:
“If you don’t provide timely feedback [score entries], you’re sending a message to the creatives that you don’t value your project or their time.”
According to Crowdspring’s OWN raison d’être, neither Brammo or CP+B “value [creatives] time” or their own logo design project. We can argue all day about spec work, but that’s one of those “from the horse’s mouth” kinda quotes.
Designers’ Guild?
Bogusky then uses how some screenwriters conduct themselves (writing scripts on spec) as a rationale for designers to quit their fearful bellyaching and embrace spec work as the future. This is a classic example of a bandwagon fallacy – using one set of behaviors to defend another set of behaviors. On the otherhand, I did like his idea of a designer’s guild though (using the WGA as an example). As a member of the WGA, before pitching a script, screenwriters register it with the guild, and the guild protects its members’ intellectual property ferociously, going after residuals, royalties and plagiarism with gusto. Not sure how the mechanics would work out, or how a similar organization for designers could be funded, but it’s certainly an idea that’s worth further exploration.
The Nike logo chestnut.
In closing his article, Bogusky also throws in the old Nike logo chestnut. Pro-spec people like to do this. Alex isn’t as literal as most, but the thinking goes something like this (from his article)
What if the woman who designed the Nike logo had been in a union that insured that instead of a fee of fifty bucks, she received a royalty of a penny a shoe? I’m not great at math but I think that works out to about 20 million dollars in the last ten years alone.
Actually, the Nike logo cost less than $50. The designer, Carolyn Davidson, a graphic design student at Portland State University, billed the precursor to the company $2 per hour for a total of $35.00. In 1971, that was the going wage (my first job, five years later, paid $2.35 per hour, the result of a minimum wage increase, mandated the summer before I started placing stock on shelves). Not only that, but in 1983, Carolyn received a diamond and gold ring from the company, as well as an envelope full of Nike stock (the amount of which was never disclosed, but one can assume it made her involvement with Nike a profitable venture indeed). Accordingly, I’m not sure what the point is, or what it has to do with the issue at hand. It might be applicable to this discussion if one designer was selected to design the Brammo logo, was paid what they billed, and Brammo, via corporate largess, is going to reward them with a diamond Brammo ring and an envelope of stock sometime in the future. Has anyone suggested this is what’s going on with the CP+B contest?
Nah, didn’t think so.
Related posts:
- Again with the design contests
- AIGA softening positon on spec and design contests?
- Spec work hackery redux. More of our work copied & entered into 99designs logo design contest
- Are logo design contests really that bad?
- SXSW “Is Spec Work Evil?” panel transcript
Tags: advocacy, business, Contests, crowdsourcing, industry, news, spec work
the quality of work on crowdsourcing sites is hideous, the client gets way to much control, there’s no interaction, no face to face, no giving them advice to improve their communications. I think it will have a negative effect on creativity.
True, some of the work is hideous. Alas, some of the work on design contest sites is quite good. Some of it is excellent. That’s one of the mysteries to me actually – I don’t understand why designers with obvious talent would participate in a system that is so obviously tilted against them.
I love your Nike Royalty Idea. We as designers deserves more if the brand earned more. Having a free design logo contest is trendy thing nowadays but… could they give us at least 1% of their success? Nike is not a logo, Nike is a dream.
Think I should point out that the Nike royalty idea wasn’t mine. It should be attributed to Alex Bogusky who wrote about it on the original article.
Great post. This is the topic of our day. It’s easy to see both sides. One, the value of design and the fair treatment of designers, which I support. Two the desire of the community, designers or not, to participate in a brand. The ultimate crowdsourcing app is NOT a contest, but rather a community creation. Design contests just seem to have struck a controversial chord. Ideally we’ll find a solution that works for all. I hope. Thanks for keeping the conversation going.
Edward – welcome back and thanks for your kind words and comment. I tend to agree when you say “the ultimate crowdsourcing app is not a contest.” Squaring “crowdsourcing” with design contests in their current form has been always been one of my main issues. In theory, crowdsourcing is a collaborative affair, while design contests, by their very nature, are nothing of the sort. Design work is pitched individually, and each, depending on the contest, performs a solo design process at the whim of the contest holder. In a practical sense, any form of collaboration is taboo, and using another participant’s idea as influence for your own is considered (rightfully so under the circumstances) “concept copying”. Designers on “crowdsourcing” sites don’t work WITH each other as a “community” but are pitted AGAINST each other, in a vacuum, something which I believe is at odds with the very concept of crowdsourcing itself.
At the end of the day, I’m not terribly opposed to the lofty concept of “crowdsourcing” (I suppose Wordpress – the infrastructure of this blog could be viewed as such) but am fundamentally opposed to design contests in their current form. My main gripe is that most so-called “crowdsourcing” design sites are nothing of the sort, but rather a series of design contests repackaged and relabeled as “crowdsourcing” to make them more commercially palatable.
Most of the design contest sites, taking Crowdspring’s lead I suppose, are now frantically repurposing themselves as “crowdsourcing” sites, while their process, proudly proclaimed as “design contests” previously, remain unchanged. It’s a cynical bit of verbal jujitsu that has had some resonance with the media, eager to explore the concept. Taking umbrage with these platitudes is what led me to write the article we’re discussing.
Speaking of which, I appreciate you mentioning the article on Twitter.
Thanks for that.
Well thought out and a very good post. Why crib about crowd sourcing when the water has already been muddied by agencies. Agencies sell their souls and underwear when it comes to new business pitches. They have set a bad example in the area of ‘commercial creative’. This is a hole nobody knows how to get out of. Clients are only exploiting this behaviour amongst the creative folk. And one should not forget that CP+B got free publicity in all this which kind of covered up for their loss of VW business and more
Subbu – Thanks for dropping by to comment. Someone on Edward’s blog actually posted a comment in which they took a look at the traffic spike CP+B received when this was being discussed. They say that “any publicity is good publicity” so I assume this affair can be considered a plus for CP+B, regardless of the outcome.
I am at odds about the idea of crowd-sourcing, I can actually see the “benefits” of this approach as a designer. As an owner of my own design studio I feel a lot of the creative process is weighed down by client meetings, educating, proposal writing, then after the contracts are signed an almost lawyer approach to monitor scope creep. When most of the time I just want to design.
This approach allows a designer to see the information presented, they are given complete creative control over their solution, (they’re not plagued with worrying if the “client” will like it) you have the freedom to design what you will like, win or lose you have this piece in your portfolio, and if you win the job you get the cash with out the rig-em n roll.
My only de-lima is how many of these things do you have to do before you are awarded the prize!
I feel the client loses the one on one with a personal professional designer that can help them achieve their vision, but in this economy a designer is willing to try anything to keep their dream alive…
–
Thanks & Regards
Noel from nopun.com
a professional graphic design studio
You said:
No, but has anyone suggested this is not within the realm of possibility? No one was forced to submit a logo. I think the reason 700 + submissions came in was less about the $1000 and more about the chance to catch the eye of Bogusky. Who knows, that just might lead somewhere much more significant than a diamond ring and some stock. It might lead to a career.
Never saw that mentioned, but okay, you may have a point. On the other hand, I suppose that’s what CP+B also told their summer interns, who were ‘auctioned’ off to Brammo on eBay before the Crowdspring contest was launched.
If someone is looking for an agency career, it’s a hell of a lot easier to, lemme think, *call* agencies and show your portfolio around.
Plus, guess what? That method works. I can’t think of anyone who wanted an agency career who couldn’t get one.
Why on earth would CP+B want to launch any designers in their contest into a career? These designers have already proven they’re willing to work for free. CP+B can just keep posting their projects as design contests and get thousands of hours of free labor for each one.
Just when I was starting to have some empathy, you brought me back to my senses. Thanks.
These designers have already proven they’re willing to work for free. Exactly.
Funny thing is, Alex has no blogger cred. All he had to do was start a fight and then walk away. I’d question those motives before I worried about the spec-movement. As it always has been, truly creative and effective work will rise to the top–naturally.
It amazes me how people, supposedly in the creative arts field, are so quick to diminish designers’ talents, experience and skills down to pixel pushers moving shapes around a monitor at the direction of people who know nothing about design.
Here is something interesting though: The Crowdspring website have just posted a blog article in which Ross Kimbarovsky, one of the founders, talks to small business owners about “10 Legal Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Small Business And How To Avoid Them“. It is not a bad article, and probably IS worth reading if you are starting a small business. What I found remarkable was the article conclusion in which Mr. Kimbarovsky writes this –
As a (former?) lawyer he understands that spending money on “experienced” legal advice is an investment and can save “time, aggravation and money” in the long run. Nice to see him promoting his (former?) profession. Too bad he’s not similarly disposed to respect designers in the same manner, believes that “anyone” can design and that anyone who defends the profession of design is “snooty” and “elitist”.
It’s a shame, albeit an unsurprising one.
In the comments on Alex Bogusky’s blog post, Ross Kimbarovsky calls those who are against working for free “luddites”.
http://alexbogusky.posterous.c.....usand-alex
Contrary to his opinion, I’m all for competition in the design profession.
But what he can’t seem to grasp is that I want the competition to get fairly paid. I feel bad that they’re working for nothing when it’s their right to do the opposite.
This is why sites like specwatch.info and no-spec.com are here — not to protect me, or the next designer who values her work, but to protect those designers who aren’t experienced. The ones Ross says we’re trying to “keep out”.
No Ross, we just want designers (those who do the work for Crowdspring, Mycroburst, 99designs, Logo Tournament, Design Bay, Hatch Wise, Design Tourney) to get paid for their time, just as you stand-up for the “absurdly expensive” attorneys’ right to get paid.
Juggernaut – To be fair, the “snooty” label you attribute to Crowdspring and/or Ross was probably written by an overzealous copywriter at Forbes (we touched on the subject in our Design is a Snooty Business post a few months back). I expect that some of the sentiments hold true, but neither CS or Crowdspring actually said that (not sure about the “elitist” quote). Though, according to the comment David mentioned, Crowdspring views people opposed to their business model as “Luddites”. I do think you make some decent points about the apparent hypocrisy of the blog itself though and I thank you for your comment.
Hey David – thanks for the excellent comment. I missed the “Luddite” crack on Bogusky’s blog and I think it’s worthwhile quoting here for full context:
Sez Ross, boasting about being a lawyer for 13 years, running Crowdspring from his fancy offices in downtown Chicago.
For what it’s worth, the Luddites were a social movement in the early 1800’s. According to wiki:
Not sure where Ross got the idea that designers were opposed to “technological change” and “automation”. From where I sit, designers (my own miserable adaption record notwithstanding) are among the first to embrace “technological change”. As you say, it’s the “working for free” part of the crowdsourcing “vision” that’s got most people hopped up. And rather than “keeping people out”, it’s most about insuring that everyone that’s “in”, get’s paid for their work. I understand why outfits like Crowdspring, 99designs, Hatchwise et al would take issue with that position – free designer labor is the ONLY way their companies can exist at all – but to try and frame the pushback as “luddite-like” is a tad much.
To be fair to Ross, Steve, I have been known to partake in a bit of mechanized loom destruction.
And if I ever get my hands on that Edmund Cartwright…
I definitely am not for PRO-SPEC design work, nor is anyone at my company, but there are tons of projects that I take on spec (not from crowdsourcing websites, but from clients) because I think there could be something more to it eventually, or the project is plain out fun.
I’m sure Carolyn’s original thoughts about working on the Nike logo was not to get a diamond and gold ring, but more because she thought it would be a cool thing to do and a way to build up her portfolio. I’m not sure of how she fell into that gig and I’m sure Nike saw a bunch of logos submitted from students, but in the end Nike appreciated a design process.
My only concern with these spec sites is that more companies will start to think that this is the correct way to achieve great design work… and it’s just not.
Personally I think the 99D and CS concepts are excellent, it’s without doubt the future of the design process because 5 years from now, the majority of pro designers are probably going to be submitting work to spec on one of these sites, and it’s going to be based on a prize/award structure – the overall concept has been set, and it works perfectly.
I’ve been nurturing and “holding on” to my clients for years, as we all have. I’ve created excellent relations with them, right up to the point of exchanging annual Christmas cards etc.. However, I also realise that some of the work has most definitely been lost to these Crowd-Sourcing sites of late.
Now, and I’m just thinking aloud here, what if there was a HIGH END site for design and illustration based on the “Crowd-Sourcing” concept. Which also incorporated a “fairer” principle where the client chose to award multiple entries, say 1st – 5th, spreading the clients budget between winning designers. With a minimum budget “floor limit” of say $1,000 for the client brief, which keeps things relatively pro.
Put simply: “Professional Design for Professional Clients”
Just a thought, because this is what seems to be missing with these sites. While some of the designers and designs are very good, they could actually command much higher revenue than they are currently receiving.
The objective would be to bring together higher value clients and professional designers into one marketplace – question is, would this work within the industry right now?
Any thoughts..
Zuh? Most bread and butter design work simply cannot be done on spec. If you want a quick crappy logo for your company, sure spec works, after a fashion.
But what if you want some decent-looking sales aids for your people to show to clients? Info sheets? An ad to run in the program for the charity event you’re sponsoring? Different configurations of the same basic ad to run in 12 different local newspapers? A catalog of all the tool & die equipment you manufacture?
All of these (and most importantly, I would argue, the logo, but we’ve set that aside for now) require one-on-one contact with an experienced designer you trust. Not from snobbishness, but simply in order to get the project done properly and on schedule.
While there’s obviously a burgeoning market for students and Mumbai designers who will work for free, that model won’t translate to everyday, bread-and-butter corporate communications needs.