Just some thoughts… Really tired of people who are convinced that a swoosh sells shoes…

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.

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..

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.

These designers have already proven they’re willing to work for free. Exactly.

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.

And if I ever get my hands on that Edmund Cartwright…

“Some in the design industry have taken up luddite-like causes (nospec, specwatch) in an effort to keep others out. These efforts will fail for a simple reason. The digital age has changed the rules and creativity will never again be captive to the old models. The present and future is about creating a Darwinian meritocracy of ideas – the underdogs compete on their ideas and their work, not education, training, and fancy offices.”

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:

“The Luddites were a social movement of British textile artisans in the early nineteenth century who protested—often by destroying mechanized looms—against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their entire way of life. This English historical movement should be seen in the context of the era’s harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars, and the degrading working conditions in the new textile factories. Since then, however, the term Luddite has been used derisively to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change.

The Luddite movement, which began in 1811 and 1812 when mills and pieces of factory machinery were burned by handloom weavers, took its name from the fictive Ned Ludd. For a short time the movement was so strong that it clashed in battles with the British Army. Measures taken by the government included a mass trial at York in 1812 that resulted in many executions and penal transportation. The principal objection of the Luddites was against the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers.”

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.

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.