Selective editing on a recent Forbes article on 99designs

Don’t suppose you read this article in Forbes about crowdsourcing and design contests, focused primarily on 99designs? A little more objective that the business magazine’s initial foray into the subject (when they opined that graphic design was a “snooty business“) but that’s not what makes it interesting. It’s the repeated editing that does.

When the article was first published, it contained this quote from 99designs founder Matt Mickiewicz “It doesn’t matter if you’re 15 or 60″ referring to the ‘come one, come all’ open nature of registering to be a designer on the site. Not sure how long the quote stayed intact, but certainly long enough to be captured by Google.

Shortly afterwards, the quote was changed to “It doesn’t matter if you’re 18 or 60,” perhaps when someone realized that 15 year old designers working for free wasn’t a terribly cool thing to be advocating, especially in a leading business publication. For those keeping score, that’s version 2.

Shortly after that, the articles was edited again, changing the minimum age back to 15, and adding a few points, most notably that “technically” someone has to be 18 to sign contracts, and that youngsters as young as eleven have posted designs into contests. That’s version 3.

At some point, the article was changed again, raising the minimum age to 18 again (but leaving the added disclaimers intact). That would be version 4, and the version that’s currently featured at the link above. Not sure what the big deal is – the quote has been used on numerous features about 99designs (including an article on Fast Company that’s proudly featured in the press section of 99designs’ own website).

So wonder why the repeated editing? Don’t suppose it has anything to do with this?

Nah.

Related posts:

1. Design is a ‘snooty’ business: Forbes
2. Children designers on design contest & crowdsourcing sites?
3. Snippets: Crowdsourcing advice for designers, IE6 must die & more unbiased logo reviews

While we still grapple with what exactly crowdsourcing is, whether it’s the evolution of the creative industries or The Devil incarnate, more and more websites are jumping on the term to take advantage of the phrase that everyone’s using, but many don’t have the foggiest about what it means. Next to the increasingly crowded table is Grogger, a web platform that claims you can “crowdsource your content” by allowing blog readers to post their shiznet alongside yours. I recall liking this a few years back. When they were called forums. [Grogger]

Presumably in keeping with his “Hope & Change” vibe, President Obama wants to hear from artists regarding copyright protections for said artists’ work. If you Hope to have your work protected, and would like Barry to Change some of the legislation, here’s a chance for you to pipe up. Or forever hold you peace and all that. Tara Reed tells you how. [Art Licensing Blog]

Speaking about content (yes, we were), and copyright (that too) seems some folks are wondering about the ramifications about copyright as it applies to Twitter. While “tweets” (gawd, still I hate using that word, feel like a seven-year-old every time I do) consist of a scant 140 characters or less, are they still protected by typical intellectual property provisions like copyright and what have you? Do Twitter aggregators infringe on copyright by the very nature of their, ahm, aggregating? If you post someone’s twatter on a blog, are you treading on copyright toes? I have absolutely no idea, and this intellectual topic is way too, well, intellectual for us to sort out in a snippets edition. Luckily, the good folks at The Blog Herald do an excellent job at trying to answer the question. [The Blog Herald]

Speaking about Obama, and logos (hey, we’re always talking about logos) seems some folks on Twitter (and purveyors of some right wing blogs) need to bit struck with a clue stick very, very hard. Almost a month after the story broke, and later retracted by the people who broke it, some people are still claiming that “Obama’s Missile Defense Department” logo features an Islamic Crescent, is cribbed from Barry’s campaign logo, or a combination thereof. Just a couple of things. The logo isn’t a logo, was created during the Bush administration, before Obama’s campaign logo and doesn’t feature a crescent, Islamic or otherwise. For the rationally impaired, we’ve included an airline safety card version of what probably went down below. {Twitter]

A collective “hooray” was heard throughout the graphic design community last month when the animated short Logorama won an Oscar. Almost like it legitimized logos somehow, or design, or something to do with graphic designers (gotta admit, it was pretty cool and I did feel kinda, well, validated). The creators of the flick aren’t resting on their laurels though, hopping on another gig for video game maker Ubisoft. Producers Francois Alaux and Herve de Crecy have signed on to a 20-minute live-action film for Ubisoft’s uber successful series Ghost Recon, based on the work of uber successful author Tom Clancy. The movie, tentatively entitled Future Soldier, is due out, shortly before the Christmas holidays, no doubt to encourage the kiddies to add the shoot-em-up game to their lists for Santa. [Reuters]

Speaking about sports logos (oh wait, we weren’t), and now that the 2010 Winter Olympics are behind us (we are now), and the 2014 Russian Winter Olympics logo has been introduced, we need another sports logo to carp about. No sooner said than done, as the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games logo has just been unveiled in, well, Glasgow. Created by design agency Marquee, the project is rumored to have set back organizers 95,000 quid. Before you get all “could’ve had a two hundred dollar logo design contest for that” the price tag included brand guidelines, animated work, visual language, typography, photographic style, and art direction. You know, the stuff that you don’t get with a $200 logo design contest. [Logo Design Love]

Related posts:

1. Snippets: The crowdsourcing, writing on spec & design contest follies edition
2. Snippets: The Oscar weekend, Logorama, Blog Fail & new Ubuntu logo edition
3. Publish a blog? Here’s why websites that scrape content are a pain. Why you shouldn’t do it.

A spec work manifesto?

Interesting stuff. Seems a group of Belgian advertising and design firms have banded together in a ‘virtual strike’ to protest spec work (speculative pitches in which the agency or designer performs an entire unpaid design gig, in the hopes of getting selected FOR the gig). The websites are linked together, and each ‘page’ of the online manifesto takes you to another participating website (the image above is the introduction). The HTML title tags of the websites now state “Website Closed“. You can start reading about the campaign on the Ogilvy (Belgium) website.

The online protest was organized by some outfit called ACC (the Association of Communication Companies), a self-regulating body whose goal, at least according to their mission statement, is to “upgrade, promote and defend the profession (creative communication)”. At issue here is our old bugaboo spec work, more specifically protection for the unpaid intellectual property involved and companies ignoring an earlier agreement that limited the number of firms participating in high-profile spec pitches. It’s a noble effort, but unlikely to have much in the way of resonance with anyone BUT people already in the choir, as is usually the case with any anti-spec initiative. There’s the usual push-back too, with some quarters accusing the participating agencies as ‘whining”.

Worthwhile effort or publicity stunt?

Arguably, the virtual ‘strike’ is a publicity stunt (I would have thought a good one too) but so far, the mainstream media has been relatively silent about the effort. Will it have much of a impact? It’s unlikely, but have to applaud participating firms for putting their ‘virtual’ money where their mouth is, even though the real impact on their actual bottom line is probably pretty minor. Don’t think many of these players, Ogilvy and Saatchi for example, get much in the way of surf-in business. Also gotta give them kudos for managing to get so many design firms and advertising agencies, competing ones at that, on board. At the same time even. Organizing creative types is notoriously difficult, and has often been referred to as ‘herding cats’.

Who’s participating?

Decent turnout for a relatively small European country. Participating agencies include VVL BBDO, Boondoggle, Famous, Punta Linea, LDV, AIR, N-BBDO, Saatchi, Open Here, Fe Online, Kunstmaan, Bubka, Polygone Group, Tagora, Mccann-Lowe, JWT, LBI and Ogilvy.

Related posts:

1. SXSW ’09: Is spec work evil?
2. Defending crowdsourcing & design contests. The platitudes of spec work.
3. Snippets: The crowdsourcing, writing on spec & design contest follies edition

In a fit of copyright pique, the good folks at Protectmarriage.com (sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban) took a whole bunch of umbrage with their political opponents at Prop8trialtracker.com (a website monitoring the current Prop 8 federal appeal trial). At issue was the Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo (right), which the anti-gay marriage organization claimed is a blatant knock-off of their design (left). First they sent a strongly worded cease-and-desist letter. Then they sued ‘em too.

As part of their court filing, the Protect Marriage folks argued that the family in the pro-gay marriage logo (featuring two women with two little kiddies) is “substantially indistinguishable” from the family in the anti-gay marriage design (featuring a man and a woman with two little kiddies). Yeah, replied the pro-gay marriage folks, no doubt savoring the irony. That’s kinda the point.

The judge in the case agreed, letting the logo stand, citing parody allowances. [Prop 8 Trial Tracker]

Speaking of California’s Proposition 8 and logos (you know we were), Cindy McCain, wife of Senator (and former presidential candidate) John McCain has joined a growing list of celebrities and public figures to pose for photographs as part of the NOH8 campaign. NOH8 (abbreviation of No Hate) is a campaign to overturn California’s controversial constitutional amendment, and a project in which subjects are photographed with their mouths taped shut and a NOH8 logo stenciled on their faces (visit the NOH8 website).

This is sorta ironic when we remember that hubby John McCain’s staunch opposition to same-sex marriage was a key part of his presidential campaign. To make matters more interesting in the McCain household (and in conservative circles), the McCains’ daughter Meghan also posed for the campaign. [Guardian]

Related posts:

1. Snippets: Crowdspring to offer spec writing, NEA holds a spec work contest & other news
2. Obama logo design – behind the scenes
3. More Political Logos

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:

1. The Crowdsourcing Dilemma. Spec work, crowdsourcing and Crowdspring on NPR
2. AIGA softening positon on spec and design contests?
3. Again with the design contests

Rather than dying the death that pro-spec advocates predicted, the debate about spec work, so-called “design crowdsourcing” and design contest sites seems to be heating up across the internet, as more and more designers become aware of the issue, with many seeing it as a threat to the graphic design profession itself. On the pro-spec side, there are a few more design contest companies rolling out their websites, presumably as more people figure getting a whole load of designers to work for free and selling the work to their clients is an awesome business plan. With summer vacation schedules, working on our new logo, retooling our website and focusing our brand, I’ve sorta been out of the loop for a month or so and thought a trip around the webs might be just what the doctor ordered.

Without further ado, here’s a few places where spec work debates have flared up in the last few weeks or so, as well as a look at the latest design contest sites now trundling down the pike.

The Marketing and Tech Blog opened a floodgate of comments when site-owner Douglas Karr suggested that design crowdsourcing ‘marketplace’ Crowdspring was an ‘Agency Killer‘ with it’s spec-driven business model. As part of dialogue with Crowdspring co-founder Ross Kimbarovsky, you’ll find a couple of my comments as we got into it on whether or not design contest sites signal the death-knell of the graphic design industry, or are a previously untapped avenue of “opportunity” for designers just starting out in their careers. Speaking about Crowdspring, they’ve posted a Crowdspring by the numbers featurette, no doubt in an attempt to quell critics who’ve been vocal about the site. Don’t know how to introduce this post, so let’s just point you in the appropriate direction and quote the title of Brian Jung‘s opinion piece Crowdspring Blows Donkey Balls.

Professional blogging consultant Problogger probably didn’t expect the designer pushback he received, both on his blog comment section and via messages on Twitter, as designers railed against his promotion of blog design contests on Australia-based 99designs, the largest and most prolific of all the design contest sites currently operating. But once his Run a Competition to Find Your Next WordPress Blog Design was published, rail they did. 99designs pushed back, adding a few snippy comments, one of which I couldn’t resist answering. Before you think that everyone’s feeling the hate towards 99designs, I should probably hit you up with a link to Tim Ferriss‘ Design Competition: Want to Design My Next Cover? post in which he directs readers to submit their work to a contest he’s running on 99D and as per usual, his comment section has turned into a pro cs. anti gripe-fest. Worthwhile noting that Ferriss is the author of The Four Hour Workweek, a principle that probably doesn’t apply to poor bastards slogging away, without pay, on his next cover artwork.

Couple of weeks ago, we told you about SpecWatch, a designer initiative that’s been documenting some pretty surprising goings-on at design contest sites via their Twitter account and causing quite a stir with online designers. UK graphic designer David Airey managed to score an interview with SpecWatch for Web Designer Depot that reveals some interesting stuff about the hows and whys of the apparently publicity-shy outfit. The comment section is particularly compelling as designers and design contest management chime in to express their varied, and often strong, opinions.

Self-described “creative and crowdsourcing specialist” Jason Spector waded into the fray with his positively beaming article Why Starting Designers Should Crowdsource which tells young designers of all the lovely reasons why design contests and spec work are a healthy choice for their careers. In an effort to be even-handed, he looks at some of the risks but in toto, his outlook on spec work is an enthusiastic ‘thumbs up’. Can’t say I agree, which probably explains why his article isn’t quite as snarky as our similarly-named Why You Should Crowdsource Your Logo feature from a few months back. Or it’s companion piece How To Win a Logo Design Contest. Spector’s blog post is worth a looksee if you’re interested in how pro-spec work people tend to think.

A couple of new design contest sites began announcing that they’d be launching soon, no doubt to recruit designers before contest holders come a-calling. One, Design Tourney, promises that it will be “the biggest threat to Logo Tournament, 99designs, and Crowdspring” when it opens up shop this fall. Another outfit, Freshly Branded, promised that their contest site would launch in July, but recently revised that to an August date via their website once the clock chimed 12:00 July 31. Over at Graphicdesignblog.org, some cat called “Charlie B. Johnson” has been pimping an in-BETA design contest site, the oddly named MycroBurst.com via an article here and in the thinly disguised pro design article entitled Spec Work – Curse or Blessing?. All of this ‘excitement’ is kinda odd because MyrcoBurst.com is currently nothing more than a couple of place holder pages with a come-on for designers to sign up for contests “launching soon”. Makes me think that good old “Charlie” has connections to MycroBurst.com that are a little more involved than meets the eye.

Pre-designed logo and brand ‘marketplace’ Brandstack (abruptly renamed from the much nicer IncSpring, shortly after Crowdspring hit the scene) is now taking some fire from designers who are viewing the service as spec work, rather than than the pre-fabricated logo agency BrandStack would like to see themselves as. Bad boy designer Toni Zova has penned a provocative piece Why Brandstack is The Silent Killer in which he opines that far from being an ‘opportunity’ for designers to sell unused concepts, Brandstack is something else entirely. Almost simultaneously, designer Fatima Mekkaoui explains in fairly dense detail why she pulled all her logo designs from Brandstack. I’ve always been non-plussed about IncSpring, whoops, Brandstack, so it’s interesting to read others’ perspectives on the service.

All this spec stuff kinda makes me want to get into the mix with yet another ranting, railing anti-spec work special that will bore half our readers and jazz up the other half. Be right back…

Related posts:

1. Again with the design contests
2. Design is a ‘snooty’ business: Forbes
3. SXSW “Is Spec Work Evil?” panel transcript

The argument about speculative work and design contest sites continues unabated as designers and creative types grapple with the most contentious subject in the graphic design industry today. If the ongoing forum and blog arguments weren’t enough, the debate has now moved into the Twitterverse (that’s Twitter talk for people who, ahm, Twitter). First, there’s No!Spec, a grass roots coalition of designers and artists who have been writing about ‘spec work’ for several years, but have only recently moved onto the rapidly growing social platform. You can visit their website here. Follow No!Spec on Twitter here.

Another interesting addition to the kerfluffle is Spec Watch, an offshoot initiative that delivers sporadic “design contest & crowdsourcing” bulletins through their Twitter page. Spec Watch doesn’t have a website per se, other than a home, propaganda and a “why?”page which describes their mission – some weird Twitter driven strategy that may, or may not, get their ‘message’ out (Spec Watch ‘tweets’ lead back to more fleshed out examples that illustrate that design contests might not be as rosy as some might like us to believe). As cool as that is, not sure how effective this Spec Watch will be and a Twitter-only campaign seems rather narrow in focus (for a quck comparison, Spec Watch boasts a total of 365 Twitter followers, No!Spec has 1,100 while Crowdspring has over 4,000 and Australian counterpart 99designs weighs in with just over 3,000 followers in total). In any case, you can follow Spec Watch here. There’s already been some criticism about how ‘unbiased’ Spec Watch is, or isn’t, or whether their campaign is ‘dishonest’ at face. You can join that debate over at David Airey‘s always excellent Logo Design Love blog.

While I have to admire their sisyphean pluck, both No!Spec and Spec Watch are challenging a monumental PR campaign that’s seen recent pro-crowdsourcing articles in Business Weekly, Forbes and Wired to name but a few. Might be seen as the digital version of peeing into the wind.

However, I did manage to fit sisyphean into a blog post, and that’s always good for a rainy Tuesday.

Related posts:

1. Design Contests – The battle continues
2. Twitter graphic $6 proof that design crowdsourcing works? Not quite.
3. Again with the design contests

Taking time this morning to do some blog house cleaning – catching up on unfinished business and unpublished material. First up, a full transcript of the SXSW 09 Is Spec Work Evil? debate from March. A little late getting around to posting this (The Jon Engle vs. Stock Art flap knocked it to the wayside), but still worth a read it you’re into such things. There’s a You Tube video (below) kicking about, but with a run-time of only ten minutes, most of the hour-long debate ended up on the virtual cutting-room floor. I figured taking a look at a the entire transcript might be interesting, give us the whole picture and let us read some of the more heated exchanges left off the highly-edited video (below).

The basic premise of the panel was this – Mike Samson, one of the co-founders of Crowdspring (a design contest platform, based in Chicago, who recently caused a stir after being featured in a Forbes article that opined the design industry was snooty) set up a debate at the recent South by South West Festival, held in Texas back in March. The subject at hand was “Is Spec Work Evil?” (a title taken from a ‘Why I Hate Crowdspring” post featured on Andrew Hyde‘s blog) and subtitled “The Online Community Speaks“. The panel was moderated by Jeff Howe (from Wired magazine) and featured Samson, Jeffrey Kalmikoff of Threadless, veteran designer David Carson of David Carson Design and Jeremiah Owyang of Forrester Research. Lydia Mann of AIGA was a last minute invitee (perhaps to even things up a bit). The panel turned out to be one of the better attended events, and from all accounts was one of the more interesting, with tempers occasionally flaring during the proceedings. The transcript is long, a little messy, but worth a looksee if you have a bit and a cup of coffee on hand.

SXSW ’09 “Is Spec Work Evil?” panel transcript

Jeff Howe (Wired Magazine): Alright, we miked? Yeah, we are – hey! Hey, everyone, welcome to ‘Is Spec Work Evil?’- The Online Creative Community Speaks. We want to go quickly up here, because we really want this to be about you guys speaking. We want to get a sense… Well let’s do introductions first so that you know who all of us are. My name is Jeff Howe, and I am a contributing editor to Wired Magazine, and last year I published a book called The Rise of Crowd Sourcing. Sorry-my publisher wrote – so I never remember. The crowd driving the future of business, and it was expanding on an article I had written for Wired Magazine about 3 years ago called the Rise of Crowd Sourcing, they coined that term. I’m going to let everyone else introduce themselves quickly, and then we want to jump in.

Jeffrey Kalmikoff (Threadless): Hi, I’m Jeffry Kalmikoff, partner and chief creative officer of Threadless and Skinny Corp. We were in Jeff’s book.

David Carson (David Carson Design): I’m David Carson, and I’m not in Jeff’s book, and I’ve been a graphic designer for about 20 years.

Lydia Mann (AIGA): I’m Lydia Mann, and I’m the web director at AIGA, the professional association for design.

Jeremiah Owyang (Forrester Research): I’m Jeremiah Owyang, senior analyst at Forrester.I cover social media, a.k.a, crowd sourcing.

Mike Samson (Crowdspring): I’m Mike Samson, I’m the co-founder of Crowdspring.com.

Howe: Alright, excellent. We want to get a sense of who you are, too, so I just want to do a quick poll. How many people here would self-identify as a graphics professional? How many people here would identify as a client of graphics professionals, that are a consumer of graphics work. Okay, that’s great. So, a pretty good mix. Okay – really quickly – we want… Just so we have a framework for this debate, we will define Spec Work, and we are going to use the AIGA definition which is, “It is work done without compensation for the clients speculation.” Spec Work has become a lot more controversial in the last couple years with rise of sites like Crowdspring, like 99designs, which have created a marketplace in which consumers of graphic work can post creative briefs directly to the creative communities that gather on those sites, at which point, the creators submit work in the hope of winning the contest. Let’s jump off here – we’re going to try to stick to our side of the debate to about half hour, thirty-five minutes to give you guys time to weigh in, as well. I think the central question-and there’s been a lot on the blog in the last couple weeks about this and what’s come up a lot in those blogs, and in comments, and on twitter as well – is, does Spec Work democratize the industry or is it devaluing the work of highly trained professionals? I’m going to let everyone weigh in here, and, let’s start with Jeffrey.

Kalmikoff: So, while I don’t agree with Spec Work, I guess my stance on it – which I wrote a blog post about two weeks ago – is that, as a designer, I see the design side of it: where there is fear that there can be this swell of amateur designers that could essentially dilute the pool of professional graphic designers, and it could have a negative effect on the industry. I think that the issue is that, it’s happening online which is basically a catalyst for having the amateurs sort of flood it in a lot faster. Also, as a business owner – in a black-and-white sense – while I don’t agree with Spec Work, I guess I see both sides of the issue. While it doesn’t necessarily answer the question directly of my opinion-which is something that I’m going to talk about further later- is that, I’m not sure, and that was the point of my blog post that I wrote two weeks ago. I’m kind of gray, kind of in the center of it.

Read the rest of the “Is Spec Work Evil?” debate here.

A podcast of the “Is Spec Work Evil?” debate is available for download here.

Related posts:

1. SXSW ’09: Is spec work evil?
2. AIGA softening positon on spec and design contests?
3. Defending crowdsourcing & design contests. The platitudes of spec work.

From the hell has officially frozen over department. The AIGA – American Institute of Graphic Arts – has had a long-standing position on spec work and design contests. That position can be boiled down to ‘thou shalt not’. As in designers shouldn’t engage in spec (or speculative) work or design contests, the theory being that it devalues the overall graphic design industry in the long term. An official version of a ‘Tragedy Of The Commons‘ scenario that we discussed a few days ago.

Looks like the AIGA is having a change of heart. Or at least willing to entertain having a change of heart. According to their website, the organization has realized that spec work, ‘crowdsourcing’ and design contests aren’t going away and are willing to debate being ‘more lenient’ in their acceptance of new realities -

“Spec work is a perennial issue for designers, at any stage in their careers. In 2008, however, the issue sparked a new dialogue among AIGA chapter presidents and national board members, whose positions ranged from “absolutely no spec work, ever” to a more lenient approach recognizing today’s open-source attitudes. In light of this debate, AIGA President Sean Adams has appointed board member Debbie Millman and Presidents Council Chair Mike Joosse to co-chair a Spec Work Task Force, to gather facts and perspectives from chapter and community leaders and members. The task force’s findings and recommendations will be presented for action at the next AIGA board meeting, in April 2009.”

Wow. Not exactly a position that an organization for professional graphic designers would be expected to take. Oh sure, design contests and other spec work platforms are a reality of today’s global marketplace and rather than going away, I expect contest sites and other thinly disguised crowdsourcing platforms will continue to pop up over the internets. The whys and wherefores of design contests are always open to debate, but shouldn’t an organization like the AIGA take a ‘line in the sand position’ officially? While graphic designers can choose, on a personal level, whether or not to market themselves through spec and contest work? I’d have thought so. Amazingly, the discussion on the AIGA spec position page talks about reversing years worth of policy for the benefit of one company – Crowdspring (who we talked about a few months ago)

“I have had lengthy discussions with the founders of Crowdspring about their site and ways in which they can change their model to further protect designers and enhance education for both their designers and their customers. In contrast to what you would expect, both gentlemen are very willing to work with AIGA and the professional community in order to make the site the best experience for both designers and buyers. They are actively pursuing a number of community based code of conducts for various aspects of the site as well as discussing various aspects of ethics in their forums on a daily basis. In short, they are not the evil empire looking to devalue design and make a quick buck off the backs of the uninformed.”

Talking about throwing over years of principled stand to benefit one commercial enterprise is startling, and seems to be wandering close to AIGA sanctioned nepotism. Crowdspring may be the coolest venture ever (even won a Wired 2008 Small Biz award) but once we’ve removed the fancy ‘design crowdsourcing‘ paint job, it’s still a design contest site at heart. Which means that in every job posted on the platform, only one designer manages to get paid. On a related note, Brandon Muth works the numbers for Crowdspring and finds they leave something to be desired. Andrew Hyde tells us why spec work is evil & why he hates Crowdspring.

Other designers are more pragmatic, realizing that spec work is not going away. Others in the debate want the AIGA to stand firm -

“I can’t believe that the AIGA is even entertaining this issue. Stand your ground. The AIGA is the “Professional” association for design. Professionals get paid for their work.”

One of the comments makes a grim, but valid point, the irony of which shouldn’t be lost on anyone…

There are 11,957 creatives on Crowdspring right now. Didn’t we say we wanted to increase our professional membership to 20,000? That’s a lot of people to expose to AIGA.

Anyhoo, if you want to join the official debate, you can toss in your two cents here. Oh yeah, hat tip to Jeff Fisher, who sent us a heads up on this via our Twitter thingamajig.

Related posts:

1. Again with the design contests
2. Defending crowdsourcing & design contests. The platitudes of spec work.
3. SXSW ’09: Is spec work evil?

Wikipedia (itself one of the first examples of crowdsourcing) defines The Tragedy of the Commons thusly:

“The Tragedy of the Commons” is an influential article written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968. The article describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long term interest for this to happen. The essence of the commons dilemma has been discussed by theorists since ancient times, but not under that name. It has also been studied more recently, such as in game theory.

Central to Hardin’s article is a metaphor of herders sharing a common parcel of land (the commons), on which they are all entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin’s view, it is in each herder’s interest to put as many cows as possible onto the land, even if the commons is damaged as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from the additional cows, while the damage to the commons is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational decision, however, the commons is destroyed and all herders suffer.

Think of the design industry as ‘the commons’. Now think logo design contests. And sites that like to refer to themselves as design crowdsourcing platforms (when they’re clearly nothing of the sort). See a parallel?

Related posts:

1. Again with the design contests
2. AIGA softening positon on spec and design contests?
3. Defending crowdsourcing & design contests. The platitudes of spec work.