If there’s ever been an issue that ignites passion in the design community, it is spec work, its repackaged cousin design contests, and its cousin-in-disguise, crowdsourcing. There are two sides to the issue, and neither seems willing, or able, to give the other much sway. In this first of a two part series, we take a partially impartial look at crowdsourcing and design contests from a buyer’s point of view.

As with most passionate debates, a lot of the oxygen is sucked up by hyperbole, from both sides (guilty as charged), and there’s very little attention focused on the true benefits (it there are any) and the true pitfalls (if there are any). Some people behind crowdsourcing sites will state that “businesses are ignoring the debate” and that’s very true. They are. It’s boiled down to a “more for less” proposition that’s a terribly effective marketing gimmick. Designers aren’t “ignoring” the debate, because they’re the ones who ostensibly have the most to lose and are the ones most affected. And while you can find all sorts of “glowing” testimonials about how effective crowdsourcing is, what you won’t find is an admission that a ton of design contests on crowdsourcing sites end in cancellation, or a decision “not to award a winner”, as high as 50% on some sites, indicating that not everyone is thrilled with their “experience.”

So what’s the real deal? Seems time to look at both sides of the equations, warts and all, and take a somber, sober and partially impartial look at spec work, design contests and so-called design crowdsourcing. From all angles. While I’m fundamentally opposed to spec work and design contests – my old lefty leanings, hammered into my psyche by my union advocating father – I think I’m well enough versed in the issue to tackle the issue pragmatically and without railing against the practice as is usual with my scribblings. We’re going to take a look at things from the client’s point of view first. Then follow up with a look at how these things work for designers later in the week.

Design contests and crowdsourcing – setting a price

Most crowdsourcing and design contest sites will let you set your own budget. This is one of the main issues that has a good chunk of the design community up in arms. Understandably so. It can amount to hundreds of design concepts for a few hundred bucks, something that on the surface anyway, most small firms (including mine) and freelance designers can’t compete against.

Many design contest sites take an almost dual-personality disorder approach to how you should set your price. On one hand, they tell you that their service offers $200 (minimum) design services. On the other hand, they’ll also tell you that setting a high price will attract a higher level of designer. They’ll charge you extra to host a private contest, where the results and designs are hidden from view (something that most other designers and design firms already do, and often at a price that’s higher than other sources would charge in the first place). All of this seems to be at odds with their entire ‘democratizing of design’ meme, but no mind.

Private contests

Here’s something to keep in mind though – surprisingly, many designers avoid so-called ‘private contests’ like the plague. The reason? As the contest is private, and as they can’t use the designs they submit in their portfolios (thanks to a rather restrictive NDA they have to agree to in order to participate) there’s no real benefit for them to enter unless they win. Most designers with any experience know that’s unlikely (based on sheer volume) and participating on crowdsourcing sites has been sold to them as a way to build a portfolio. Private contests are at odds with that core belief, so many designers simply pass. While I understand the advantage of a private contest (the theory is your competitors don’t get to find out what you’re up to, or your client’s don’t get to find out you’ve outsourced their gig to a design contest), it doesn’t attract the so-called ‘quality’ designers the host sites tell you it will.

Number of entries

In terms of pricing, and realistically speaking, there really isn’t much rhyme or reason to the number of entries you’ll get, regardless of what budget you set.

I’ve seen $200 logo design contests with over 300 submissions. I’ve seen $1000 contests only receive several dozen. While contest site owners will tell you that the higher the prize, the better the designers attracted, this may, or may not, be true, but a higher prize would logically attract more designers of all skill levels.

Guaranteed contests that aren’t

Most crowdsourcing sites claim to have 100% money-back offers on their contests (technically, most aren’t 100% because most sites won’t refund your contest listing fees) but you’ll waive that if you hold what is referred to as a “guaranteed” contest. In essence, you “promise” (pinly swear) to pay a designer or the company that hosts the contest will select one for you. Oddly, in the real world, holding a contest and not awarding a prize breaks contest and sweepstakes laws as it’s treacherously close to fraud. Here’s a dirty secret that most design contest sites don’t want you to know. Even in “guaranteed” contests, buyers end up filing a dispute with their credit card company if they’re not happy with the outcome, regardless of how many entries they’ve received.

Don’t think credit card companies are really sure what the deal is with contest sites, so most unhappy buyers are successful in their challenge. I’m not sure credit card companies are comfortable with design contest sites picking an entry for their customers (as claimed in most “guaranteed” contests) either. Having said that, charging back a credit card for a service you’ve agreed to is pretty shady, so this isn’t to be taken as an endorsement of the practice, just an acknowledgment that it happens. In fact, I’d advise against it as, once again, it’s often the participating designers who get it in the throat, and nobody will be remunerated for their work. On some sites a designer will still get their design selected by committee and paid for their efforts (though often, it’s a slim percentage of the originally promised of your ‘award’). On others it’s approached as “hey, can’t pay anyone, the client charged back their card”.  Cynically, and in both cases, the crowdsourcing site gets to keep their ‘listing’ fee and any ‘upsells’ you’ve paid to promote your contest, while the designers get stiffed.

Work that’s ‘inspired’ by others

Here’s a rather large caveat about design contests and so-called ‘crowdsourcing’. The numbers of plagiarized design work as well as improperly licensed stock art (most stock can’t be used for logos or trademarks) submitted into logo design contests is astonishing.

Sometimes it’s not the entire logo, but bits and pieces cobbled together from multiple sources. If you’re after an illustrative logo, many of the submissions will be traced from photographs found on the internet, some of which are rights managed, or subject to copyright claims that may or may not be apparent. Whether these logos are “derivative” works or not is anyone’s guess and depends a great deal on the original creator’s tenacity. Realistically speaking, you probably won’t get found out. On the other hand, your logo may be a ticking time bomb. Does this happen with every design contest? No. But enough times to make it a concern.

Copying happens in traditional avenues too

Now, design contest and crowdsourcing sites will tell you that this happens in ‘traditional’ design avenues as well, and to a certain degree they’re correct. It does.

The risk of business and reputation meltdown in the traditional arena makes it less likely, while the anonymity of design contests and the legal waivers that contest sites present to you on sign-up make it more so. There’s no real statistics either way, but a ripped off logo in the ‘real world’ is huge news in the media (witness last summer’s Kelowna City logo flap), whereas a pinched design being entered into a design contest is a regular occurrence and barely makes any news outside a post on Twitter. Usually by the designer who’s work has been abused.

Self-policing of submissions to your contest

In many instances, other designers will “catch” the knock-offs and tell you or the host site (they want the copycat turfed out – more ‘chance of them winning’), but often they either won’t have knowledge of the original logo, or the gallery of designs has become six pages deep and they don’t have the time to rummage through the various designs looking for knock-offs. Don’t look to the companies that hold these contests for monitoring of submissions – most design “crowdsourced” contests aren’t managed very well, if at all, and their sites generally play out like a free-for-all. Not that this should be surprising. If you work out the portion of the “take” for the site owners, there’s not much budget for monitoring each and every contest running in their forums.

Managing a “community” with tens of thousands of members is a challenge (ask anyone who’s ever set up even a modest sized forum or bulletin board) and companies that run design contest sites generally feature small teams of salaried employees. Most design crowdsourcing sites don’t even have graphic designers on staff (most are “customer service” personnel and developers tasked with keeping the sites up-and-running, a formidable task considering the system resources these sites burn) so you’re a little at the mercy of the goodwill, and keen eyes, of the people participating in your contest. Trouble is, in ‘Private Contests’ most participants can’t see the submissions of others, until you pick a winner, so any promised self-policing doesn’t happen on the more expensive ‘Private’ or ‘Blind’ contests.

Copycats aplenty

Also, keep in mind that even when designers are “caught” passing off other designers work as their own, they’re seldom “banned” from participating in future contests unless they’ve been particularly egregious. One major site “suspends” designers for two weeks. Another has something that verges on “three strikes you’re out” policy (though they claim that they don’t “officially” have a “three strikes you’re out” policy). In any case, there’s no guarantee that an unrepentant copycat, busted in an earlier contest, isn’t submitting work to yours.

The client as art director

In terms of setting up the contest, you’ll be expected to supply a pretty in-depth ‘creative brief’. As the back-and-forth between buyer and designer is somewhat muted (most design contest sites don’t want – for obvious reasons – designers and buyers talking off the ‘reservation’) that’s the entry point for most of the designs that will be presented. The details contained need to be pretty expansive, though you can change direction later if needs be.

Traditional design avenues (designer, firm, agency) will usually see the creative department taking conceptual lead on your project. With design contest and crowdsourcing sites, you’re almost expected to play ‘art director’. Now, that’s not to say every designer will take a ‘just tell me what you want’ position – some will suggest funky design options and worthwhile directions. But a large percentage of contestants are of the “hired hands with a copy of Illustrator” variety. That’s not bad if you’re comfortable with art direction. A little intimidating if you’re not. Might be worth remembering that many designers on crowdsourcing sites are inexperienced, and wary of offering up suggestions that are at odds with your original brief, lest they be branded ‘uncooperative’.

Expected comments and star ‘rating’

Keep in mind that you’re expected to comment on most of the designs submitted, even the ones that you don’t like, a task that can become quite challenging as the numbers of submitted ideas rises. Most sites also feature a star rating system that seems to placate most entrants if you opt not to submit a comment for their work. Pretty cynical attempt to keep designers cranking out work, but it does seem to work. Also keep in mind that asking one designer to incorporate an idea from another designer’s submission is a big no-no on contest sites. Sure, the designer you’ve asked to do it will probably comply with your request, but the frankensteined design will probably be yanked and the designer reprimanded. Despite the “community” vibe that’s advertised, designers are not working together, but rather against each other, so asking one entrant to incorporate another’s work is understandably taboo though many buyers, believing they’re working in a collaborative environment, often find this concept difficult to grasp. In terms of revisions, most design contest entrants are only too willing to submit revision after revision, so there’s no cap to the amount of work that you can ask for, an arguably big advantage over a traditional firm or designer. Here’s something to keep in mind though – if you focus on one design concept, and request multiple revisions, many of the designers will interpret that as the direction you want to head and incorporate these ideas into their future work.

The number of submissions

This is the main advantage of the design contest or ‘crowdsourcing’ model. And it’s true, you should receive a lot of concepts to choose from. Most design contest sites feature a “get x number of submissions or your money back guarantee” but most contests will go over that number by a wide margin. If it’s close – say the guarantee is 25 and you’ve received 28 – unless there’s something there you really like, it appears that many buyers get the refund anyway. There’s generally a few similar entries, say color changes and what have you, that it’s always arguable whether you received 28 submissions or 21 with a few variations that don’t count enough as unique.

Again, I don’t think this is fair to the designers that participated (I might go as far to say that guaranteeing a number of designs, from people who aren’t getting paid for those submissions verges on asshattery, but we’re trying to be somber here, so I’ll leave that for the designer portion of this feature). And here’s another aspect of crowdsourcing sites that as a designer I’d be horrified, but as a buyer, I’d think is just lovely. The usual way these things work is that your “contest” or “project” runs for a certain amount of time. The designers have been told that once the time frame is up, and as long as the minimum number of entries has been submitted, you have a finite amount of time to select a winner. If, after that time frame (usually a week), you haven’t selected a winner, the host site will pick one for you. Designers like these sort of promises, as someone is guaranteed to win. Here’s the dirty little secret. Most design contest sites hate picking a winner for you, especially if you’ve paid with a credit card and if you ask them, they’ll simply re-open the contest for more work. It’s terribly unfair to the designers who originally entered in good faith, but it is what it is. Also, even after you’ve selected a winner, feel free to ask for further revisions on the final entry. Turns out that most design contest sites don’t even expect you to take your selection ‘as is’. Some even suggest that there’s no limit to the amount of post-contest revisions you’re ‘allowed’ to request before accepting the design as final.

The end result

At the end of the day, you’ll probably end up with a serviceable logo, brochure or website. I’d positively love to tell you that you won’t – these things are an anathema to my profession – but I’d be lying. Will you receive stellar work? Slimmer chance, but yes you just might.

The main concern you should have with any design contest is originality (in terms of logos) and the rights managed images (brochure, web site, etc) featured in your work. The problem here lies in the issue of what designers rights the designers agree to give these sites upon submitting work. The designer ticks off a little check box, indicating that they own the rights (or adequate rights) to the work they’re uploading. The number of blatant knock-offs that are found on design contest sites tend to show that a fairly large percentage of participants don’t put any credence into those check boxes at all. The designer usually has to agree to transfer a non-revocable license to the host site (supposedly, so that the host site can show the artwork in their galleries). One little hitch. All stock image sites strictly prohibit the transfer of any of THEIR rights or license (for obvious reasons – it weakens their control over products). Bottom line – how can a participating designer give the design contest site a license for stock art or photography, when the original licensor strictly forbids them from doing so? I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this little bugaboo is a wrinkle that’s going to bite someone in the ass at some point.

Conclusion

Are design contests and crowdsourcing an effective way to get design work done? Yes. No. Maybe. In terms of the amount of concepts you’ll get pitched at you, there’s no comparison between working with a design firm or a freelancer. They simply can’t match the output if output is your thing. And that number is going up. Some outfit even suggests that you’ll get up to 900 concepts for a few hundred bucks. Soon it will crack 1000, so if you wait a few months, I’m sure some site, now in BETA, will offer that. Crowdsourcing sites don’t technically pay their ‘workers’ (my main quibble), so there’s no practical limit on the number of revisions and ideas you’ll get. Are they all good ideas? No. A majority of the ideas you’ll get pitched are sub-par (to be charitable) and as we’ve discussed earlier, run a rather high risk of being work that’s pinched from somewhere else. Realistically speaking though, there should be a few pearls in the pile to ultimately choose from. As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, I don’t think that’s a particularly efficient, or effective, way to design anything. But if raw numbers, for an often paltry price, is your thing, a design contest might be the Doctor’s prescription.

What does all this mean for people participating? We’ll look at that in detail when we take a look at crowdsourcing from a designer’s perspective.

Related posts:

1. Again with the design contests
2. Defending crowdsourcing & design contests. The platitudes of spec work.
3. Children designers on design contest & crowdsourcing sites?

Want to design a great logo for yourself? Or to create logos on a fairly regular basis as part of your overall design services? Or to specialize in logos enough to call yourself a logo designer? Here’s a partially definitive laundry list of tips that might help.

Many view logo design as simply a fun little niche of the overall graphic design industry. Obviously it’s in my best interest – as the founder of The Logo Factory, a design company that specializes in logos – to say it isn’t just that. But I truly believe that. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have launched our shop back in 1996. While desktop software and other technical tools have made the technical process easier, designing great logos remains a specialty, a discipline of the profession itself. And as the competition of the graphic design industry heats up, and the economic recovery seems mired in molasses, specialization is one of the ways that a designer can weather the storm. The logo design industry (if there is such a beast) is an intensely competitive one and with crowdspecking and design contest sites popping up like mushrooms certain to be so for the foreseeable future. If you want to compete in that environment, you’re going to have to be able to design consistently great logos on an ongoing basis.

Some earlier posts worth a read

We’ve already taken a cursory look at 10 things you’ll need to be a great logo designer back in ’08, but that’s a little short on specifics about actually designing logos. Our what not to do when designing a logo is pretty decent look at what to avoid. We’ve had a series of logo design tips on our website for a couple of years now. Still holds up pretty well and worth a read before tackling an individual logo design project. We also took a look at what makes a great logo, and while that feature probably needs sprucing up, it’s still a pretty decent barometer of what does, in fact, make a great logo. Our client-centric common pitfalls is probably worth bookmarking for a read later. But what if you want to go beyond designing one great logo, say make a career out of it? Or, if not a career, at least be able to design great logos on a fairly consistent basis. These were a few questions I was asked by a young designer by e-mail last week, and I figured it might be worth an exploration. While not a complete list by any means (that could fill several volumes), here’s some tips on how a graphic designer can hone their skills in the logo department. For the sake of this post, we’ll assume that you have a working knowledge of some vector-based drawing software, and are familiar with most of the intermediate concepts involved. Due to the length, we’ll break this feature down into two parts, and publish the second half later in the week. Ready to get started? Okay, let’s..

#1: Read. Read. And then read some more.

Great design does not happen in a vacuum, but luckily, you’re living in the internet age (as well as the relatively recent social media age) and the web is awash with information about logo design. There are tons of blogs that offer a wealth of in-the-trenches advice on an almost daily basis. From people who specialize in logo design, branding, corporate identity and almost every facet of the niche to major agencies whose ‘secrets’ are available with only a few mouse clicks. Never before has so much information been available for so little effort. Trouble is, this glut of information can be overwhelming, and the ‘wheat’ quite difficult to separate from the ‘chaff’.

If you search for ‘logo design’ on most of the search engines, it’s unlikely that you’ll find any worthwhile information about how to design logos in the first couple of pages. Instead, you’ll be bombarded with sites offering to design you a logo, the result of effective SEO for logo design keywords, the main thrust of all the represented companies. All cool and all if you’re a potential client, but as a designer these sites are piss-poor as a source of knowledge and information to help you. You’ll have to dig a little deeper, and find a way to aggregate useful information that may be harder to find than a quick keyword search. Luckily, we have Twitter to do that for you. If you don’t have an account on the social media platforms, get one now, then follow designers (here’s our page). Particularly those who describe themselves as logo designers, most of whom are incredibly generous in sharing their ‘trade secrets’, design philosophies and technical tips. Logo Design Love has put together a killer list of the best logo design resources to get you started.

#2: Practice drawing. Get a sketchbook

There’s nothing that irks me more than someone who wants to be a logo designer telling me “I can’t draw”. My question is always “why not?” I’ve always been of the impression that anyone, with enough practice, can become a decent draftsman. While illustrators with exceptional talent owe some of their magnificence to genetics, most of us can develop adequate drawing skills by simply spending enough time doing it. And in developing these skills, we can learn to look at the world from a linear and graphic perspective, something that will only help when it comes to designing logos.

Accordingly, this is extremely important (and something that I often neglect to do). If you haven’t already, get yourself a sketchbook. Doesn’t have to be terribly fancy – I picked one up at my local art store this weekend for under $10. Nice hardbound one too. Try to doodle a few times a week. It can be anything. Items lying around your desk. People and objects at your neighborhood park. The mall. Ideas that come to your head. And here’s the key – don’t tear anything out, regardless of how bad you think your drawing is. Keep ‘em all. Break things down into their simple shapes – cubes, spheres and polygons. These random illustrations, sketches and notes will become an idea library, as well as a journal of both your progress (and in many ways, your life). Once in a while, pick a simple idea or company theme – it can be anything: an accountant, a scuba diving store, a pet shop or a restaurant. Sketch out a couple of pages of logo ideas. Doesn’t matter how bad, or how good they are. The idea of this exercise is to get used to getting your ideas, sometimes extremely fleeting, down on paper. Being able to draw decently is a prerequisite if you ever want to tackle illustrative logo projects, like this one for Comic Vine (you can read more about sketching in that logo’s case study).

Another tip: use a magic marker (I’m partial to Pilot Fineliners) as these are permanent and force you to think in absolute black and white, rather than the full range of tones made available by using a pencil. Using a marker also forces you to be decisive, bold and unforgiving. Think in terms of negative and positive spaces (negative space is the image created by the edge of the solid, positive shapes. The hidden arrow in the FedEx logo is a perfect example). If you’re trying to design a logo that incorporates an actual object, a bee or fish let’s say, try to draw it using a few shapes as possible. Then try to remove a shape or two to make your iconic bee or fish even simpler as the idea of this minimalist doodling is to capture the essence of the object, not a photo-realistic representation. Here’s a fun exercise too. Throw together two unrelated words – car & bones, cat & fish, airplane & fork off the top of my head – and try to develop concepts around those. A great example of this methodology is the logo for Sirius Radio which features a dog with a star as an eye. The star obviously symbolizes a satellite. The dog comes from the star Sirius, which is not only the brightest star in the sky, but also known as the ‘Dog Star’. Pretty clever stuff (and no, we didn’t design it).

While I so hate the phrase “thinking outside the box” these exercises will, in fact, help you think outside of it. And if you utilize your sketchbook often enough, you’ll have a library of rough concepts and ideas for actual logo projects that come your way. It will also train you to think beyond the limitations your design software may have, or past the vector drawing limitations you have yet to break through.

#3: Look at logos. All the time

We’re surrounded by logos. After typing that sentence, I gave myself 10 seconds and counted the number of recognizable logos lying on and around my admittedly messy desktop. 39. That’s a heck of a lot of reference material for the would-be logo designer. But just don’t glance at the logos around you. Really look at them. Find ones you like and try to figure out why you like them. Perform the same exercise with logos you don’t like. More importantly, try to figure out which logos are the most effective. Are they recognizable from a distance? Do they communicate a theme or a vibe that works for the product they’re meant to represent? Again, try and decipher which logos aren’t particularly effective. Look at the logos of Fortune 500 companies. But don’t stop there.

Look at the logos on light boxes over stores whilst journeying around town. Which work. Which don’t. Read logo design themed blogs that sometimes dissect logos. You don’t have to agree with the critiques, but have a reason or two why you don’t. Take a look at logo design contest and gallery sites. A lot of the stuff you’ll see is crap, but some of it isn’t. While liking and not-liking logos often comes down to a version of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder“, try and figure out the dreck from the pearls. See, when it comes to logo design, and other than obvious design catastrophes, there’s no real right or wrong. It’s more important that you have a reason for your opinion that goes beyond “that sucks” or “wow, that’s cool.” See if you can determine the thinking behind the design concepts you’re looking at (our ongoing logo trivia series goes into some detailed back stories of famous logos). If you’re reading design blogs, don’t be shy about asking questions about the articles you’re reading or the case studies you’re looking at. Most blog publishers I know would much rather answer questions in their comment sections than read another “I loved this post” comment. Generally speaking, you’ll find that most designers are extremely willing to help other designers.

#4: Look at fonts. All the time

Just as you should be looking at logos, icons and representational graphics all the time, you should also become a great observer of fonts, typography and text logos. Once again, take a look around you. See what kind of font work is involved, particularly text only logos. See if the font is custom, a recognizable font set, or a combination thereof (most logos, even if they use an established font, will feature a customization of one or two of the letters, often to overcome kerning issues). Speaking of kerning (the spacing between the individual letters) you need to hone that skill. Most desktop programs, including Adobe Illustrator, are only so-so in their ‘auto-kern’ function. Letters like V and A (especially when together) need to be tightened up. I’ve seen logo typography that we could drive a Mack truck through. Almost every logo you’ll ever design will need eyeball kerning to a certain degree and it’s something that needs to become second nature.

#5: Revisit your previous work. Tear it apart

Most proficient designers I know are their own worst critics. Not at first mind you, particularly when it comes to any one specific project or logo as there’s usually some level of ego involved that precludes it. That shouldn’t be surprising, nor is there anything terribly wrong in being ferocious advocates for our own work. Designing something is often a very personal effort, even when it’s for someone else, and almost everything we create contains a little bit of us poured into it. If we didn’t believe in what we’re doing, then it’s probably time to find a new line of work. I get that. Unfortunately, this ‘bravado’ can stand in the way of honest personal assessment and only the passage of time takes a logo completely out of the ‘ego zone.’ There have been times when I’ve gone to the mat defending this-or-that logo with something approaching religion. At the time, it was the cleverest, most effective, most awe-inspiring logo that I’d ever designed. In the history of ever. Until six months had passed and I revisited the design. Eeek. Certainly not the most awe-inspiring logo that I’d ever designed. Actually, fell more into the “what the hell was I thinking” department. See, logo design is like any other skill. The more you do it, the better you’ll get and work that you thought would set the world on fire a few years ago isn’t quite as polished as you’re capable of today. And that’s a worthwhile exercise in of itself. As much as it might pain you, take a look at some of your older work on a fairly regular basis. You’ll find logos that still hold up. That’s good – you’ve managed to design a logo that has a timeless quality. You’ll also find logos that don’t hold up so well. A little on the ‘swooshy’ side. Some messed up font work. A little heavy on the gel effect. And is that a lens flare? That’s okay too. It shows that your ‘eye’ is improving and that you’re getting better. But don’t stop there. Take the logos that have aged badly, and see how you’d approach the project differently today, using your evolving logo design skills. Who knows, the client who’s logo has aged may come back for a re-do, and you’ll be ready to show them your newly improved version. They’ll like that.

#6: Understand Brand Frameworking

Just as great design doesn’t happen in a vacuum, a logo doesn’t exist in one either. The development of a logo is just the bare bones beginning of a company brand – there’s very few instances when any logo will be featured as a standalone graphic element. It will have to coexist peacefully with a lot of other graphic elements, typography, colors and styles, which when all combined, make up what we refer to as a Brand Framework. When a designer is working with a small budget-strapped startup, as many of our clients are, there may not be the finances available to work up a full brand treatment. But there should be enough time available in the budget that you can workup a rudimentary framework. Let your client can see how your proposed logo will fit into their advertising, marketing and social media efforts. From a purely pragmatic point of view, this will get you a faster sign-off on the project. This exercise also helps you design logos with these basic uses in mind, which ultimately results in better work from your efforts. Use this concept of Brand Frameworking to gauge how effective your proposals are. If a logo can’t work as a Facebook profile image, it ain’t a good logo. If you can’t effectively add it to a decent business card, call it a day and move on. Pretty pictures is not what this is about. For more on this read David Airey‘s excellent How to convince your clients they need a brand and not just a logo.

#7: Communicate. Communicate some more

Around our shop we deal with a lot of clients who are working one-on-one with a designer for the first time and unfamiliar with designing a logo. While it’s obviously important for any client to be involved to some degree or another, they’ve hired us to walk them through the process and it’s our responsibility to do just that. A friend once told me “The client is King. But they shouldn’t play Art Director.” I always liked that quote because it’s true.

This isn’t a sleight on clients, or as some would have us believe, design snootiness. When I’m working on a logo for an accountant, I expect them to know far more about accounting than I do, just as he should expect that I know more about designing logos than he does. In fact, I better know more about logos than he does, or it’s time for a new career. Here’s the important bit of this though. When my pretend accountant client wants to show me that he knows more about accounting than I do, he has no problem in doing so. He’ll talk about tax shelters, amortized expenses and all sorts of concepts that while I have a basic grasp of, I really don’t have a clue on the legally bullet-proof technicalities he’ll employ. When it comes to hiring an accountant, I have to trust him to steer me in the right direction, hopefully avoiding the ire of the Feds, even though I may not know exactly how he’s going to do so.

Designers need to take the same approach with their clients. This isn’t arrogance or conceit. A client hired you to design his or her logo because at some point, you convinced them you’re an expert of some level. Use that basic premise to communicate with your client. Talk to them. Explain your concepts. Don’t just ask a client for some arbitrary feedback along the lines of “like” and “dislike”. Have a dialogue with them throughout the process. From collecting initial information on their goals and aspirations, to discussing why you’ve created this proposal or that. You’ll find that when clients are left to arbitrarily decide what they ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ about your proposals, they’ll quickly get frustrated if you’re unable to show them something they ‘like’ in fairly short order. If you involve them in the thinking behind your concepts, and why you think they work, they’re more likely to understand that logo design is an evolutionary process, not the willy-nilly creation of a series of pretty graphic pictures. Working with clients that have a rudimentary idea of what you’re doing for them will, a majority of the time, lead to a better experience for everyone involved. At the end of the day, your client will still have to ‘like’ the logo you create for them, but they won’t tear their hair out waiting for you to pull it off.

#8: Learn to develop a rationale

Communicating with a client doesn’t mean telling them about your weekend exploits, your dog or the latest adventures with your favorite hobby. As nice as those are, communicating with your client means developing a rationale for why you’re doing what you’re doing. Why you’ve added this element to a proposal for their logo. Why you removed another. If you’ve developed a logo that has a square aspect ratio, tell them why (its application on social media networks would be one good reason). That doesn’t mean you have to outline every pixel shove you perform, but even then, be prepared to explain it if asked. Nor am I suggesting War & Peace treatise that explains some overworked logo symbolism about this element and that. Just a simple, sane, rationale behind your creative thinking. By developing reasons for why you perform certain tasks, you’ll begin to revise your concepts and ideas because of logical reasons. And that makes for logos that make sense, rather than designs that just look pretty. That’s not to say you aren’t open to client feedback, you are, but even then incorporate their ideas based on logic and offer logically sound alternatives if you think they don’t work. It’s been my experience that some of the best work (in my opinion) that’s been produced by our shop involved the involvement of the client to one degree or another. Conversely, the same can be said of some of the worst stuff too. But that doesn’t matter, because our next tip is:

#9: Never get married to any one proposal

We touched on this earlier, but it’s important enough to flesh it out some more. Whenever I hire a designer at the The Logo Factory, my first word of advice to them is “never get married to any logo.” Not that I’m particularly wise or anything. It took me a long time to understand this concept myself. See, at any given point, any logo proposal is the most important, most earth-shattering artwork the world has ever seen. But it isn’t. The main person you’re trying to please is the client. Once a design project is over, you’re onto other things. The client has to work with their logo for years, if not forever, and it will become the cornerstone of their brand identity. While you want them to ‘get’ your vision for their logo, it’s okay if they don’t. They’re also picking up the tab, which when push comes to shove, is the real barometer of who gets the final say. While arguing for your point-of-view, it’s also critical that any logo designer respect their client’s input. It’s true that sometimes a client may bastardize a logo into something you’re not terribly fond of. That’s okay. You have all the preliminary designs for your logo design portfolio, and in most cases it’s the fact that your logo is being used that impresses people who it’s important to impress – new clients, art directors and potential employers. And if your client is happy with the logo that the two of you managed to cobble together, that’s a very important part of being a consistently great logo designer.

In Part 2 of this feature, we’ll take a look at more practical tips including how to check your ideas are original, avoiding overused design cliches, working with fonts and more. Look for it later in the week.

Related posts:

1. The Guide to Great Logos
2. Designing a logo – the definitive guide
3. 10 tips for designing an original logo

Exaggerated size of design ‘communities’

A few months ago, we took look at the ‘community’ numbers of crowdsourcing and design contest sites and found, to be charitable, that they were wildly inflated. Bottom line, most design crowdsourcing sites are supported by a fraction of the designers claimed on the home page. Most decent designers that have a go at crowdsourcing either don’t enter anything, or bail shortly after they do, having discovered that entering design contests is a woefully inefficient way to earn a living. While the aggregate appearance is that of monstrous sized design communities (designers who are no longer active are still counted in the numbers), the reality for the individual is something different entirely. After winning one contest in twenty (about the average of designers who know what they’re doing, the win-ratio is much lower if they don’t) most people move on to greener pastures. That’s not anti-spec rhetoric. It’s economic common sense. It could be argued that a great deal of the people left on these sites are bad at one of two things, design or business. Or they’re teenagers earning a few bucks on the side.

All about the logos?

I think we can all agree that logo design is a niche discipline, albeit an important one, of the entire graphic design field. Accordingly, here’s another dirty little secret (though to be fair, it’s not really dirty, and as it’s publicly available info, not terribly secret). Most crowdsourcing sites are supported by logo design projects. Not brochure design. Not stationery design. Not website design. Not presentation folders. Not the recent addition of writing on spec. Other than logo contests (or “projects”), and despite being marketed as “creative marketplaces” that offer the full range of graphic design services, not much else is going on. Takeaway here? Other than some high-profile exceptions, logo contests make up of the bulk of so-called design crowdsourcing. You don’t accept my word for this little pearl of info either. You’re welcome to check for yourself (or see the screen shots throughout this post).

“A quick trot through most of the high-profile ‘crowdsourcing’ sites reveals that anywhere from 60% to a whopping 92% of the current contests involve logo design.”

A quick trot through most of the high-profile ‘crowdsourcing’ sites reveals that anywhere from 60% to a whopping 92% of the current contests involve logo design. It could be argued that if it weren’t for logo contests, most so-called crowdsourcing sites would have shuttered long time ago. Some, Logo My Way and Logo Tournament for example, don’t even attempt the pretense. As these kind of offerings have been with us since time immemorial, it kinda puts paid to the “innovative” vibe that’s been tossed around too. I guess the innovation bit was meant to describe the expansion of web-based logo design contests into other areas of the graphic design profession. How successfully is the question. Not very is the answer. Alas, it would appear that despite having a few years to build up the concept to mainstream acceptance in all the graphic design disciplines, only logo development has gained any real traction in the crowdsourcing arena. Trouble is, with the “more for less” appeal of logo contests, they’ve always been accepted by many in the medium, small and micro business market. Crowdsourcing and contest sites just make it easier.

Why all the logos?

Why, on the surface anyway, does it appear that curated spec work sites (cause that’s what they are) appear to have failed to gain traction with anything but logo design? I’m willing to go out on a limb and hoist a couple or theories. The first might concern small business owners’ view towards their logo itself, with many seeing it as a pretty picture that’s only real function is to be slapped on a business card or website header. With a very basic understanding of the digital tools involved, some buyers probably view the logo design process as something that takes a couple of minutes and in the long run, isn’t terribly taxing, time consuming or even important to the overall health of their business. Designers probably share part of the burden too, with some treating it as a ‘quick and dirty’ process, resorting to some pretty predictable and overdone approaches to designing a logo. The buyer thinks it takes ten minutes. Many people entering design contests only take ten minutes (explains some of the rampant copycatting that goes on). The contest holder thinks they’re being magnanimous, shelling out a couple of hundred bucks for ten minutes of someone’s time. Would be designers see it as an acceptable risk – ten minutes time for the chance of winning that couple of hundred bucks. An “it’s all good” kind of equation.

“The contest holder thinks they’re being magnanimous, shelling out a couple of hundred bucks for ten minutes of someone’s time. Would be designers see it as an acceptable risk – ten minutes time for the chance of winning that couple of hundred bucks.”

Risk vs. Return

While some buyers, and some “designers” (bunny quotes mine), might think of logo design as a quick and dirty process (erroneously I would argue) it’s a little different with other artwork. When it comes to designing collateral material, brochures and websites let’s say, everybody shares a common attitude, the accuracy of that attitude notwithstanding. It looks like there’s more work involved. Buyers and contest holders still accept this premise, and are willing to spend more time, money and effort. Spec work designers, knowing how much time might be involved in the production end of things, are less likely to participate in a website or brochure contest that’s going to take a huge time investment with only the “hope” of getting a return. A minimal one at that (crowdsourcing design contests featuring large prizes are another matter entirely but we’ll cover that in an upcoming post).

“Amazingly, what is actually a weakness of the curated spec work model, has paradoxically become one of the primary appeals for people that own them, people that purchase services on them, and designers who participate.”

As a brochure, website or vehicle wrap requires a certain level of expertise to pull off, technically speaking, it’s a lot easier to fake what looks like a logo in Illustrator or Freehand than it is to fake what looks like a brochure using In Design or Quark. Or fake a website using Fireworks, Photoshop and Dreamweaver. Amazingly, what is actually a weakness of the curated spec work model, has paradoxically become one of the primary appeals for people that own them, people that purchase services on them, and designers who participate. Bottom line, logo design contests, or “projects” depending on the site, will continue to flourish. The rest of the graphic design disciplines are relatively protected from spec work decimation. For the time being anyway, as I may have to eat some of these words at a future date.

Chicken Little or reason for concern?

While it might be relatively safe to crib Mark Twain and say this – “the rumors of the demise of the graphic design industry have been greatly exaggerated” – if you’re a designer specializing in logos, or want to specialize in logos, you may want to roll up your sleeves a bit. Because the growing number of websites offering logo design contests isn’t going to die down anytime soon. When there’s a ton of people looking to create a clone of Crowdspring and getting quotes back for $750, it’s a safe bet that it’s gonna get a lot more crowded in the upcoming months and years (while others are already suggesting that crowdsourcing is broken). In terms of graphic designers as a whole, does all of this mean a lot of the hand-wringing about crowdsourcing has been a reactionary chicken-little freakout? Maybe, but there’s still lots of reasons for designers to be concerned. The main issue is that design buyers are beginning to accept the basic premise of curated spec work sites – that designers are willing to work for free. That doesn’t necessarily translate into more business for “crowdsourcing” sites, but more requests at the buyer level, straight to the service provider themselves. And paradoxically (liking that word), this is also a very real risk to curated spec work sites themselves. Why pay a $39 service fee, or 15% off the top to some site on the internet, when it’s a matter of sending a few e-mails to designers on the local level, or found through a Google search. And those requests aren’t going to be limited to logo design.

Related posts:

1. Twitter graphic $6 proof that design crowdsourcing works? Not quite.
2. The demise of the logo design industry?
3. Defending crowdsourcing & design contests. The platitudes of spec work.

About David Airey

Should probably pony up an impartiality notice here. I not only consider David Airey a compatriot in the logo design business, but a friend. We’ve chatted often online, discussing things related to design. And not. We’re fellow Irishmen, so there’s that too. David’s even helped my daughter out on a college homework assignment, giving her a trans-Atlantic interview (in which he admitted that when he first heard of me, he thought I was a snotty tosh because in those days, I didn’t respond to comments on my blog). I named Airey’s blog the best design blog of 2008 (in a year wrap-up that I have yet to finish for 2009) and have come to respect, and like, the bloke immensely. When David put me on the free copy reviewer’s list (heh, one of the perks of running a blog) I was delighted, and agreed to do a review of his tome. And review it I will, as impartially as possible, and with the preceding notice of my opinion of the author. Should also point out that several of the links presented go to Amazon, and if you buy after clicking, they’ll send a few shekels my way. With those disclaimers outta the way, and without further ado…

Logo Design Love

The first thing that struck me about the cover of Logo Design Love was the simplicity of the design. Trending towards illustrative material, I’ve never been accused of being a simple designer myself, but I can still appreciate effective, simple design and simple, effective logos. I love the way the book is tied into Airey’s blog, sharing not only the logo, but the ‘look and feel’. It’s a nice exercise in branding, which is ultimately what the book is all about (should probably note that Airey was not only responsible for the content, but the cover design and book layout itself).

Inside, you’ll find a wealth of logo design knowledge, tips and case studies (featuring loads of examples from a slew of other designers) that are sure to serve as inspiration for both the advanced and intermediate designer (even though the book is listed on the back cover as being aimed at beginners and intermediates). And that’s the thing that impressed me the most about the book. David has picked the brains of dozens of collaborators – from agency to freelance designers – and rather than being filled with ego-driven ‘how I do things’ blather (sorta what I’d write I suppose), he shares the spotlight with a lot of extremely talented designers.

Examples & case studies

LDL doesn’t feature page after page of boring static examples either. Many of the case studies show the entire design process, from mind-mapping (an interesting chapter) to rudimentary sketches through to final execution. Most of the logos are presented in black and white, before the final color choices are revealed, and demonstrate (quite dramatically) why logos should nearly always be designed in black and white, lest a client be scared off with a color scheme they don’t happen to like. Also, and as a design voyeur, I always love to see how logos shake out in the design process, as well as taking a peek at variations that are tossed midway. If that’s your bag too, there’s lots of eye-candy to take in.

Practical advice

Airey delves into various aspects of logos themselves, from their importance in marketing and branding, to the various elements that iconoclastic logos utilize to make their mark. For the learning designer (aren’t we always learning though?) there’s lots of how-to information, using David’s considerable experience, and drawing from the techniques he uses on a day-to-day basis. I liked the way the book is written too – easy and breezy, layperson language that makes his advice easy to understand (I often get bogged down in the jargon of many other design books). After serving up a heaping serving of case studies and how-to stuff, the book closes with some down-to-earth, and practical, advice for the would-be logo designer. Everything from a substantial Q & A section to 25 practical logo design tips. LDL is laid out in a simple, uncluttered fashion (letting the case studies and examples do the talking) and a bonus point for those of us with tired, old eyes; large Gotham type which was easy for me to read sans specs.

All in all, I’d suggest that Logo Design Love is a must-read for anyone who wants to make their living in the graphic design industry, especially those who want to specialize in the fiercely competitive logo design niche. Maybe a little advanced for the inexperienced designer just starting out (but even they’ll find a lot of pearls in here).

Quibbles

Couple of nit picks – the $42 Canadian retail price tag is a little steep (though this is a problem for all book publishers when attempting to factor in the ever-fluxing exchange rate on the $US). A few of the pencil and pen sketches are a little hard to make out, due to their size and probably due to the original resolution. These are minor points. One only effects Canadian readers (and you can always order the book online for less), and the other might be corrected if I can find my damn specs (which I’ve misplaced since Thanksgiving).

Logo Design Love is published by New Riders of Berkely, California. It’s available here. You can also grab a free chapter here.

Related posts:

1. Best Logo Blog of 2008 – Logo Design Love
2. Logo Design Love
3. Free Logo Design Book – Logopalooza Volume 2

One of the cooler features on being on Twitter (follow us here) is that you’ll bump into like-minded people that you otherwise might not have had the opportunity. Such was the case with my running into Jeremy Tuber (follow him here), an Arizona-based graphic designer who runs the very-appropriately named website, Being a Starving Artist Sucks (indeed it does). I’ve met lots of designers on Twitter, but it’s Jeremy’s pragmatic, almost utilitarian approach to the business side of graphic design that I found notable. Over the months that we’ve chatted back and forth via Twitter and e-mail, I’ve come to see Tuber as a fellow-traveler, someone who believes that graphic design isn’t a glorified hobby or creative outlet but a business. And a business that freelancers need to approach like any other professional does – like their livelihood depends on it.

Jeremy’s also published several books, including Being a Starving Artist Sucks and Verbal Kung Fu, both of which would be excellent additions to any designers’ arsenal. I’m always loath to recommend resources to designers without knowing something about the author, or the book itself, so Tuber sent me over a review copy of his Being a Starving Artist Sucks to take a look at. Not a bad read at all.

The book starts off with a self-diagnostic test where readers are asked to answer a few straightforward questions about pricing, a designer’s interaction with clients, and your general outlook on your flourishing, or floundering (depended on your circumstances), The test is broken into two halves – a pre-read and post-read – so that you can gauge how much you’ve learned once you’ve finished reading the book. And you will learn a lot. Some of the material is fairly basic and aimed at those just starting out on their design careers, but there’s enough information to keep even fairly experienced designers interested and reading on. The book is written in a designer’s language, and deals with concepts, business concerns, client and day-to-day issues that are exclusive to the creative profession. I liked that Tuber’s book isn’t just a reverse engineered re-hash of a standard business fundamentals text like so many other ‘earn money’ websites and manuals. Weighing in at over 500 pages, the book is hefty with pragmatic info, and covers everything from how to pick clients, to how to make sure a logo design job is profitable, to what to do when a client won’t pay your bill. I particularly liked the section that dealt with saving a gig that’s gone completely and utterly off the rails (had a few of those in my day) and even as an ‘Old Dog’ I found several of the chapters fairly enlightening. The thing that stood out the most for me is that Tuber’s main focus is how a designer remain competitive and profitable – something that’s becoming more-and-more difficult in the design industry with each passing day.

The companion book to Being a Starving Artist Sucks is the somewhat oddly-named Verbal Kung-Fu (which, once you understand the concept does actually make sense). Subtitled “Master the Art of Self Defense against Difficult Clients” (see, I told you it made sense), the book takes a very pragmatic approach to defusing problematic situations with clients (we’ve all had them – had one this morning). I didn’t read this one cover-to-cover (apols) but skimming through the various scenarios, I recognized many that I’ve had to deal with (with varying levels of success) over my career. Overall, Verbal Kung Fu appears to be a decent attempt to address some fairly common situations, and ones that you’re likely to run into, if you’ve chosen graphic design as a career.

Both these books are available on iTunes, Amazon (as paperback and on Kindle) and are available from the BASAS website. Jeremy’s also been kind enough to set-up an exclusive page where readers of this blog can get a 10% discount off their purchase. While you’re there, I’d also suggest you check out his “Work Smarter NOT Harder” Contracts and More Package, a fairly comprehensive selection of email templates, questionnaires and contracts that most designers will need at one time or another. Tuber also runs an informative (and often surprisingly frank) blog at his website and is always willing to offer design and business advice via Twitter.

Related posts:

1. Get ‘em while they’re hot. The secrets to your Freelance Dreams…
2. Design is a ‘snooty’ business: Forbes
3. Business card design tips