Now that Gap has announced they’re abandoning their new logo, as well as passing on crowdsourcing for further development, perhaps we should take a look for lessons learned

After an Internet backlash about the new Gap logo late last week, the clothing retailer has now backed down, returning to their original mark, as well as nixing any plans to crowdsource a new design. According to company officials:

“We’ve learned a lot in this process. And we are clear that we did not go about this in the right way. We recognise that we missed the opportunity to engage with the online community. This wasn’t the right project at the right time for crowd sourcing. There may be a time to evolve our logo, but if and when that time comes, we’ll handle it in a different way.”

So, as designers, what can we learn? Several things I think. The first is this silly notion that ‘logos are dead.’ Obviously, logos still resonate with a large percentage of the market, consumers and customers. The second is that designers, when they work together, can exact change in their industry. Remember that when you want to gripe about ‘yet another spec work’ article. According to Ad Age, 80% of Gap customers surveyed, had no idea about the online controversy swirling about the ‘new’ Gap logo, so it’s a safe bet that a lot of the dust-up involved designers. It would therefore seem, despite all the spec work talking points, designers as a whole are still very much opposed to crowdsourcing and design contests.

Related posts:

1. AIGA softening positon on spec and design contests?
2. What logo design secrets can we learn from the top 100 brands?
3. SXSW ’09: Is spec work evil?

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?

The bitter-free, September wrap-up, Tip o’ the Pint, weekend edition of our regular snippets feature. Throwing a little link love to blogs, websites, logos and logo design articles we kinda dug.

To David Airey. Actually, that should be two pints to UK designer David, author of Logo Design Love (book review here). The first is for NOT selling his Logo Design Love website as originally planned. That’s a fab resource for designers and clients alike so it would be really sad to have seen it go. Perhaps to somebody that didn’t feel ‘The Love’ for logos as Airey so obviously does. The second would be for the launch of his new site Identity Designed a new venture that explores brands from around the world. I’d also like to thank David for publishing my guest blog, The Designer and The Tech Guy on LDL. Holdonaminnit. That would be three pints.

To Logo Design Guru. Even though we’ve had some pretty weird issues with Logo Design Guru over the years, I’d like to take this opportunity to hoist a few jars in their general direction. The first round is for removing our artwork from their review sites as we had asked. That’s awfully sporting of them. The second is for removing themselves from the logo design pool and going full-metal spec work with their main site. Anyone now hitting the LDG site will be faced with a bunch of design contests, identical to their other contest site Mycroburst (and LogoGuru.co.uk, et al). More competition for the crowdspecking set I guess. Oddly, despite the fact that ‘design portal’ LogoDesignBlog.org has absolutely nothing (wink, wink) to do with LDG (while ‘reviewing’ them as the best logo design company on the web), that site published a “spec work is the future of the graphic industry” article the day that LDG turned on their design contest format. Even weirder, Mycroburst was then dropped out of the top ten (they had been number two since the site’s launch) and were replaced by David Airey, ‘officially’ making him the second best logo design company in the world. Guess a forth pint should be sent Airey’s way for this achievement too.

To Crowdspring. At times I’ve been a pretty caustic critic of crowdsourcing, design contests and the sites that host them, so it’s only fair that when they do something groovy, I mention that too. Accordingly, I’d like to send a pint the way of Ross Kimbarovsky and Crowdspring for launching their 1-on-1 design service. Unlike their design contest format, these 1-on-1 projects allow design buyers to work with designers in a more traditional designer and client relationship. Of course, I could be a wag and point out that this flies in the face of a good chunk of the ‘crowdsourcing’ meme, and that this is pretty well the way every other design company works (without the upsell), but as this is the bitter-free edition, I won’t. I’d also like to thank Ross for being a good sport about the Darth Vader book cover pictured here. So what’s with the 99designs Borg Cube? Nuttin really. Just figured if I’m gonna show Ross as a central Star Wars character, I needed to doll up the 99designs logo as a fave Star Trek icon.

Bitter-free fairness and all that…

To Printing For Less: For offering clients of The Logo Factory (and readers of this blog I suppose) a ten percent discount on ANY first printing services order. Printing For Less are the preferred printing partner of our shop (after working with loads of online print shops, over the years, with varying degress ot success). To learn why, you can read this.

Related posts:

1. Snippets: Spring Tip o’ the Pint edition
2. Snippets: Battling logos, a couple of Pint Tips, just like 99designs & the IRS logo scam edition
3. Best Logo Blog of 2008 – Logo Design Love

It’s cheap and it’s easy to get something designed at The Design Contest Factory. Just hurry up, before people start catching on

Getting something designed at The Design Contest Factory is real easy. Even though you could totally do it yourself, we’ll help you run a “design contest”, using something everyone’s calling “crowdsourcing”. That’s where a whole bunch of anonymous designers compete to create the best possible design to meet your needs. All you really need is a clear idea of what you want designed and how much you’re willing to pay. Don’t fret over the amount you promise to pay either, cause if you want, you can always ask us for your money back, and you won’t have to pay any stupid prize. You can even help yourself to the ideas that our zany designers have uploaded, and get someone else to render it, before asking for a refund. That’s a lot cheaper than awarding the prize. We’ll keep your $29 ‘listing fee’ if that’s all the same with you. We’ll also keep the money you paid for all those contest listing upsells – bold titles, screened boxes and a link on our front page – ’cause that’s only fair. Running a spec work website is hard, and while designers might be willing to work for free (yeah, we find it hard to believe too) we certainly aren’t. Appreciate if you’d keep that little nugget between us though, as someday, a whole bunch of designers are going to wise up to this whole working for free deal, and then we’re pretty well finished. Torches and pitchforks kinda thing. Obviously, we’d like to put off that day as long as possible, so for the time being, here’s how The Design Contest Factory works…

Step 1: Set Your Budget

We will ask you how much you’re willing to pay the winning designer to purchase their design. This is called the prize. Designers like prizes and stuff. Sometimes we call them awards. Sometimes we call them projects. Let’s just call it all sorts of free. It’s simpler that way. Prize amounts generally range from $100 to $600 depending on the type of design you require. Logo design is probably best. Oh hell, make it a $1,000 if you like. You don’t really have to worry about that figure ’cause if you want, you can cancel the contest for whatever reason that enters your head, whenever you like, and after as many contest entries as you feel is necessary to make your thirty bucks seem well spent. We did mention we keep your listing fee, though, right? And all those upsells. Good. Sometimes, designers will ask you to ‘guarantee’ a contest before they’ll submit anything. Guarantee away. See, here’s the thing. A guaranteed contest isn’t really guaranteed, because you can always dispute the charge with your credit card company. They’re not sure about this crowdsourcing stuff so they’ll probably give you your money back with little hassle. We’d lose our fee, and we can’t have that. Just ask for a refund and all will be peachy.

Step 2: Create Your Design Brief

We will ask you a few simple questions that will form your design brief. Not being designers ourselves, we have absolutely no idea what all the questions mean, but apparently (according to the website we, ahm, borrowed the questionnaire from), a design brief is just a summary of what you need designed. Don’t worry about it right now. Leave the thing blank for all we care. Just click on the submit payment button.

Click it!

After a few designers have uploaded their ideas you can let things pretty well take their course. Don’t worry about wasting the time of the designers fumbling about trying to figure out what it is you want. Designers love designing. A lot. And they’ll gladly design a ton of stuff for nothing (yeah, we still find it hard to believe). As our design community is uber cool, and we don’t want to make you feel fenced in, change your brief at will. As often as you like. Change the name. Change the industry. We’re all cool. The designers aren’t getting paid anything, so what are they gonna do anyway? Not enter your contest and not stand a chance of getting paid? Hah! Remember, designers like ‘guaranteed’ contests. So just guarantee it. And all will be awesome. Remember, it only costs around thirty bucks to post your brief on The Design Contest Factory.

That’s chicken feed.

Step 3: Work with our Designers

Contests usually involve submitting something and then waiting till it gets judged. Or picked at random. Or picked according to some snooty rules and regulations. Not here. For some reason, designers are down with entering contests a whole bunch of times. New versions. Revisions. Edits. (LOL – yeah, we can’t figure it out either). But that’s okay, because once your design brief has been posted to The Design Contest Factory, designers from around the globe will submit design concepts to compete for your prize. It’s your job to rate the designs and provide feedback to help them deliver your groovy vision. Even if you have no idea what that vision is. Use them. Abuse them. Ask for as many revisions and edits as you like. Have a ball. As you’re not paying for any of this, you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to show any restraint. And you know what that is. Awesome! Here’s the thing though. Contest designers need feedback. Even more than a pay check. We realize that it’s a bit much to give every single design feedback (especially that stinkeroo on page four), so we’ve give you feedback tools to use. Stars. Red hearts. Blue hearts. Little trophies. Lightning bolts. The works. Just click on stuff. See, when you click on a lot of stuff, we have contest health indicators that calculate your random hearts and stars into smiley faces. Smiley faces mean your contest is ‘healthy’. That’s good. Because designers like entering ‘healthy’ contests. They look for smiley faces. And by getting stars and hearts and little JPG trophies, designers become better designers. OMG. That is so awesome.

Step 4: Choose Your Favorite Design

At the completion of the design contest (which is typically 7 days, or 14 days, or how ever long you’d like to drag your squirrel fight out, ask for extensions at will) you should choose a winning design and pay the designer the prize amount. Or not. The designer will send you their completed design along with copyright to the original art work. That is, if it’s original, because sadly, as we’ll tell you in a minute, we have no idea if it is. Or isn’t. Because figuring out if something you bought from The Design Contest Factory is original just ain’t our bag.

That’s all there is to it. Except for…

Terms & Conditions

In order to keep The Design Contest Factory as streamlined and democratic as possible, we don’t have much in the way of snooty, elitist terms and conditions. Here’s the important parts: none of these designers actually work for us, so don’t hassle us if things go wrong. And oh yeah, we’re not really responsible for anything that people upload into your contest, cause we don’t know too much about the designers entering, their names, how old they are, where they live or any other pesky details that typically gum up the works. Bottom line, ain’t our problem. And even if we wanted to make it our problem, which we don’t, we couldn’t, because we have no idea who anyone is. Other than some IP number that seems to lead to something called a ‘proxy’ at some dial-up in Uzbekistan.

Copyright claims

If you’re a designer, and one of our designers uploads something that was inspired by stuff you designed, tough titty. Or if they knocked it off completely. If they’re using a free vector from your blog, well, you shouldn’t have given it away for free now, should you? Bottom line. We’re not responsible. We’re not responsible because we say we’re not responsible. We might get around to removing your work if you ask nicely. Or maybe we won’t. Though if you’d keep these little copyright infringement issues on the D/L we’d be forever in your debt. Rather not let contest holders know that a lot of the designs we promised them are copied from someone else. That would only upset them and that’s not what we’re all about. We’re about being a groovy community. And the fun. And keeping bad shit that happens quiet. And we have to tell you that we take stuff down, because if we didn’t tell you we will, we’d be responsible for copyright infringement every time an ‘inspired’ design hits our server. And Lordy, nobody wants that.

Welcome aboard. Click here to launch a contest. Click here to join our community.

Footnote

This article was originally supposed to run as part of our April Fool’s Day prank this spring, but it was nixed as being far too long for that purpose. Reading it again this weekend, figured it was strong enough to run as a stand-alone blog.

Related posts:

1. New! Spec work. Schmeck work. Proudly announcing our groovy new design contest factory!
2. Spec work hackery redux. More of our work copied & entered into 99designs logo design contest
3. How to win a logo design contest

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

As is usual with any high-profile spec work or crowdsourcing ‘event,’ Guy Kawasaki’s recent contest for the cover design of his upcoming book Enchanted raised an internet firestorm with graphic designers claiming that he was “selling out” the design profession. Kawasaki pushed back, claiming that Crowsourcing was the route to go for creativity and choice, gave unknown designers an opportunity, and that designers opposed to crowdsourcing best ‘deal with it’.

As Guy Kawaski himself points out, I have no beef with him (used to read a lot by him, and about him in MacWorld and similar Macintosh evangelist magazines). Should point this out – I don’t consider myself a book cover designer. despite having designed quite a few, during one of my previous lives as a magazine art director, and usually the result of a project that started off with “yo, graphics guy – design a cover for this book.” While most of the titles are now out of print, a few of them sat on bestseller lists for a while. Despite this, I always felt that book covers were left up to people who specialize in, well, book covers as it’s a niche part of the graphic design profession, with an entire subset of rules, techniques and considerations. That’s why, when Kawasaki announced his contest, I followed the conversations about it, and even had a few back and forths about his opinions about spec work and crowdsourcing. I think it’s safe to say he’s pretty much in the pro camp.

For the purposes of this post, we’re going to accept all of Guy’s claims at face value. We’ll grant (if only temporarily) that crowdsourcing and design contests offer unknown and upcoming designers a way to get their foot in the door, and an ‘opportunity’ to design a bestselling book cover for a world famous author. And that crowdsourcing does offer lots of choice, creativity and inspiration for the client (we’re not even going to get into the fairness, exploitation or even pricing debate – other than tell you that Kawasaki offered $1000 for the winning designer).

Hard to argue with the numbers with 240 designers entering. Between them, they produced over 750 entries for the Enchantment cover contest (though I expected more, considering Kawasaki’s high profile – a similar contest for Mega-church preacher Rick Warren‘s now ‘postponed’ The Hope You Need netted him over 3,000 entries). Once the selections were whittled down to 5, Kawasaki opened up voting, and encouraged people through his Twitter account to vote for their favorites (below – winning entry is second from left).

Some of the covers produced, in my somewhat limited expertise with book cover design, were really nice. Especially the version with the heart shaped ribbon (above – second from right). That one really caught my eye (and according to the final votes, a lot of other eyes). Concept is very cool. Tied into the Enchantment theme. Yep, that’s a decent cover alright. Maybe Kawasaki is right and designers were on the wrong track with this crowdsourcing debate. Maybe these design contests were great for sourcing creativity an original ideas. Maybe anyone could design book covers after all, elitist, snooty designers be damned. Maybe. And then again, maybe not.

Related posts:

1. I ain’t Guy’s book cover either
2. Free Logo Design Book – Logopalooza Volume 2
3. The Jon Engle vs. Stockart.com story – an anti-spec work parable?

Related posts:

1. Snippets: Crowdsourcing advice for designers, IE6 must die & more unbiased logo reviews
2. Battle for hearts and minds continues
3. Belgian design agencies shutter websites in virtual ‘strike’ against spec work

As evidenced by features on NPR and in Forbes, spec work, crowdsourcing and design contests remain the darlings of the business media. Sadly, many of the inflated claims made are left unchallenged and become the accepted truth, when often times, they’re not really true at all.

Conversations about spec work and crowdsourcing have turned up in a few media places the last few days, so figured we might as well take a look at what’s what, and offer up our usually dissenting two cents worth. The first was an NPR interview with Crowdspring co-founder Mike Samson, hosted by Bob Garfield as part of his On The Media show. You can listen at the link (also includes a transcript). Nothing terribly earth-shattering, more of a typical puff-piece and glorified press release for Crowdspring. Trouble is, many claims made on the show, some of them quite debatable, are left unchallenged, so thought it might be worthwhile if we took the liberty of, well, challenging them. Fly in the ointment and all that. Don’t want to seem like I’m bagging on Samson, but this sort of stuff happens when the media conflates the issue of crowdsourcing and design contests, with the companies that host them. Having got all that out of the way, let’s begin with the rationale for the show:

BOB GARFIELD: When I wrote my most recent book about the chaos created by the digital revolution, I, of course, needed a cover. In the spirit of my subject matter, I crowdsourced the project through an online site called crowdSPRING.com. More than a hundred designers from around the world took on the project, and the winner got 500 dollars, plus the glory of illustrating The Chaos Scenario.

Glory of illustrating The Chaos Scenario you say? Some glory. When the author of the book hosts a radio show that extols the virtue of crowdsourcing and Crowdspring, and talks about the book cover project itself, he neglects to mention the designer’s name? For the record, the winner of Garfield’s book cover is a designer who no longer participates in Crowdspring contests, but now works for the company as one supposes, a salaried employee. Make of that what you wish.

BOB GARFIELD: Now, digital tools have made your business something like an inevitability, just like the steam engine made mass production of, say, shoes an inevitability. But the Industrial Revolution also spelled very [LAUGHS] bad news for cobblers, the shoemakers who were basically priced out of the market.

MIKE SAMSON: When shoes could be mass produced, all of a sudden many, many, many more people had access to high-quality footwear, and the quality of their life was improved. CrowdSPRING, and platforms like crowdSPRING, provide the same function in a more modest way for the consumers, the buyers of creative services.

The comparison between crowdsourcing and design contests as some sort of Industrial Revolution level event is, to be honest, a load of bollocks. The invention of the printing press, the weaving loom, compugraphic typesetting machines (and in the case of this example. shoe manufacturing assembly lines I guess) represented a bellwether change in the technology of the production system. What once took forty people to do, only took a few operators to accomplish. Or what took a skilled artisan to do, could now be completed by loosely trained, unskilled workers. None of that has occurred in crowdsourcing or logo design contests. Designers still use the same tools and technology. They still have to be fairly skilled and/or talented to cobble (pun intended) together a decent logo design or website. The only thing that’s changed is that rather than getting paid for their cobbling (yep, intented again) they’re not. All crowdsourcing and design contest sites are merely gussied up CMS forums. The method of production, the design process itself, remains largely unchanged and spec designers still put on their Illustrator one leg at a time.

Further, any of the bellwether changes mentioned represented the down-sizing of the work force that was needed to accomplish the exact same task, a ruthless application of capitalist efficiency. Crowdsourcing is actually the complete opposite of that. Hundreds of ‘designers’ now participate, rather than an individual designer or a small sized team. Up-sizing I guess. Crowdsourcing is not like the ‘industrial revolution’ for design but the industrial revolution in reverse. Whereas the industrial revolution increased efficiency, and reduced waste, crowdsourcing and design contests decrease efficiency and increase waste by enormous factors. See, if we insist on using these silly industrial revolution metaphors (I’ve been called a Luddite for opposing unpaid labor from designers), let’s get it right. The ‘steam engine’ event for designers was the advent of desktop publishing software and reasonably priced desktop PCs. That, for anyone keeping score, started happening in the 1990s. The second was the traction of the internet, which allowed designers to market themselves to clients outside their home town, using the same tools and technology as the so-called ‘gatekeepers’ and established majors that we keep hearing about. Those two events ‘leveled the playing field’ long before Crowdspring opened their doors, and are still available for many designers now participating in spec work dog-and-pony shows. They’d be much better if they did, too.

SAMSON: That buyer who comes to crowdSPRING with a 500-dollar book cover project or a 300-dollar logo project couldn’t afford the fee that a traditional designer charges, so their options before a platform like crowdSPRING were very limited.

This chestnut, a very close relative of the $5,000 logo’, is simply not true. Before ‘platforms like Crowdspring’ came along, there were loads of choices and options already available. There still are. Outfits like Crowdspring have to convince the market that so-called ‘traditional’ designers charge far more for design work than they actually do. Besides, and if we wanted to be snarky (not I), and take Samson at face value, before Crowdspring came along, there was always 99designs, where Crowdspring cobbled (never gets old) their business model from.

BOB GARFIELD: But there’s a second question, Mike, and that’s an ethical question concerning the new labor force. When they participate in crowdSPRING, when they bid on my book cover or somebody else’s logo or a webpage design or what have you, 100 or more entries for each project come in. One winner. The winner gets paid poorly, according to the professional scale, and the others get paid not one red cent. Can you explain to me why this isn’t exploitation?

MIKE SAMSON: All of the work that was created for your project, except for that one winning entry, remained the property of the person who created it. They can resell that, they can use it as a template, they can use it in their marketing materials.

I may be a Luddite (snooty too), but I’ve never understood how hundreds of designers working on someone’s project without pay can’t be considered exploitation. But, for the purposes of this discussion, let’s take Samson’s main argument against designer exploitation, that they maintain property rights to their work, at face value. Swell. A hundred designers with an unused book cover design for ‘The Chaos Scenario.” All peachy I suppose, when someone else publishes another book by that title ’cause I’m sure they’ll be just thrilled to buy one of these ‘custom’ designs, the fact that they’re second-hand and recycled notwithstanding. Having said all that, I’m still not sure how this negates the ‘exploitation’ criticism.

SAMSON: We give them the opportunity to create.

More than a little bit of hubris there. Before Crowdspring came along, no-one could ‘create’? Hardly. People could always create. Crowdsourcing sites have only given designers, most of them painfully unaware of the realities of these platforms, the opportunity to submit their creations, to free-for-all contests, while the site charges contest holders a non-refundable listing fee for the privilege of ‘leveraging’ all this lovely free talent. Nothing more. Nothing less. Actually, with the lack of protections in place for participating designers, often a lot less.

BOB GARFIELD: Okay, schnooks like me have used crowdSPRING, and I guess a lot of mom and pops, but others who are not mom and pops have also used platforms like yours. I’m talking about Random House, Barilla Pasta, Epic Records, the metal band Judas Priest. Doesn’t that kind of confirm the worst fears of the established design community?

MIKE SAMSON: Well, yes and no. Big companies do come in and post their project with us. Now, the reason they do so isn’t just to get the artwork or the written content. They’re trying to learn how they can leverage this platform and this process to engage audiences. Judas Priest, frankly, they’ve got plenty of designers who could have designed that tour poster for them. Epic Records has lots of designers on staff who do this every day. But what you can’t do with an in-house design department is you can’t engage the fan base in a way that makes them want to buy merchandise and want to be associated with the band. So when Epic Records posted that project for Judas Priest, they put the word out to the fan clubs and the fan sites, and the fans flocked in to participate.

We touched on this in our Crowdspecking article a while back. This all boils down to intent. When major companies employ design contests, they’re generally of the ‘fire-and-forget’ variety. As Samson correctly points out, large companies have lots of designers on staff, but they use contests to engage their fan base. Getting cheap design stuff isn’t even part of the equation, and participants enter because of their love of the product, service or in this case, rock band. Even then, a major risk of crowdsourcing – plagiarized entries – can raise its ugly head (witness the Cadbury Chocolate label contest, where the winning entry turned out to be knocked off). See, conflating this kind of ‘social media marketing’ with spec work and crowdsourcing (where designers complete projects through revision steps, and even when selected as winner, and awarded the vaunted prize, aren’t finished complying with contest holder revision requests) is to be charitable, apples and oranges. Crowdsourcing, in its current incarnation, is marketed to small business as getting lots of stuff cheap. And I’m left wondering if those Judas Priest fans are still counted as part of Crowdspring’s ‘community’ numbers, cause I got a nickels to donut bet that sez they ain’t hanging around to design pet food logos on Crowdspring.

BOB GARFIELD: You know, it’s funny how a person’s reactions can be different based on whose ox is being gored. What were vague ethical qualms I had when doing my book cover suddenly have me in a full-blown panic, because I can see very clearly that the amount of money that I can fetch for the kind of writing I do, just by virtue of the law of supply and demand, has to go down.

So ethic ‘qualms’ about exploiting the unpaid efforts of others only raises its inconvenient head when it applies to Garfield’s own industry, namely writing? That’s swell, though to be fair, a hat tip to Bob for realizing it. This argument has been used by designers for years now (“As an [insert profession here] would you do work on spec? No? Then why would you expect designers to?”). Trouble is, designers are guilty of the same kind of ethical hypocrisy, largely ignoring the pleas of photographers a few years back, when micro-stock services hammered the professional photography industry. Alas, it’s an easy trap to fall into.

BOB GARFIELD: Them’s pretty words, Mike Samson. They have not, however, been all that soothing to the people on what is called the “no-spec movement,” a group of design schools and businesses and individuals who themselves refuse to produce work on spec and are trying to rally the rest of the crowd to follow the same ground rules. Are they a threat to you?

MIKE SAMSON: No, we don’t think so. We have a community of about 64,000 designers and writers. About 50 percent of those are U.S. based. The membership of the AIGA, which is the leading professional organization of graphic designers in the United States, has a membership that’s a fraction of that size. And that’s nothing against the AIGA as a professional organization, but what it says is there is a need and a hunger out there.

Ah, the numbers game. But hey, if we’re going to throw around stats and percentages, let’s take a look at all the numbers. And all the percentages. See, here’s the thing – as we detailed here, the vast majority of people who sign up for sites like Crowdspring do so without ever entering a single contest. Not a single one. See, it’s free. And you have to sign up to view the ‘community’ forums. At present there are 65,000 ‘creatives’ claimed, yet according to their own stats, over 30,000 registrants have never entered a single ‘project’. Nor, judging by their ‘last seen date’ will they ever. The number of ‘creatives’ that have entered 1, 2 or three contests is similarly in the tens of thousands (Judas Priest fans I guess). The vast majority of designers that do register as participants bail shortly after, so It’s safe to say that most spec and crowdsourcing sites are supported by a fraction of the numbers claimed. The numbers trotted out equal registrants and people who’ve clicked a check box that states they’ll act as ‘creatives’ on the site. For the record (and while I’ve never been a big fan of AIGA or a big believer in trotting out statistics for the reasons I just illustrated) the AIGA claims 22,000 members. Those are paid-up, participating members by the way, so Crowdspring’s ‘our dick is bigger than their dick’ claim is a tad silly. And doesn’t really mean jack.

BOB GARFIELD: Their claim is that not only does a user of spec material prey on an exploited class of labor, it also generates inferior results. However, the Wright Brothers were bicycle mechanics. Do you have to be a professional designer to create professional designs?

MIKE SAMSON: No, you don’t, frankly. The Nike logo was produced by a student who reportedly received about 20 dollars in payment. I understand she did get some Nike stock which paid off over time. But I think that history is rife with examples like those of, quote, unquote, “amateurs” producing phenomenal work.

You would think that after trotting the Nike logo chestnut out for the umpteenth time, Mike would at least start getting the story right. The Nike Swoosh logo was created in 1971 by graphic design student Carolyn Davidson, who was hired for the job and billed $35.00, based on a rate of $2.00 per hour (around minimum wage at the time – I was making $2.35 an hour for my first job five years later, the result of mandated minimum wage increases). Using this price tag, from the seventies, to somehow justify design contests in 2010, is an often employed tactic, though ludicrous at first blush. And as Samson points out, Davidson did get more of a payday from the athletic company in 1983 when Nike gave Davidson a gold Swoosh gold ring and an envelope filled with an undisclosed amount of Nike stock to express their gratitude. See Mike, it’s not about ‘amateur’ vs. ‘professional’. It’s not even about whether work designed through crowdsourcing is ‘inferior’ or not (that’s another argument entirely, but directly tied into my next sentence). It’s about paying people for their work.

Up to now, a fairly basic principle in supposedly civilized societies.

Related posts:

1. Snippets: Crowdspring to offer spec writing, NEA holds a spec work contest & other news
2. SXSW “Is Spec Work Evil?” panel transcript
3. Defending crowdsourcing & design contests. The platitudes of spec work.

It’s not often that I snark on an individual blog post but will this time, partially to illustrate the lengths some companies will go to promote their design contest sites, but mostly ’cause Charlie asked.

Charlie B. Johnson (uh-huh) over at Graphic Design Blog is at it again, publishing a blog post entitled Do famous companies prefer Logo Design Contests – Yes or No? With Charlie’s awkward connections to Logo Design Guru‘s design contest site Mycroburst, I was willing to bet that the answer would be a resounding “yes”. Luckily, after reading the post, I wasn’t disappointed. But he did ask the question. So, I’ll try to answer.

Teeing up his evidence, Charlie tells us that there are “numerous irrational squabbles” going on about logo design contests, and that a “handful of designers, adverse to the concept of design contests, are lamenting over the emergence of this unique trend“. Irrational, Charlie? Hardly. There’s lots of designers who have laid out reasoned and rational arguments on blogs, forums and websites. Hell, even we took a rather sober look at the practice trying to avoid any lamenting. Tried to duck wailing or gnashing of teeth too. Ain’t a handful either Charlie. Practically every graphic design organization in the world. And a good chunk of the professional designers you’re going to run into. See, that’s the point Charlie. Only people who run design contest sites, Mycroburst let’s say, are completely gung-ho with the concept. Even participating designers would prefer to get paid for their work. You don’t have anything to do with Mycroburst or it’s parent company do you Charlie? Nah, of course not. ‘Cause that wouldn’t be very cool. Acting all independent and stuff, while pushing the site onto designers who’re not aware of your affiliation. There is that rather large Mycroburst ad on every page of your blog though, but I’m sure that’s just an oversight.

Toyota logo contest

Charlie then holds up a few famous companies to illustrate how they ‘prefer’ logo contests when it comes to their branding. First up: Toyota, who under their first family-oriented name Toyoda Automatic Loom Works Ltd., did just like Charlie claims, holding a logo competition way back in 1938, receiving 27,000 (or 200, depending on the source) entries (how a logo contest in 1938 illustrates how Mycroburst-like sites is an “emerging trend” is anyone’s guess). Trouble is, none of the entries sat terribly well with the Toyoda family (partially due to Japanese numerology superstitions), so they altered one of the logos themselves, adding a brushstroke which changed the company name to Toyota. The history is a little complicated, and even a bit murky, but overall not too good for the ‘pro contest’ argument. In any case, that logo’s pretty well gone, and other than some employee pins (left), watches (right) and stickers for retro car memorabilia fans, it’s been relegated to the Toyota archives. Ain’t famous either, cause I be a lot of people reading this post are seeing it for the first time. Once the automobile company went world-wide, they used a simple font mark that spelled out Toyota (I remember that one. Stared up at me from the steering wheel of an old Cargo Van I used to drive). Further, the design that Charlie’s holding up as an example of a ‘famous company preferring logo contests’ (above) wasn’t designed by a contest, but was launched in 1989, shortly after Toyota announced their new Lexus line of premium automobiles, in order to differentiate between the two brands. Where did I get this info? Why, straight from the Toyota website.

Olympic Air logo contest

When Olympic Airlines, the national airline of Greece, was sold by the Greek government to Marfin Investment Group, the new owners decided to change the name to Olympic Air and hold, tah-dah, a logo contest. Charlie’s got that part right. Now, take a look at the old logo (above left) and compare it to the new logo (above right). Not much difference between the two. See, this contest was a publicity gimmick, and didn’t involve the design of a logo, but the tweaking of what already existed. Couldn’t wander too far from the original brand because Olympic Airlines still existed for a while after the acquisition. While this may be an example of a ‘famous company’ using a logo design contest, it isn’t a particularly good one. Brand New does an excellent job of chronicling the contest and dissecting the results.

Google flavicon ‘contest’

Not much of a contest actually. After messing about with a whole bunch of different flavicons for Google related sites (and generally being hammered for most attempts) big G turned to users to ‘suggest’ some alternatives. They ended up going with a style that was ‘inspired’ by André Resende, a computer science undergraduate student at the University of Campinas in Brazil. Apparently, André was the first to recommend a white lower-case ‘g’ on a colored background. While being mentioned as the ‘inspiration’ for the new flavicon, Google didn’t actually use his submission as is, telling us on their blog that the new version was an “reinterpretation of one contest submission” and that

Although we changed the color layout slightly and moved the ‘g’ off center, his submission formed the basis for our new design. Incorporating all four of Google’s colors (red, yellow, green, and blue) into the four corners of the favicon was a theme we liked in many submissions. We also saw this idea in the designs submitted by Hadi Onur Demirsoy, Lucian E. Marin, and Yusuf Sevgen.

See, if this was a logo design contest, and as Google didn’t use any of the submissions, it would hardly be considered a ringing endorsement of same. But as a flavicon isn’t a logo, arguing the matter would be kind of pointless. So we won’t. Granted, Google does host on ongoing series of Doodle 4 Google logo contests, but they’re aimed at K-12 high school students and don’t represent logos per se.

EU Organic Certification logo contest

Not everyone was thrilled with the contest, or the three logos they had to choose from. Organic association Bioform issued a statement by director Leen Laenens, supposedly representing “many” in the industry, that read in part “they (the three proposals) have no visible link with the sector. One could ask the question whether the consumer is aware the an organic product is involved“.

Okay, you can’t please everyone all the time, so if the European Union was a ‘famous company’, I suppose this could be an example of a ‘famous company preferring logo design contests’. But it isn’t. So it’s not.

Spud Webb Enterprises logo contest

Charlie rounds off his examples of famous companies using logo contests with some outfit called Spudd Web Enterprises. I’m not a big basketball fan, but apparently that company is owned by Anthony Jerome Webb, who according to Wiki is “better known as Spud Webb, is a retired American NBA professional basketball point guard. He is currently the President of Basketball Operations for the unnamed D-League franchise in Frisco, Texas“. Qualifies as ‘famous’ I suppose, but oddly (not really) this is an ongoing contest on Mycroburst (quelle surprise) and is, as Charlie tells us, “a big slam dunk opportunity for logo designers who have the opportunity to win USD $300“. Cool and everything, but all this to pimp a link to a Mycroburst logo contest? Or some more SEO folly? Seems so. Out of common courtesy, I’m not going to hack on other designers’ work, or raid any of the logos, so you’ll have to decide for yourself how well this contest is panning out.

See Charlie, I’ve never been shy about debating the spec work and design contest issue. But if we’ve axes to grind, let’s be upfront about the axes. That’s not to say ‘famous companies’ don’t use logo contests. They do. There’s the Dish logo contest on Crowdspring. There was the CP+B gig for electric motorcycle manufacturer Brammo too. I guess Charlie doesn’t want to link to competitive sites so the examples he’s got to work with are sorta thin. Which kinda puts paid to the objectivity of the entire premise and his rather awkwardly worded closing question (which I’ll quote, running the risk of getting boned by Google for keyword stuffing):

“If logo design contests are allegedly bad, then why famous corporations have been opting for them? After witnessing such legendary cases of corporate identities, do you still believe that logo design contests warrant the cynicism they get? Don’t you think ”logo design contests” have been playing an important role in providing memorable logo designs to the industry?”

Must have missed the “legendary cases of corporate identities” in Charlie’s article, but no mind. Though I might argue that it’s posts like this driving some of the “cynicism” he refers to. And in closing, let’s take a look at the payouts of the examples, just to see how peachy keen logo contests are for participating designers. EU Organic logo contest: €6,000 prize ($8,006). Cool. Olympic Air logo contest: €20,000 prize ($26,690). Cool. Mycroburst logo contest: €224 prize ($300). Not so much.

Oddy, I’m reminded of apples. And a lot of oranges.

[1936 Toyoda Model AA (main photograph): Mytho88]

Related posts:

1. Fonts used in famous logos…
2. Again with the design contests
3. More on those fabulous logo design contests…

From the “Here We Go Again” Department. No point in rehashing the dangers of logo design contests, save this simple “spec work is bad” equation:

A whole bunch anonymous people who may, or may not, be actual designers +
A very small chance of getting paid for their design work +
A web-based logo design contest on ANY ‘design contest’ site =
An extraordinarily high risk of copied work.

The proof, as they say, is always “in the pudding“. So let’s take a look at some recent pudding from our old pals at 99designs, this time in a logo contest for the good folks at Storm Factory, undoubtedly nice people who like to think of themselves as an “awesome entertainment company“. The brief for the $270 contest is pretty straight forward, asking for a design that incorporates “a factory and/or a storm in some kind of creative way.” Cool. This tanning salon logo (designed by our shop back in 2003) features a factory (right), so let’s add some lightning bolts (in a “creative” way I suppose) and we’re all set. Not that this is the contest holder’s fault (other than holding a contest in the first place). They can’t be expected to know every logo in the history of ever. And as 99designs can’t, or won’t, monitor every single contest on their server, identifying knocked-off stuff is left to other contest participants. As is notifying 99designs administrators about the hackery (though “please do this very quietly, lest contest holders realize they’re paying for a bunch of copied logos that they can’t use” seems to be the policy de jour). Not that this “let’s leave monitoring contests to the plebes” concept always works out so well. Anyone remember this spec work parable when it didn’t?

As is generally the case, and after being notified, the lads at 99designs quietly withdraw the copied design (or as in this case, multiple variations) from the contest proper, but leave it on their server so that others can be, ahm, inspired by it (or for search engine rankings, whichever comes first). You can’t imagine how thrilled I am to have work that’s been cribbed from our logo design portfolio, being used to promote 99designs and their services. Nor, how positively chuffed I am knowing that when 99designs claims they’re a better alternative to our shop, or other designers, because “clients” get “more design options“, some of those “more design options” are ripped straight from our galleries. And those of other designers and design firms. While we’re at it, wonder if ripped designs count in the “97 designs” average submissions per contest these guys claim?

Meanwhile, the would be designer who’s now shown us that he’s not above lifting others’ work so blatantly, is free to enter more contests held by unsuspecting contest holders. He’s active in six right now. Ain’t the first time this nonsense has happened. Or the second time either. Copied designs being entered into logo contests and so-called crowdsourcing sites is a regular occurrence. Or is this just another example of someone being a snooty designer who won’t get with the program?

Related posts:

1. Yet another 99designs logo contest knock-off
2. New! Spec work. Schmeck work. Proudly announcing our groovy new design contest factory!
3. How to enter a logo design contest in ten minutes flat. Without having to design anything