The Logo Factor Design Blog » spec

Belgian design agencies shutter websites in virtual ‘strike’ against spec work

Steve Douglas — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:02:19 +0000

Over the next week, if you visit the website of any leading design or advertising agency in Belgium, you’re likely to find a white screen and message that looks something like this:

A spec work manifesto?

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

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

Worthwhile effort or publicity stunt?

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

Who’s participating?

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

The Politics of a Spec Design Pitch

Steve Douglas — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:45:14 +0000

Update: Ruh-oh. According to AdFreak it looks like the ad was approved by WWF Brazil and DID run (just once) in a Brazilian newspaper.

“WWF Brasil and DDB Brasil would like to jointly express their regret for the unfortunate incident involving the ‘Tsunami’ ad for World Wildlife Fund Brasil. The ad does not convey either the philosophy of the client or that of its advertising agency. It was created and approved in late 2008, mistakenly, and was solely the result of lack of experience on the part of a few professionals from both parties involved. In no way was it done in bad faith or with disrespect to American suffering. WWF Brasil and DDB Brasil acknowledge that such an ad never should have been made, approved or published. We reiterate our apologies to all those who may have been offended by it. The two entities have worked together for three years to mobilize people, efforts and resources for the good of the environment. A single error should not obscure past successes, nor prevent future ones.”

Dammitall. Michelle Malkin was right (that’s a personal facepalm right there). And so much for the spec work angle.

Update: Jesus. There’s even a video version of the advertisement. WWF Brazil and DDB both deny any involvement. Guess this all makes the following blog post kinda moot.

———————-

This post isn’t one of my usual anti-spec work rants. Just a look at how a very provocative ad, pitched on spec, rejected by the client and then entered into a design competition (apparently without the ‘client’s’ knowledge) can touch off a political firestorm. Take a look at the image above. Shows a whole bunch of airliners headed towards Manhattan. A Manhattan, by the way, that still features the Twin Towers intact.

The tagline reads “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.”

Powerful stuff, no doubt, but almost certain to garner some emotional response IF the ad was ever published. Which, not so surprisingly, it wasn’t. The ad was pitched to the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) on spec (speculative work) by ad agency DDB Brazil. The ad was rejected and never ran. Here’s the thing – the piece was entered into the One Show advertising competition, where it won first place merit award in the Public Service/Political Print – Newspaper or Magazine category. Trouble is, the WWF is listed as the ‘client’. So have a provocative image (911). A touchy subject (global warming). A environmental organization. Cue up the right wing rage machine.

Never one to let a chance to bash liberals and lefties, In a post entitled Environmentalists green-washing 9/11, conservative pundit Michelle Malkin writes on her blog,

Take a look at a new print ad produced by DDB Brazil for the World Wildlife Fund: The appalling tagline states: “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it.” Translation: Forget about those puny jihadists. The planet is the real terrorist threat. According to AdFreak, WWF denies responsibility for the ad. Which is curious. Because DDB, the ad agency, seems to have a lengthy track record of being tied vile ads that their clients keep disavowing… So, how is it that the WWF didn’t know about the ad? It won a public service “merit award” earlier this year. Was the WWF unaware of DDB’s checkered history? The denials from the companies that keep hiring this ad agency are starting to ring hollow, don’t you think?

All the hot buttons are there. Islamic Terrorism. A slam of the WWF. A dig at environmentalists. She even manages to pivot the discussion and connect the ad to John Kerry‘s position on climate change. Goes as far to call it a 911 ‘eco ploy’. And all from one free pitched spec ad. That the WWF apparently rejected for all the reasons mentioned. According to their website

“WWF strongly condemns this offensive and tasteless ad and did not authorize its production or publication. It is our understanding that it was a concept offered by an outside advertising agency seeking our business in Brazil. The concept was summarily rejected by WWF and should never have seen the light of day. It is an unauthorized use of our logo and we are aggressively pursuing action to have it removed from websites where it is being currently featured. We strongly condemn the messages and the images portrayed in this ad. On behalf of WWF, here in the US and around the world, we can promise you this ad does not in any way reflect the thoughts and feelings of the people of our organization.”

Is there a lesson in here somewhere? I think so. And it’s probably got something to do with our old bugaboo, spec work and how it’s never such a good idea. But we’ll leave that for another day.

Hat tip to David Airey who brought this to my attention on Twitter and to Micheal Surtee’s Design Notes for the background.

A really, really SPECtacular series of links…

Steve Douglas — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:24:41 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter graphic $6 proof that design crowdsourcing works? Not quite.

Steve Douglas — Sat, 09 May 2009 16:07:57 +0000

In the ongoing back-and-forth debate (well, not exactly a debate – more of a series of talking points and opposing vents) about so-called design “crowdsourcing”, design contests and spec work, there are arguments floated, often by people who should know better, that beg to be looked at a little more closely. Here’s one such example – The supposed “crowdsourcing” of the Twitter ‘birdie’ graphic that sits on the homepage of the increasingly popular social media site.

“Oh look” people who are all for spec work and “crowdsourcing” sites exclaimed breathlessly, “Even Twitter crowdsourced their logo design, and paid six bucks for it. Take that you snooty designers!”.

WIred Magazine got into the action, heralding on their blog that Twitter Paid $6 or Less for Crowdsourced ‘Birdie’ Icon (they later changed “Icon” to “Graphic”), and in the middle of their feature plastered this complete non-sequitur :

Some designers claim crowdsourcing is evil because it devalues their work by driving down prices, allowing amateurs into the game and forcing people to work “on spec,” meaning that they don’t get paid unless their design is chosen. Others see it as a natural evolution driven by supply, demand and technology.

The Business Insider took up the baton with a Twitter Paid Designer $6 For Its Icon post, as did a whole bunch of others, and it was off to the races. The news began to spool out across the internet and landed on Twitter itself, where it was heralded by people not-opposed-to-spec-work, including spec-driven Crowdspring, who were obviously thrilled of the insinuation, tweeting this little pearl -

Well, IF the Twitter birdie WAS an example of design “crowdsourcing”, then it might make a powerful argument FOR spec work and “crowdsourcing”. Imagine, paying only six bucks for an iconic image that has become part of the online experience itself. Users on Twitter (never hesitant to re-tweet any news that seems remotely relevant) began to send the news through their feeds too.

Guess that settles it. After all, Twitter is the latest and greatest thing. They used a “crowdsourced” graphic as their logo. Ergo, if design “crowdsourcing” is good enough for Twitter, then it’s good enough for everyone. Conclusion – spec work is all dandy, thank you very much, and six dollars is a reasonable rate for any graphic design services.

Ahm – let’s not be too hasty.

Firstly, the Twitter bird graphic wasn’t “crowdsourced” at all – either by the accurate use of the word, or the amusingly inaccurate repackaging of the word by outfits like Crowdspring and 99designs. The Twitter graphic was stock art, limited rights to which were purchased from istock photo. No crowd. No sourcing. No gaggle of designers vying for some prize. Just an illustration that a solitary Japan-based designer called Simon Oxley had uploaded to iStock Photo. The use didn’t include ANY exclusivity at all, and the graphic was (and I believe still is) available to anyone with a credit card and an online connection. The designer hadn’t actually made six bucks on this particular artwork, but several THOUSAND, as the rights to use the artwork (an important distinction) had been purchased hundreds of times over. And while it could certainly be argued that Twitter were cheap bastards, it can’t be argued that they paid six bucks for their logo or “icon” (but why would we let something like accuracy stand in the way of a compelling story on why “crowdsourcing” is cool).

But wait – it gets even better. See, there’s this website, called Twiter.com (no doubt set up to snare people who misspell the real Twitter – notice the missing letter ‘T’), that’s nothing more than a spam hub with lots and lots of Twitter related affiliate links which may, or may not, be valid. Or even legitimate. And lookee here – they’re using the same ‘birdie’ graphic as the real Twitter, probably paying six buck to istock as well. I’m sure that didn’t happen by accident. And now, lots of people landing on this page, by misspelling Twitter in their browser address window, will see the iconic bird and believe that they’ve arrived on the real McCoy. They won’t question all the spammy links presented, trust factor of a brand and all that, and there ain’t a thing that the real Twitter can do about it, because they don’t own the graphic, the trademark or the copyright to the stock artwork.

So, as it turns out – the $6 “crowdsourced” birdie logo that somehow proves “crowdsourcing” works, ain’t “crowdsourcing”, isn’t a logo and if anything, proves that stock art is a particularly bad way to create a corporate brand, at least if you want to avoid people riding your coattails. And attempting to fool your users into believing they’ve arrived on your website. When they haven’t.

Yet another 99designs logo contest knock-off

Steve Douglas — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:57:50 +0000

Often times, the submissions to logo design contests aren’t very creative. Case in point…

Sigh. Every time I write about our work getting jacked and entered into a 99designs logo contest, I usually receive some e-mails advising me that I shouldn’t make such a fuss. Just an “isolated incident” I’ve been assured. Ironically, on more than one occasion. Well, here’s another one of those ahm, “isolated incidents”. This coffee lounge logo lifted from our gallery (inset above), rejigged and entered into this contest on 99designs’ website (below). This one is a particularly nasty rework, no doubt created by running the original image through Adobe Illustrator‘s handy-dandy Live Trace. Not terribly well, at that.

While the so-called ‘creative’ (apparently on their first outing) has tried to reverse engineer the word coffee back into the design, they neglected to notice the outline of the exclamation mark from the original. Wonderful. Ripping our stuff isn’t good enough. They have to make it look bad as well? It’s at this point I usually launch into my anti-contest screed. Logo contests are bad for business.. don’t work.. clients and designers get ripped.. not a professional solution. Yaddy. Yadda. Yadda. Alas, I’m just getting over a bout of the flu (no, not swine) so I’m not up to my usual indignation.

Though if this keeps up, I’m going to be sending the good folks at 99designs a bill for consultation and art direction fees. From the amount of links to our website (“this is the kind of logo we’re looking for“) to absolute knock-offs being entered into their contests, it only seems fair.

The Jon Engle vs. Stockart.com story – an anti-spec work parable?

Steve Douglas — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:15:26 +0000

When taking a look at the Stock Art hullabaloo from last week, I think the immediate lesson to be learned is that in today’s Web 2.0 world, with its instant internet echo chamber, mob mentality can be a very dangerous thing. An equally important lesson involves our old buggaboos – logo design contests, spec work and it’s newly approved corporate label “crowdsourcing”. I’ve tub-thumped that issue for years now (my first anti-logo design contest screed dates back to 2002) and all along I’ve warned about the possibility of business owners selecting a design that’s been ripped off from somewhere else as their new corporate identity. I wondered aloud about how long it would take for a very high-profile incident to occur that would illustrate exactly how dangerous spec work, logo contests and design “crowdsourcing” really are.

Well folks, here it is.

Turns out the StockArt.com vs Jon Engle episode, after all the twists and turns have been investigated, is a powerful anti-spec parable. If we take a look at the artwork and illustrations in dispute, we’ll see that many of the stock images were entered into logo design contests on a website called Design Outpost, a spec driven contest forum that bills itself as “A Different Kind of Design Firm” (you can view some contest vs. Stock Art comparisons here – the original posts and artwork are beginning to disappear from Design Outpost‘s contest forums).

If the overall plagiarism issue wasn’t big enough, it now turns out that several of the submissions were selected by the contest as “winning entries”. That means the contest holders used them for their company logo. And now (in some cases years after the contests were finished), those firms are receiving pretty heavy letters from a well-heeled legal firm, asking them the all important question – “You’re using our client’s artwork in your logo. Do you have the license to do so?”. And if they don’t, a sizable bill is probably on the way. Or worse. Trouble is, there are instances when the disputed designs have found their way onto products, book covers and packaging. Doesn’t matter if the companies involved change their logos now – the damage has already been done. Let’s not mention being connected to this public relations nightmare, as half the internet tries to untangle the story of Jon Engle and his self-proclaimed David vs, Goliath battle.

If, as Stock Art claims, Engle used their artwork without proper licensing and entered it into design contests, then the companies now using that work are on the hook. If, in the increasingly unlikely event, but as Engle claims, Stock Art “stole” his designs, then there’s some companies whose logos are now available as stock art and being used all over the internet and quite likely, the print world too. Either way, it’s a bad scene for the companies involved and in both scenarios, the inclusion of the artwork into logo design contests allowed it to happen.

Lest we be tempted to believe that this is an isolated case, on an isolated website, let’s also take a look at this contest on Chicago-based design “crowdsourcing” platform Crowdspring. While the entries are now ghosted out (the contest closed in February), we can still see that 32 of the contest entries (from two designers) can be tracked back to iStockPhoto, a stock photography and illustration website. Problem is, iStockPhoto strictly prohibits the use of their illustrations as logos. How am I familiar with this contest? When Crowdspring very loudly hit the scene in February, it was one of a few contests that I decided to follow, selecting it from a random link on the Crowdspring home page. I noticed the injection of what appeared to be iStock designs early on, and quickly searched the stock site using obvious keywords. Sure enough, the vector images had been culled from iStock‘s rather large collection.

Not wanting to jump the gun (there was a possibility that the original illustrator was a ‘creative’ in Crowdspring‘s community and may have entered their own work), I found out the name of the original illustrator, and contacted them directly via e-mail. They had no knowledge of the work being entered, and wrote the Crowdspring management regarding the issue. The images were deleted, and then resubmitted throughout the contest until eventually, one of the ‘creatives’ was banned. Trouble is, there was another iStock image from the SAME illustrator, that nobody noticed until I notified Crowdspring, and the other designer, about that one too.

Rather than allowing an ‘ah-ha’ moment to play out (and as much as it would have made great blog fodder), I informed the powers that be (staying mum to the buyer), saving Crowdspring, and their ‘client’ a lot of grief (they can thank me later). It looked like one of the iStock images stood a pretty good chance of winning (as much as one can interpret the goings on of a design contest) and I didn’t want to see some young talented designer get his work misappropriated. I also didn’t want to see a small business owner get hung out to dry because he had decided to farm out his logo to a spec-driven logo contest and picked a winning design that he couldn’t legally use.

None of this is a secret. The staff on Crowdspring know this is a problem, even addressing the issue as a blog post and on their forum. Trouble is, that was 9 months after launch and after God knows how many iStock submissions later (whether the iStock issue I was involved with had any bearing on this sudden interest remains to be seen).

Unfortunately, this is all part and parcel of the spec design model, and a subject that Crowdspring themselves described with a fairly blithe statement – “it does happen” – when asked about it. Yes it does, but it shouldn’t. And it’s why a logo design contest is an extraordinarily risky way to ANY small business to farm out their corporate identity to. Logo design contest sites will blather on how their sites are self-policing and what-not, but in the examples we’re talking about, nobody realized about the iStock submission until I – a Crowdspring critic – started the ball rolling. In the case of Jon Engle, he had been submitting logos into contests that allegedly feature Stock Art material as far back as 2007. So much for self-policing.

Interestingly, as the Stockart.com vs. Jon Engle issue sucked the oxygen out the internet for a few days last week, Mallesh Bonigala, the CEO of Logo Design Works, issued this missive via his Twitter account. Alas, it was more-or-less lost in all the Stock Art noise.

According to the linked post, a ‘creative’ on 99Designs had helped themselves to a crab illustration from the Logo Design Works mascot portfolio, and entered it into a contest on the Australian based 99Designs website. It didn’t win, but it could have. And as this incident happened in the same week as the Stock Art fiasco unfolded, I think it’s safe to say that none of these are isolated events.

Happened to us too, as early as 2004 when several designs ripped from our portfolio ended up in Sitepoint logo contests, with one being selected as the winner before being identified by other ‘creatives’. Who’s Sitepoint? They happen to be the company and website that spawned 99Designs. And it’s not just Sitepoint, Design Outpost, Crowdspring or 99Designs. There’s also this incident. And this one too. I think it’s safe to say that logo contest and design “crowdsourcing” submissions are rife with copied, stolen and unlicensed artwork.

All of this begs the question – when copied or unlicensed artwork gets entered into spec logo contests (and in some cases, even wins), how liable are the design contest sites themselves? What legal exposure do they shoulder for their ‘creatives and to their ‘buyers’? Oh sure, they’ve got disclaimers that tell us they’re not responsible for what goes on in their forums, and that they’re not liable should purloined artwork get passed off on their site. I think the fact that all of these design contests collect money – either as a percentage of the designer’s winnings, a contest fee or a service charge tacked on to the overall prize money, would certainly expose them in some way. I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that even though most coat-check services feature signs that tell us that they’re not responsible should your coat get stolen, the fact that they collect five bucks to watch your coat renders those signs impotent. And finally, what about design “crowdsourcing” sites’ liability to the original designer whose work gets ripped and entered into contests that they’re hosting, promoting and earning revenue from? I think ‘legal quagmire‘ just about covers it. Should also point out that whatever legal protections are being claimed, they only cover the asses of the “crowdsourcing” websites and NOT their buyers, self-labelled ‘creatives’ or the designers who happen to get their work lifted.

In terms of this discussion I do know that The Intellectual Property Group, the legal firm representing Stock Art have tried to contact Design Outpost, but have yet to hear back. Other than that “statement”, any further questions I had were met with “no comment”. Guess we’ll have to wait and see how that plays out. It’s also worthwhile to note that any post featuring Stock Art artwork starting going down the memory hole yesterday afternoon, being yanked en mass from the Design Outpost website. Other than the examples I did manage to find, we’ll never really know the extent of the damage.

If it turns out that he was pilfering Stock Art‘s website to enter their illustrator’s work into design contests as his own, while I’m hesitant to call Jon Engle a victim of spec-work (though I do have some sympathy for him), it certainly looks like spec work might have been a motivating factor. Why spend time developing concepts for a company logo when there’s a high likelihood that the design won’t get picked, nor the ‘creative’ paid for his efforts. Pick an obscure website, incorporate their art into spec logos, enter them into as many contests as possible. They probably won’t win, so no-one should be the wiser. And it they do win, the companies purchasing the logos won’t be in business very long, or will remain small enough, and the internet large enough, that nobody will ever connect the dots. The events of the past week have proven that this is demonstrably not true and a very large issue when the dots eventually do get connected.

If I owned a design contest or logo “crowdsourcing” site, I would quickly be searching all the previous contests to see what unlicensed and ripped-off artwork had already be entered, trying to head off any issues before they arise (though disappearing threads and images is often interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt). I’d also be getting a little more attentive to the frequent IP violation e-mails that are often slagged off by administrators.

If I were a client or ‘buyer’ at one of these sites, I’d be seriously re-evaluating the wisdom of farming out my company logo to a gaggle of unknown designers, many of whom aren’t getting paid and some of whom have zero motivation to actually design original work. On a website that’s legal disclaimer actually tells me that ripped off (or unlicensed) design work is a very real possibility. Is saving a few bucks, or getting a few more poorly crafted logo options, worth what is obviously a very bad risk? If it were my company, I’d know the answer.

If I were a designer on one of these sites, it could break two ways. If I had uploaded material that was, ahm, influenced by someone else, I would be deleting the work as fast as humanly possible, closing up my account and starting anew. If I were one of the seemingly fewer and fewer legitimate designers trying to make a few bucks on spec work or “crowdsourcing” websites, I would seriously reconsider the kind of business model I was supporting. If I were still expending the kind of energy and time required to develop original work, I’d have to keep this in mind – many of the designers I’m competing against, aren’t. While we’re talking about “leveling the playing field and all that”, supposedly the raison d’etre for these “crowdsourcing” websites in the first place.

As far as the hapless Mr. Engle goes, I think regardless of which way his tale eventually plays out, this much is certain – spec work, “crowdsourcing” and logo design contests are at the very heart of it.

SXSW ’09: Is spec work evil?

Steve Douglas — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:49:44 +0000

For the few of you who don’t know, SXSW (South by South West) ’09 kicks off this weekend in Austin, Texas, with the Interactive Festival opening tomorrow. One of the interactive panels being promoted concerns the ongoing debate about design contests and it’s euphimistic cousin ‘design crowdsourcing’. Hosted my Mike Samson, co-founder of Chicago based Crowdspring, a company thats entire business model consists of selling unpaid spec work as a ‘service’ (nope, no axe to grind there), the panel is being presented as ‘Is spec work evil – the online design community speaks‘. For the few people out there who don’t know what ‘spec’ work is – I’ll try to sum up: it’s when a designer creates artwork for a paying project in the hopes of having their artwork selected, in order to get paid for that work. Think design contest as opposed to, oh, I dunno, a professional trade. Design organizations like AIGA and RGD have generally frowned upon ‘spec work’ as being ‘unethical’ and have campaigned against the practice for years. While I have a hard time branding designers who participate as ‘unethical’ – shortsighted perhaps, but many have their reasons and motivating factors – I have absolutely no qualms about describing people who try to profit from the ‘spec’ work of others as ethically challenged. And it’s going take a lot more than a few articles in Forbes to change that position.

The ongoing spec work controversy

But back to the panel at SXSW. “Is spec work evil?” A little on the hyperbolic side, but okay, I’ll bite. No. I’ve generally thought of ‘evil’ as understanding the difference between right and wrong and choosing wrong, so spec work can’t be ‘evil’ in and of itself. Now, if you were to ask me the same question from a different angle – say “are the people who try to make money off the backs of designers performing spec work evil?” I might be sorely tempted to answer “yes”.

“I’d have a little more respect for them if they just told critics to go fuck ourselves, rather than this passive-aggressive bullshit that passes for public relations.”

To be honest, I’m starting to get a little tired of outfits like Crowdspring going to the PR lengths they are, in order to defend their rights to make profit off the un-paid labors of others, and to present it as some sort of step-up for the people not getting paid. I’d have a little more respect for them if they just told critics to go fuck ourselves, rather than this passive-aggressive bullshit that passes for public relations. There’s not much room for debate. People are either pro-spec (usually people who’s business model is built on the un-paid labors of others) or anti-spec (people who make a living at design). Neither side is likely to give the other sway. Crowdspring want, rather need, designers to work for free. Professional designers want, rather need, to get paid. Even designers who participate in design contests would prefer to get paid if at all possible, so there’s very few on the designer side who are ‘fans’ of spec work. Some see it as an opportunity to get somewhere else, while others believe they have no other choice. Most business owners using design contest sites aren’t even aware there is a controversy, and see these sites as a way to get ‘more design for less’. Even then, business owners generally understand that they have to pay for design work. And outfits like Crowdspring want to get paid for their “services”. This basic premise of ‘supply chain’ economics only goes awry when it comes to outfits like Crowdspring paying “their” designers (“their” being used in the most liberal sense of the word), the people that produce Crowdspring‘s product.

Honest debate or publicity stunt

And if one takes a look at the ‘panel’ at SXSW, you’ll see that almost everyone participating thinks spec work is just groovy. Jeff Howe (editor of Wired Magazine), Jeffrey Kalmikoff (CEO of Threadless) and Jeremiah Owyang (an analyst at Forrester Research). The only possible hold-out is graphic designer David Carson, and as his position isn’t known, we’ll have to wait and see what he thinks.

“Design contest and so-called crowdsourcing sites want, rather need, designers to work for free. Professional designers want, rather need, to get paid. Even designers who participate in design contests and crowdsourcing offerings would prefer to get paid if at all possible.”

While I understand their rational from a profit vs. expense formula, I find outfits like Crowdspring‘s ‘why can’t we all get along, we’re just awesome’ positioning tinfoil-on-teeth grating. And while I find it intriguing how they try to position their “me too” business model (pinched from Australian logo contest site 99 Designs and a host of others) as somehow a new and noble change in a stagnant graphic design industry. It’s not. It’s an old concept that a film producer and IP lawyer happened upon when they were looking for a way to make money on the internets. Now, they’re trying to reverse-engineer some David vs. Goliath battle in order to rationalize their for-profit model that lines their pocket while managing to avoid paying their workforce. It’s not a noble venture. It’s not a wonderful thing. Crowdspring is just another company trying to make a profit selling design services to small and medium business. That’s fair enough. Trouble is, if a business model is built on getting people to work for free, it could be argued that the model is ethically flawed, regardless of what you think of individuals participating in spec design. From the bigger picture POV, it’s a tragedy of the commons scenario that doesn’t have any sustainability for anyone.

Crowdsourcing and design contests are here to stay

When everything is boiled away, design contests are a bastard child of the web and CMS websites combined with a low barrier of entry, just like spam was a bastard child of the then-amazing advent of internet communication. Both are examples of what happens when people do stuff that they can, rather than because they should. Backers of spec work are now using a lot of the same positioning and arguments that ‘Direct Marketers’ used to defend spam. And just like spam, spec work, design contests and so-called design ‘crowdsourcing’ are here to stay, whether designers embrace the concept or not. Sorry folks, that is the unfortunate reality. There will always be folks who are willing to exploit, and people willing to be exploited. So-called design crowdsourcing companies will continue to flourish and multiply. Crowdspring isn’t the first (though they’re the noisiest at the moment) and they certainly won’t be the last. Spec design is something that every graphic designer will have to grapple with over the next few years – especially those who are now working their asses off in colleges and art schools. That’s just the way it is. But to try and lift this exploitative business practice as somehow an improvement over, oh I dunno, actually paying designers for their time, is a bit much. In terms of the SXSW “Is Spec Work Evil” debate, it seems more of a glorified PR stunt for Crowdspring than a real debate on the effect the practice has on the design industry. I hope to be proven wrong come Sunday morning.

When it comes to bleating about design contests and ‘spec’ work, unless something terribly dramatic happens (maybe at SXSW), this will probably be the last time I write about the subject. For a while anyway. Someone described arguing against spec and ‘crowdsourcing’ as battling a ‘tide of innovation’, They certainly have a point. Not about the innovation, but about the tide.

Postscript

Update: Looks like I’m not the only one who takes a less than enthusiastic position on this subject. Read Andrew Hyde‘s Spec Work is A Ponzi Scheme for more.

Update Two: While it certainly didn’t answer the main question, the Sunday morning ‘Is Spec Work Evil’ panel at SXSW ’09 turned out, quite surprisingly, to be a little on the feisty side, with several heated exchanges between the various panelists. Turns out David Carson isn’t a fan of design ‘crowdsourcing’ at all and had some cutting words towards the practice in general, as well as Crowdspring in specific. Quotable quote from Carson at the panel: “”Hopefully crowdsourcing companies fail along with the companies who use them.” AIGA Web Director Lydia Mann was a last minute addition to the discussion, no doubt in response to some of the criticisms floating around about the ‘impartiality’ of the panel, or apparent lack thereof.

Update: You can read the full “Is Spec Work Evil?” debate transcript here.

Peter Schiff 2010 logo design contest

Steve Douglas — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:15:53 +0000

Don’t usually like to get into political stuff on the blog, but as a wonk, I found this pretty interesting. According to a newly launched website, lots of folks are trying to recruit economic commentator, author and stock broker Peter Schiff to run for a Connecticut Senate seat in 2010. On the Libertarian ticket as a challenge to incumbent Chris Dodd. Fair enough (politically speaking, Schiff’s bona fides consist of being Ron Paul‘s economic advisor and Dodd ain’t exactly Mr. popularity).

As as we’ve learned from last year’s Presidential campaign, any politician worth his or her salt has got to have a decent logo. Let’s not forget how the Obama campaign’s logo and branding were instrumental in building a grass roots coalition that went and got the dude elected. Well, Peter Schiff is no different, and the feisty might-be-politician, if he runs, will require a new logo that encapsulates his potential upcoming campaign. Accordingly, the nice people behind the site are looking for a logo redesign (the current logo, above, has been described as “a cross between Obama’s logo and the Jack in the Box head, with the hat”). Client brief for the redesign? Pretty standard stuff for a political logo:

1. It should be Patriotic and design specifically for a grassroots campaign to draft and elect Peter Schiff.
2. Peter Schiff is an advocate of Austrian (free market) Economics and commodities; red, white, blue, gold, and silver should be considered in any combination.
3. It should have a theme of liberty, freedom, and constitutionalism.

Free market. Check. Patriotic. Check. Lots of Stars and Stripes. Hold on a minute. Seems Schiff’s fans have contracted his new logo to a design contest site (grand prize a whopping $150.00) and the site they’ve chosen to use is 99 Designs. Not going to get into the logo contest debate again. but I wonder if the Schiff people realize that 99 Designs are an Australian company? Melbourne to be precise. And that the designers vying for the princely bill-and-a-half are located all over hell’s half acre? Trying to be, ahm, patriotic and all, wouldn’t it be more politically sound to offer a US based company the gig? Or a US based designer? Hell, even a Connecticut resident for that matter if they still wanted to go the contest route (I’m sure many local designers would tackle the project pro-bono if they believed in Schiff’s cause).

Don’t want to be a wag, but isn’t this the kind of stuff political opponents make hay over? Especially when one is trying to be all patriotic and stuff. As a Canuck company we’re usually out of the running for US political logos for the reasons I just mentioned, so I have no axe to grind. Just trying to be politically helpful is all.

Anyhoo, if you’re interested, you can track the contest here (or enter if you’re so inclined). So far, there’s more than a few designs that are, ahm, inspired by the Obama logo. But knowing what we do about logo design contests, that’s not terribly surprising…

AIGA softening positon on spec and design contests?

Steve Douglas — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:38:14 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tragedy of the Commons and design

Steve Douglas — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:52:48 +0000

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

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

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

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