Logo design contests and their host sites are marketed to clients as presenting ‘lots of choice’ from their huge ‘communities’. Trouble is, many of the design ‘choices’ are toxic, and many of the ‘community’ members are unrepentant plagiarists. Sadly, sometimes they even win.
I’m so sick of this crap that I’m almost loathe to write this post, but yeah, it’s the damn boat logo again. No, not the last time. Or the time before that. These are new ones. In case you’re new to the blog, or missed our earlier screeds, let me sum things up. The ‘damn boat logo’ is an old design from our portfolio (added to our site about seven years ago) that’s been repeatedly cribbed and entered into dozens of logo design contests. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, it’s probably not the best boat logo in the world, but it is among the top searches on Google when someone searches for “boat + logo”. Happens so often, it’s become a running joke at the shop and around the blog. It has, around our studio anyway, become the poster child for everything that’s wrong with logo design contests, spec work and crowdsourcing. Even made a page entitled Again with the damn boat logo to illustrate some of the more blatant examples. Keep in mind that I never write about boat logo knock-offs that are merely similar (which are legion) but logos that are identical in some fashion, clearly traced from the original. If I can’t ‘reverse engineer’ the logo from the contest entry exactly, then I don’t carp about it. See, there’s more than enough carbon copies available, and I’m loathe to muddy the discussion with examples that are ‘close’ and might need some explanation. Take the entry above, entered into a logo contest on 99designs a couple of days ago. Of course, it looks ‘like’ the original. But that’s not all. It is, as the image below demonstrates, a blatant knock-off that’s been rotated a few degrees. To whit:
This time is different. The bloody thing went and won the contest (though I suppose it was only a matter of time). [Update: Shortly after this post was published, the winning entry notification notice was removed, and the contest is now awaiting announcement of a new winner. All the examples featured remain in the contest galleries]. Before anyone suggests that these are designers entering the boat logo as some form of ‘plant’, take a look at the winning designer’s profile. He’s entered 53 contests. This is his/her first win. What does that suggest? I’d offer that regardless of this “designer’s” (bunny quotes mine) original intentions, at some point, with only a slight chance of selection and payment, they decided that creating original work was too much time, hassle, or both. At some point they decided knocking off an image they found through Google was a more judicious use of their time. And now that they’ve won $200, for what probably amounted to a minute-and-a-half of Illustrator hackery, they’re onto a very profitable thing indeed. Ironically, with a contest win ratio of between 4 and 10 per cent, can’t say I blame them. Or their ‘community members’ than did the same thing before them. Often in the same contests. Like this cat
This “designer” didn’t even bother revectoring new artwork, but simply enlarged some bitmap version and flipped the bugger around, adding the most hideous, bevel-ridden ‘typography’ I’ve seen in some time. Bit of a stretch? Let’s take a look:
Keep in mind that this is a different “designer” in the same contest. What’s worse, is that this absolutely appalling rehash is ultimately counted in the tallies of “entries per contest” that crowdsourcing sites like to boast about. Here’s the thing folks – when a designer designs something, he or she becomes intimately familiar with the artwork. Spec designers and contest entrants can spin it, flip it and squish it all they like. It may past muster with contest holders (who’ve probably never seen the original before) but it ain’t going to cut it with the designer of the original. Same holds true with many of the creative fields (as a photographer in a previous life, I took hundreds of thousands of pictures but can still recognize my work when it turns up in magazines almost a decade after I stopped shooting professionally). Makes me think that there’s a lot of people on contest sites that aren’t designers of any level, simply charlatans out to make a quick buck, while spending the least amount of time possible. And yet this is the “game” that dedicated, and ethical designers have to “step up” for.
Ridiculous choice. Tens of thousands of designers
I understand that from a client’s perspective, these designer considerations are probably neither here nor there. But, here we have a situation where a contest holder, probably believing they’re getting a great deal (only $200 doncha know), and getting access to lots of designers (a community of 76,818 doncha know), has selected a logo that’s arguably been knocked off from somewhere else. And if I could pose a simple question to 99designs management, it would be this – with a community of 76,818 “designers”, why is it that almost every time a logo contest involves anything to do with boats, fishing, marinas or in this case, wrapping boats in vinyl, a version of our little boat logo invariably shows up? Highly unlikely that they’ll answer, so I’ll take a stab. Many of the so-called “designers’ in the “community” aren’t designers at all, but plagiarists of the highest order, lured to register with the promises of ‘earning cash’. In terms of the ‘ridiculous choice’ offered to contest holders, many of the choices presented are toxic.
The school of unintended consequences
Am I claiming that 99designs and their ilk are doing this on purpose? Quite the contrary. I’d imagine that the last thing they want to hear about is the damn boat logo again. Or from that grumpy bastard at The Logo Factory. But that’s the point. Despite this logo being knocked off dozens of times, and despite me writing about it time after after time, and despite their claims that there’s less risk of plagiarized logos on their sites (due to ‘self-policing’ by other entrants) it still continues to happen. At regular intervals and an ever increasing rate. Obviously, 99designs don’t want copied logos entered into their contests, but with their largely anonymous ‘community’, and lack of project management, there’s not a thing they can do about it. Knocked off work is part-and-parcel with logo design contests, recently repackaged as crowdsourcing. It is to be expected when you open up the design of your company logo to anonymous would-be designers, from all over the world, who only have a slight chance of earning a few ducats for their efforts. The logic of that basic premise is quite sound, despite the protestations of the pro spec work crowd. But if logic ain’t convincing enough for you, we’ve got example, after example, after example of this happening. Not just limited to 99designs either.
Only looks similar you say? Well, let’s perform the reverse engineering exercise again. The bend, spindle and mutilate school of graphic design.
Not the only time either.
These examples were sent to me a few weeks ago (and are from contests that were held over a year ago) but I didn’t publish them because I’ve generally had it with the issue. Too, I had a private discussion with one of the founders of Crowdspring, and the images were removed (unlike 99designs, who I notified via Twitter before their contest closed). Ironically, but in fairness to 99designs, I had no choice but to add the Crowdspring examples to this post and oddly, feel like I’m somehow betraying Ross Kimbarovsky (who I quite like personally) because he did remove the logos at my request. But getting images removed from this or that contest isn’t the point is it? Crowdsourcing and design contests are constantly marketed as a superior alternative to working one-on-one with a reputable designer. And designers are constantly being told to “step up their game” in order to compete. Tough advice to follow. These sites claim that the amount of choice buyers are presented with dwarfs the options made available in the typical designer/client design process. And while their claims are technically true, they’re only made possible by loads of designers, working on spec (without pay unless their design is selected). I’d argue that this very business model is what generates the rampant copying. Though in some case, crowdsourcing advocates suggest that the copying is “great for clients”.
The pro spec work perspective
Yep, copying is actually being recommended by people who are decidedly on the pro-spec work side of the fence. In an article entitled “9 practical steps to getting great outsourced design on 99designs” here’s what one pro spec work author suggests (Tip #6)
“
Take advantage of designers riffing off each other. The best entries will emerge from general comments you offer and specific feedback on each entry, allowing designers to see clearly what you are looking for. These suggestions and ideas to designers are followed by other designers. Designers might not like this, but it is great for a client who can see multiple designers.
”
I’m going to let you read that again and let it sink in. ‘Riffing’ refers to copying. And while the writer realizes designers ‘might not like’ others copying their work (a major issue with crowdsourcing sites right across the board) he still suggests that contest holders “take advantage” of it. That’s what the pro crowdsourcing crowd think of designers and their work. For what it’s worth, those tips were also published on a site called Getting results from Crowdsourcing, in an article entitled 10 Recommendations on How to use Graphic Design Competition Sites. Any designer who supports this kind of dooshbaggery needs their head examined.
The inevitable result
And that’s the real message to those pushing logo design contests isn’t it? As more and more ethical designers realize the futility of entering these contests (trying to remain true to their principles), and more wannabe designers are enticed by the ‘make quick cash’ come on, I’d imagine this hackery is only going to get worse. In fact, if our boat logo is any indication, it already has. And if “stepping up our game” involves knocking off other people’s work, in order to win a few bucks in some logo design contest, then maybe it’s time I hung up my sketchbook. To be honest, I’ve thought about it a few times recently. I’m tired. I’m fed up. And I’m saddened at what a few unethical bastards are attempting to do to the graphic design profession. A profession that’s been quite good to me, and should be quite good to a ton of upcoming designers now trying to perfect their craft. For opposing this, I been called everything from a snooty designer, an elitest, a Luddite opposing change to a ‘whiny baby’, afraid of competition. To all of which, I call bullshit. I’m not some arty tarty, waxing philosophical through a haze of bong smoke (hat tip to John Travolta in Swordfish). I’m a business man. Fairly pragmatic one too. But I’m also a designer.
And If opposing this nonsense makes me a Luddite, then fuck it. I’m a Luddite too.
Related Posts
Or maybe its just that your designers are no more original than the designers on those sites. You morons, how can you imagine that you own two lines swooshed across the screen.
@ Peter – gotta wonder where I claimed that we owned two lines “across the screen?” But even if I did, that’s the basic idea of graphic design, and in this case, logo design. Does Apple ‘own’ their Apple? They sure do. Does Nike own the ‘Swoosh’? Yep again. How about that Verizon pin drop? This is the same kind of concept, but on a much smaller scale. It has nothing to do with the complexity, or simplicity, of the design. It’s not even about “owning two lines swooshed across the screen.” It’s not about copyright. It’s about copying other people’s work, and trying to pass it off as your own. And while Apple and Nike have huge profiles, our studio doesn’t, so we’re more likely to get stuff nicked from our portfolio. Unlike design contest sites who are forever being mentioned in the mainstream media, all I have is this blog with which to push back. I can ignore this crap. I can pretend it’s not happening. Or I can write about it as a way of pointing out pitfalls to designers and clients. And by the way, it’s not just our work that’s ‘inspiring’ entries into contests. There’s lots of others, but I can only write about our work with any level of authority.
Being original is generally accepted as being first. This logo has been featured on our site years before any of the sites mentioned even existed. Hopefully, the fact that they were entered into contests having to do with boats, years later, and probably due the reasons outlined, might also help this ‘moron’s’ argument.
If you wish to debate any of these particular points, welcome and let’s do so. If you want to continue with the insults and ad hominems, your stay here will be limited. Posting anonymously, you’re exhibiting some signs of a sock puppet with an axe to grind. Generally speaking, I don’t entertain sock puppets. Unless they tell me what that axe is.
Hmm, Peter, Nike seems to think that it owns one line swooshed across the screen.
Is your name really Peter, ’cause you’re really more of a Dick.
Steve, thanks for posting about his issue once again. Somebody’s always looking for the “Easy” button.
Thanks Garrick. I appreciate the support.
Ahhh, garrick, you said it perfectly.
“here here” logofactory. I have to agree 100% with this article.
It saddens me as someone who has attended college, university, worked for ‘experience’, self-employed and employed, trying to make my way as a designer & developer, that someone as experienced as Steve feels so disheartened by these lying cheating scumbags.
I think we should call them out and educate ‘clients’ to the best of our ability.
I think if these so-called clients want a shitty-ass logo for their company then clearly they aren’t a company worth working with or for and will no doubt go out of business without anyone ever knowing their existence.
Chin up wor lads, and keep up the real design work!!
Unfortunately, it’s gotten to the point where you’re a “designer” if you have a pirated copy of Photoshop or Illustrator. 99designs doesn’t have 76,818 designers, they have 76,818 people with access to Adobe products.
@jake – Judging by some of the logo work I’ve seen on that site it’s more like 76,818 members with access to Paint
And another great article on the issues of crowd sourcing and design contests!
Hi Steve, its a great post. But sometimes I wonder, how you guys catch these copycats because what I feel is that a huge monitoring team or system needs to be appointed to catch such an activity over net (not a small place to keep your eye on). Even copying goes on a ground level too; meaning designers can easily delivery the same stuffs to their private clients and for many years one won’t find them online.
@Debashis – thanks for the comment. Ironically, many of the knock-offs we learn about are the result of designers sending us e-mails. Often, they’re entrants in the same contests, pissed off at putting in the effort to do legit work, while copied logos are entered all around them. It is true that copycatting goes on in the offline world too, but it’s nowhere near as rampant. While logo design contests are generally open to anonymous participants (with very little to lose even when caught), offline companies tend to be easier to find, have real identities and face stiffer consequences to both their bank accounts and reputations. There are a few monitoring services around, but they’re in their infancy. Others allow designers to register their work (Myows is one that comes to mind).
I was just reading Debashis’ comments on the monitoring system. The first thing that came to mind is a central system, like what pawn shops have with the police in larger cities.
I have been in the spec work spotlight, I’ll openly admit that. I have seen some of the things that happen, right from the front line. And, these owners of these sites, (for the most part), condone or don’t even give a flying fuck. (Pardon my choice of words)
Enough’s enough! Steve, if you’re catching this amount off of the “big” sites, (eg. 99designs, crowdSPRING), just imagine what is going unnoticed.
Awesome post Steve, I don’t support Crowdsourcing one bit.
I think the main issue here is that designers(So called photoshop owners) have been trying to get into the business and call themselves professional. That is the one issue, but the other issue could be called laziness, lack of ideas, not caring. I will never work off someone elses design. Why did the company hire you in the first place if you are just going to give them a tweaked replica.
Coming back to the Photoshop issue I wrote about it here – http://creativeoverflow.net/yo.....photoshop/ (You are a designer if you have Photoshop)
Thanks for the Article mate.
Keep it up,
Regards,
Jacques
Steve, this is one of the best articles describing the pitfalls of crowdsourcing I have ever read. It should be bookmarked by one and all.
I would encourage you to give up your day job and write a book (you have talent), but we need more people like you to keep exposing the shit that goes on at 99designs and the like.
Thank you for your comments guys! I hope we must not just roll our eyes in between these crowd sourcing sites ignoring the rest. Just think about the loss that is incurred by three parties:
1. Who’s the original work is – IDENTITY CRISIS
2. To whom the modified/copied work delivered – BRANDING CRISIS / LOSS OF HUGE MONEY & NAME and
3. The copycat himself – ?? (need to figure-out)
The problem you are highlighting here is one of plagiarism, not of crowdsourcing. There are some contests out there who monitor the applicants/submissions!
@ Anna – fair enough, though I suppose to be completely correct, the problem being highlighted is one of plagiarism on crowdsourcing sites.
In terms of ‘monitoring applications and submissions’, I’m only aware of one, and the majority don’t. Couple of reasons for that. In order to inflate ‘community numbers’ claimed (a big selling point), most crowdsourcing sites allow completely anonymous registration without any type of vetting whatsoever.
Most crowdsourcing sites can’t monitor or manage their contests because of the sheer volume, and their take is a fraction of the prize. That’s usually between 10 and 15% (on a $200 logo design project that equates to twenty or thirty bucks) plus whatever listing fee they charge (anywhere from twenty to forty bucks).
That only pays for so much ‘monitoring’ (spec site employees, unlike designers in their community are on the clock). Further, crowdsourcing sites generally waive any liability of knocked-off work being purchased, claiming to be ‘middle men’ facilitating a transaction. Also, when pushed, they’ll also claim that their contests are self-policed by other designers (eager to report their ‘competition’ for entering borrowed work). This works to some degree (as mentioned earlier, we receive a lot of ‘tips’ from competing designers), but as the above examples illustrate, this isn’t exactly fool-proof.
This is another example of a selected logo from 99designs and I am sure this is also a copied version, but unfortunately, I couldn’t find the original design. I remember, I have seen the original design in Logopond about a month back.
[link edited]
@ Debashis – I appreciate your comment, but I’ve taken your link out for the time being. It’s not fair to 99designs or the designer involved to accuse them of copying a logo if there’s no link to the original. If you can find it, I’ll be happy to reinstate the URL.
Hey Steve,
Grumpy bastard or not
You are right – this was the last thing I wanted to see.
And to answer your question as to why the “damn boat logo” comes up so often… 99designs is a large global community. One of the key principles that we were founded on is leveling the playing field for designers all over the world. The positives of that is that there are a lot of people exposed to new opportunities – the negatives are that the younger and more inexperienced members of the community have a lot of learning to do as to what is right and what is wrong in the world of design.
As far as this specific case – I talked to the client and then un-awarded and confronted the designer. (I even used one of your blog posts to cite all of the examples) The designer was apologetic, a bit embarrassed and completely cooperative.
Typically, the community is all over stuff like this and catches it before it progresses to the final state of transaction BUT I am in full agreement with @Debashis that we need to do more in terms of monitoring. Additionally, so many designers extol the learning opportunity that 99designs affords them, BUT as 99designs continues to evolve -I think we can do more.
And Finally, as much as I love our exchanges – here’s to this being the last damn boat logo we all see
Jason Aiken
99designs.com
You are exploiting designers. People work for free. It’s that simple. All the market speak & PR BS extol will not change the facts. The truth is you could care less as long as you can put money in your pocket. In fact anyone that voice that opinion on your sit gets kicked out of you’re little money making scheme.
Pardon me, if I am slightly bending the discussion in a different direction; but I always wanted to say that the people who knows how to use Photoshop or Illustrator (intermediate level knowing some cool tracing jobs) is not always a designer and most cruelty is seen amongst these people (more than 78%).
Of course, I would add here that “over-population always spoils the environment”. Think for a moment, if I don’t know design and I am truly not a designer but when I find a crowd-sourcing site is helping me finding easy money for a ‘text’ and a ‘mark’ (mutually called a logo, perhaps!) that to free, then I would never mind spending sometime to call myself a designer
If the above can be controlled then the first step of monitoring is achieved.
[...] LS: What’s your opinion on crowd-sourcing and sites like Design Crowd and 99Designs? DK: I could really go on forever here, but nobody says it better than my friend at The Logo Factory, Steve Douglas. Here is a link to a recent article he wrote about the topic – The plain truth abut logo design contests. [...]
Crowdspring takes a % off the “client” who wants logos, so the first victims here are them, Crowdspring and similar sites can´t give a fuck about them because they made money out of the blue at risk zero. It´s not their problem if they are ruining the entire field, that´s not their “business”.
As Designers, we need to take care of these things. I´m thinking in “hide” my images from google, (zero SEO) because those ripoffs come from people TOO busy to research and visit personal portfolios one after another, a great idea too is to have a minimum selection of pieces in display.
Hey I think this could be a great blog article in my page.
[...] a great article written up by a design group that had their logo plagiarized dozens of times by people who [...]
Hi people. My name is Thukza and I am not a graphic designer. My feeling is that garrick is attacking a business model than the problem itself which is “plagiarism”. The only difference here is that it is easier to find out “plagiarised” work on those crowdsourcing websites than in private.Therefore , it makes it look like “plagiarism” is taking place in logo contest alone. Should we have a database of logos privately handed to clients around the world , we will see a lot of similarities.
And I llok at your giantreview.com logo. Huh , is that unique?
@ Thukza – I’m going to try and answer your comment, as much as I understand it. Garrick isn’t the author of the post, he commented on the article above. Not sure what you’re referring to with the ‘giant review’ logo and your question “is it unique?” If you’re referring to our cog logo at top right, no, the idea of a cog isn’t terribly unique, nor am I claiming it is. In fact, I posted a ‘how to draw a cog‘ article around the time I was working on the logo, a new version of our original. The Logo Factory, however, is a registered trademark, and that treatment focused specifically on our name, as opposed to the house logo we had used for over a decade. You can read about that process here, here and here.
The suggestion, made often, that finding “plagiarised” work on crowdsourcing websites is easier than in traditional environments, so the amount that goes on is the same, or less, defies logic. When you have anonymous participants, from all over the world (some of whom, enticed by the ‘earn quick cash’ pitch, wouldn’t even refer to themselves as designers) who aren’t getting paid for their work, with nothing to lose vs a traditional environment where designers have their names, reputations, jobs and careers on the line? Ironically, many crowdsourcing sites are now offering premium ‘private’ and ‘blind’ contests where, for an up-charge, submissions are hidden from other participants. So even if your position was correct (which I don’t believe it is), private and blind contests render this ‘advantage’ moot.
Bravo, Steve. This was a well written article with substantial supporting research and findings. I’ve experienced this; one example being a company logo. Somebody literally kept the entire design but replaced the text with their name. The elements of detail and what makes it unique… now look something like a Louis Vuitton bag on the shoulders of a junior high kid waiting for the bus.
[...] LS: What’s your opinion on crowd-sourcing and sites like Design Crowd and 99Designs? DK: I could really go on forever here, but nobody says it better than my friend at The Logo Factory, Steve Douglas. Here is a link to a recent article he wrote about the topic – The plain truth abut logo design contests. [...]
Steve, count me in, word up!
The only thing that comes to mind right now is that I think we need to continue to promote our best work and motive ourselves to keep the standards of this craft to the highest degree, time after time.
We only have to realise that there’s just one more skill to be added to our already integral skill-set, that is to convince and educate new clients what’s best for their business. Those who have doubts or underestimate the genuine profession of logo & identity design, or not even willing to pay an honest price to a skilled and experienced designer, are those who are bounded by logo design contests (or a nephew with Photoshop
Pardon my English, it’s not my native language.
What I meant is that we need to continue promoting the real craft to the best of our abilities, instead of worrying about a business model that tends to contradict the reason of hiring professionals. Fair enough?
Sorry but I don’t understand the issue…
For me the boat design looks just logical, so anybody could come up with the same design. To simplify objects is one of the methods of creating logos. If I think about any business related to boats or have it in the name of the company – the first things that pops up in mind is an image of the boat. And when you come to stage to simplify the object you would come up with this exact design. When I was a kid I drew boats like this. So the only accusation here would be of the designers that didn’t dig deeper to bring up some other association except a boat.
I don’t say they are right to do it, I just want to understand where is the limit? So if somebody used the circle in a design, does it mean I can’t use circles anymore? I just want to learn more not to repeat mistaks of others