Wikipedia (itself one of the first examples of crowdsourcing) defines The Tragedy of the Commons thusly:
“The Tragedy of the Commons” is an influential article written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968. The article describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long term interest for this to happen. The essence of the commons dilemma has been discussed by theorists since ancient times, but not under that name. It has also been studied more recently, such as in game theory.
Central to Hardin’s article is a metaphor of herders sharing a common parcel of land (the commons), on which they are all entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin’s view, it is in each herder’s interest to put as many cows as possible onto the land, even if the commons is damaged as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from the additional cows, while the damage to the commons is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational decision, however, the commons is destroyed and all herders suffer.
Think of the design industry as ‘the commons’. Now think logo design contests. And sites that like to refer to themselves as design crowdsourcing platforms (when they’re clearly nothing of the sort). See a parallel?
Related posts:
- Again with the design contests
- AIGA softening positon on spec and design contests?
- Defending crowdsourcing & design contests. The platitudes of spec work.
- Twitter graphic $6 proof that design crowdsourcing works? Not quite.
- More Logo Design Contests
Tags: advocacy, Contests, crowdsourcing, spec, spec work
[...] 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 [...]
Obviously this is potentially the case. But, what if the commons in this case isn’t discrete, but infinite? What if companies, smaller ones, came and sought logos that they never otherwise would have because of cost prohibitions? What if larger brands created more opportunities for design because of a. an understanding that customers want to participate, and b. the opportunity to source design at a more competitive price. So the analogy only works to a degree. Beyond that, it’s inevitable. Think about electronic investing and the ability to bypass stockbrokers. Think about Free content as explained by Anderson. Much has changed and will continue to change. What choice do we have? We can spend our time resisting or instead embrace change and learn or find a new way to prosper.
@ Edward. Thanks for participating in the discussion. Yes, this risk is “obvious” but not often discussed when people start talking about ‘free markets’ and other economic theories (which led to this article being lobbed around on Twitter). FWIW, this article wasn’t written in response, but actually posted at the beginning of the year. Seemed a little more poignant in light of your Twitter comment.
In this case (in most cases actually) the ‘commons’ (the design profession) isn’t infinite. In fact, just the opposite. I remember reading some study somewhere that indicated that the number of qualified designers was less than other high-skilled, and often licensed, professions. Don’t have the link handy, so that statement will have to be anecdotal.
In any case, many might argue that design skills and wherewithal come from training, education and experience, so it’s quite obvious that if the income dwindles (an effect that crowdsourcing sites are having right now) the justification for spending tens of thousands on education similarly drops. As does the rationale for purchasing professional design software. Hardware. Fonts. Etc. Etc. As the number of people actually making a decent wage on these services is probably about 1 – 3%, they’re obviously not a terribly efficient way for a designer, of ANY level, to make a living. All of which might have a negative impact on the industry, as well as the various businesses and disciplines that are supported by it. That too, is a part of ‘free economics’. Supply and demand works both ways.
Squawking about crowdsourcing sites (something I’ve been guilty of numerous times) isn’t a matter of establishing an “exclusive club” who’s “responsibility (is) to keep everyone else – young designers, students, aspiring talent – out” (as per you related blog post). That’s actually a pretty offensive notion that’s simply not true. Most people that are opposed to crowdsourcing and design contests are at the grass roots level. Ironically, you’ve joined the discussion because of the recent flap about CP&B’s crowdsourcing experiment for Brammo Motorcycles. CP&B are hardly reprentative of “young designers, students and aspiring talent” but are more in line with the so-called ‘gatekeepers’ that crowdsourcing sites claim to be challenging.
As usual, the big guys get “more for less”. The little guys get “less for more”. Hardly the “democratization of design” we’ve been told this phenomenon is. As I’ve said dozens of times, I understand why design crowdsourcing sites operate (low overhead. Zero labor expense). I understand why buyers would engage such services (More for less. Zero commitment). Only when it comes to the participation of designers do the benefits become nebulous. Started off with “earn money, have fun” only recently morphing to “it’s all about the opportunity” once the fallacy of earning a living was actually pointed out and illustrated. Because most of the benefits are bullshit, the reasoning has to change, in order to pitch the service to young designers who haven’t read much beyond the hype on these sites, and blogs that support them.
I agree with you that this turn of events is inevitable. I’d go one step further and suggest that crowdsourcing sites have won the spec/anti-spec argument already. I’d also argue that not all change is good. For example, I had to turn on comments so that you could post yours – a result of another “tragedy of the commons”; comment spammers polluting a great deal of the internet in yet another example of the exercising of ‘free choice’. My e-mail account is similarly burdened and abused by people who think spam is ‘inevitable’ and a ‘way to prosper’. I lost that argument too.
In terms of embracing ‘change’, I’ve always been pretty pragmatic when it comes to business, so If I honestly believed that a crowdsourcing service was good for designers, good for clients, good for the industry (and profitable to boot) I’d have set up my own logo design contest platform years ago, rather than blathering about it on some blog. I run a small design shop (and have so since 1996), staffed by people who have extensive backgrounds in design and online marketing, so converting my custom shop to a so-called design “crowdsourcing” platform would be a relatively easy transition. Accordingly, “if I were only weighing in on how it affects (ME)” and thought spec sites were a step forward, I’d have launched a logo design contest site years ago (before Crowdspring was even conceptualized), and rather than debating with you on a blog, I’d be arguing about people’s right, to work for free, for me.
Starting one of these sites is even cheaper now – $265 for a 99designs cloned script – so it’s not exactly an exclusive club. Most designers who participate, shuffle from one site to another, submitting the same designs on different sites for different projects because at the end of the day, most have no loyalty to one site or another. Even the most rudimentary site boasts several thousand ‘creatives’.
And who knows. This may still be the inevitable change that I may have to embrace, if only to earn a living. That would be a sad day indeed, even though I’ll probably earn a less stressful, more profitable living than I do now. The designers that work for me now might not be so enthused at this ‘wonderful’ turn of events. And then they can bitch about me. And I can claim they’re trying to start an exclusive club to keep the inexperienced designers out. And I’ll call them ‘gatekeepers’. And just like I do today, they’ll wonder what the fuck I’m on about.