 |
New grass roots campaign to educate clients and designers alike about the hazards of ’spec’ (speculative) design . |
Spam. Based on a simple, if flawed concept. Send enough ‘get yer Viagra here’ laced e-mails to unsuspecting recipients, you will eventually find that one person who is willing to purchase. A hall of famer in the “it’s incredible how much effort folks will go to in order to avoid an honest day’s labor” category, it is dopey and (with response rates in the 1/100000’s) pretty ineffectual. Targeted marketing is much more efficient, will net far greater results, and in the long run – a much higher payback. Spam’s only real appeal is that it’s cheap, if not free, for the so-called ‘advertiser’. How does this relate to a graphic design blog, you might ask (and you might). Well, in my humble opinion, logo design contests (and other types of ’spec’ – speculative – logo design ‘offerings’ and design crowdsourcing) are nothing more than visual Spam. With similar results and driven by similar motives. Here’s the usual pitch – somebody who wants a new logo created for their fledgling business offers a prize (I’ve seen everything between $50 to a few grand and some with nothing but the ‘glory’ of designing the job) as part of a contest (or spec project) during which designers will submit their work, without any contract, payment or agreement (other than the ‘winner’), in the hopes of having their work selected. It uses the ‘visual Spam’ theory – if enough designers, throw enough ideas (for free, natch) at a project, one of these entries ’should’ be a winner. It’s also a variant of the ’something for nothing’ approach.
And my mother has been lecturing me on that one since I was a wee lad…
If I had a nickel for every time I heard this – “if you show me what you’re proposing for my logo design, and if I like it, I’ll pay for it”, I’d be a rich man. Or at least the proud owner of a lot of nickels. My answer is and has been always the same – “No thanks”. Firstly, a design studio is like any other business. Overhead. Salaries. Day-to-day expenses. It’s downright impractical and illogical to give our product away for free (that part should be obvious). Running The Logo Factory studio with ‘hope to get paid’ projects, while my designers are of the “definitely getting paid” variety is a formula that any first year business student would see as fundamentally flawed. And in-demand designers (the good ones) always get paid. Conversely, I never ask our clients for ‘free stuff’. Ain’t nice. Ain’t professional. I also wouldn’t think of asking my neighborhood accountants to submit final tax returns as a contest (I’d be begging for an audit), a bevy of dentists to work on my molars in ‘hope of getting paid (might as well sign up for those dentures now) or ask for mechanics to fix my brakes on ’spec’ (hope my insurance is paid up). In other ‘professional’ fields, it’s accepted practice to select a service provider based on a myriad of factors. Your needs and budget. Their experience and expertise. And it is a generally accepted philosophy that “you get what you pay for”.
Some of our logos – swiped from our web site or our clients – have shown up as entries in online ‘logo design contests‘ – a variation of ’spec’ design work – submitted by other, ahm, ‘designers’. In this case, the ‘designer’ was outed by fellow contestants shortly after the ‘client’ had selected the ripped-off design as the ‘finalist’. This ‘penny wise, pound foolish’ method of logo selection has some severe risks and serious flaws.
It could also be argued that ’spec’ work has further, less obvious, ramifications – for designer and buyers alike. Some examples? From a purely pragmatic point of view, whenever designers are performing ’spec’ work, they are not working ‘with’ paying clients – folks who are the lifeblood of TLF. It’s not fair to ‘real clients’ who ‘have’ formed a professional working relationship with our studio. These are the clients that deserve (and get) our undivided attention and effort. Spec work is also based on a basic misunderstanding of what the inherent value of a logo design and what it actually is – it is not a bunch of ’swirls’ created with illustration software. It’s not just the logo that ‘looks the best’ (as subjective a barometer as possible) – it should be gauged by a far more complicated litmus test including usability, application and market reach. It is the execution of an ‘idea’ – a concept. With a capital ‘C’.
Generally, any design that can be considered a great logo is the percolation of the company’s personality into graphic form, created by detailed interaction and back-and-forth. It also involves the services of a designer who’s capable of executing the concept flawlessly and with technical proficiency. Not a random spray of squiggles and wiggles thrown ‘together’ in the ‘hope’ of winning this, or that, logo contest. Design is not a sporting event (and an amateur one at that). And at the risk of sounding snooty, I will guarantee you this – *if* I were to enter $100 spec logo contests, I would hold-back the best ideas (lest they get ‘lifted’ by someone who’s ethically challenged) and wouldn’t budget the time (and resultant effort) that a paid gig would get. After all, why should we release our ‘primo’ ideas into ‘the wild’ where they can be usurped by other folks (”I can use that idea, render it myself, and charge you less than they would”). Bottom line, while the logo we presented to you may be ‘better’ than the others, it would not contain the ‘blood and soul’ that our team usually pours into their work. It’s nothing personal. The ‘chance’ of winning $80 only buys so much time and effort. And unless we’ve run completely dry of paying logo gigs, we don’t have the time – a finite resource – to do anything more. Sorry, but it’s a dollars and cents equation.
From a end-user point of view, spec work develops an artificial sliding scale in a completely artificial environment. Best to worst. Logos are arranged from most favorite to least favorite. The most favorite wins. That doesn’t mean its the ‘best’ solution for you. Or the ‘best’ solution possible. It also doesn’t meant that the logo is applicable from a technical point of view. It does not meant that the designer who created it gave it their all. It only means that it’s the best ‘option’ from the entries you received. Nothing more. Nothing less. And if more than a few of the ‘entrants’ have our attitude (which most professionals do), the selection of work will be less than stellar. And received from ‘designers’ (background, skills and ethics unknown) who a) have the time to donate and b) don’t perceive themselves as professionals (as no designer worth their sand will participate anyway).
It’s the difference between custom and selecting from ‘off-the-rack’. I know what kind of suit my wife insisted I wear to my wedding…
Now, if we had run out of work (we’re bored), or were struggling to make ends meet (collection notices on the door, that kind of thing) we ‘might’ consider entering a contest in the hope of making some fast cash (note – only for the sake of this discussion. In real life, we’d spend the time marketing those skills – a much higher payoff). But if that were the case, you’d now have designers who are entering your contest because they are desperate, want a logo design portfolio puff piece, or are bored out of their skulls. Motivators that are diametrically opposite to the accepted norm for successfully executed design work. When I’m hiring professional designers to work at TLF, ‘desperate, bored and inexperienced’ are not featured in the job postings’ as a list of required attributes…
Furthermore, many of our projects do not reach sign-off on the first round of concepts (and nobody that works at our studio can be described as ‘junior designers’). Logo design is a process. Sometimes it takes several (or more) rounds of back-and-forths between our designers and the client before we come close to a ‘great concept’. The first round of concepts are usually rough ‘ideas’ that can be discarded or fine-tuned depending on their reception. Often, they are w-a-a-a-y off the mark. But in later rounds ‘tighten up’ into a killer corporate logo. In a ’spec’ logo design contest, the end-user is presented with all sorts of ‘first round’ concepts (so there is no idea what is possible with the follow-up). It’s like a movie trailer without the payoff of the full flick. Tantalizing. Interesting. But by no means the Full Monty…
There’s also the real risk of copyright infringement (or worse), should you decide to host a so-called ‘logo design contest’. Hell, we’ve even seen our copyrighted work, the property of someone else, turning up as logo contest entries. You see, there are some folks who like the idea of receiving the $80 prize, but aren’t willing to put in the time to create original artwork. Solution? They swiped a couple of logos from our web site, performed some cursory modifications, and entered them into several forum-based contests. (This ‘flaw’ has regularly plagued another logo design firm who’s business model is that of a glorified ‘logo design contest’).
One of these contest ‘rips’ was even selected by the end-user, until it was revealed (by a rival ‘designer’, also taking part in the ‘contest’) that the work had been nicked. And here’s the squishy part – the design contest had been posted by a ‘marketing firm’ who had been contracted by the original client to create their ‘corporate identity’. Ouchie! After the bogus ‘entries’ had been revealed, the ‘marketing firm’ had to ‘fess up to their client and advise them that the logo they now loved (and had all sorts of plans for) was no longer available without the very real possiblity of a lawsuit (and if they could select one of the other contest designs, that would be great). To this day, I wonder how they explained this rather nasty situation to the client.
Strong graphic visuals are part of the No!Spec campaign. This design – ‘Spec Hurts’, by illustrator Von Glitschka – are available as a hi-rez printable download on the No!Spec web site.
And no, we’re not alone. The logo contest debate is industry-wide. There’s some question as to whether logo contests are technically even legal. The opposition to these practices has motivated a group of designers, firms and organizations to band together and form the No!Spec initiative, a non-profit that attempts to educate clients and designers alike about the risks and downsides of spec design work (risks that are not commensurate with the benefits and advantages). Their website (with some great opinion pieces, downloadable propaganda and related resources) site can be viewed here. Worth a look for anyone who’s considering participating in, or hosting, a spec design ‘contest’ or proposal. It’s a campaign that The Logo Factory is happy to endorse.
Related posts:
