A growing concern within the design community is the rapid development and implementation of design contest sites where a potential client or “contest owner,” can display a small brief and art direct a myriad of willing design minions to do their will. In the design profession this unethical business model is called “designing on spec.” This practice occurs when a designer presents a concept or idea that hasn’t been paid for in hopes of winning a pittance for their effort. Spec work has become a major force in devaluing the perception of graphic design in the business world and the major players involved in accelerating this practice are the novice designers themselves. As more and more people enter into the graphic design profession, and more tools like graphic design software become affordable, more people are professing to be graphic designers with little to no training or experience. To overcome the deluge of competition, most of these inexperienced designers have taken on the role of undercutting each other, ripping each other off, and bending to the whims of anyone that may offer an opportunity to get their work out there in the public eye, even if that means not getting compensated for their time. The impact to the graphic design profession has been anything but positive.
In a recent article in Forbes Magazine titled, “The Creativity of Crowds,” written by Christopher Steiner, he clearly defines indirectly how design contests devalue the graphic design profession.
There is just one essential element missing from Steiner’s article. It’s the voice of the seasoned graphic design professional.The article states that the design contest sites have democratized a snooty business and offer low budget solutions. The author goes on to compare an architecture design contest from 1922 to the present day climate of graphic design done on spec.
According to Cat Morley from No!Spec, and Jeff Fisher from Jeff Fisher Logomotives, Steiner made haphazard attempts to interview them, and never intended to publish their side of the story.
Fisher stated that Morley had emailed him with a request from Forbes magazine for someone to discuss NO!SPEC and the CrowdSourcing (spec work in disguise) of a certain company. Jeff contacted the reporter and set up a phone interview time with him. He never heard from Steiner at the appointed time. Jeff then emailed him the next morning. Steiner said he'd been tied up at the appointment time and he'd call back immediately - Jeff never received the call.
Fisher also provided Steiner the contact information for Sean Adams and Debbie Millman of the AIGA as possible sources for the article. Steiner said he appreciated the information as he had tried to call the AIGA office the day before. Millman emailed Steiner to let him know she was available – and never heard back from him.
From the tone of the article that appeared, I wonder if Steiner really wanted input from the other side at all – and the headline referring to graphic design as a "snooty business" certainly sets that tone.
... who designs Forbes? Who builds and maintains their website? Who handles their advertising? Must be an entire legion of Tennesseean grannies.
-- Jeope Wolfe
Steve Douglas, Creative Director of the LogoFactory, posted this statement to his blog, “Crowdspring, usually through blog comments and press releases by co-founder Ross Kimbarovsky - like to portray themselves as a ‘crowd-sourcing’ platform, which they’re not, unique to the industry, which they’re not, and some form of revolutionary plan to ‘democratize design’ which they’re not either.”
Douglas went on to say, “Alas, despite their lofty claims, Crowdspring is just another design contest site which asks designers to submit their artwork to contests, for free, in the hope of getting paid, while Crowdspring charges the contest holders their prize money plus a $39 fee (and claws back 15% of the prize paid to ‘winning’ designers). ”
Jeope Wolfe, a publication designer from Canada states, “There is definitely education to be had here, and masses unwilling to be part of it. And who designs Forbes? Who builds and maintains their website? Who handles their advertising? Must be an entire legion of Tennesseean grannies.”
Wolfe makes a good point. Maybe Forbes can get a great deal on publication and web design from a design contest site and fire their present design team. Of course, that will never happen because Forbes will only see as far as the end of Christopher Steiner’s nose.
So what do we do to curb this destructive perception of the graphic design profession? Well, each designer should take the initiative to educate fellow designers and clients alike. The design community should demand that organizations like AIGA and GAG implement stronger marketing and education campaigns to shine a negative light on the unethical practices of design on spec.
Want to join the crusade against design contests and the promotion of spec work? Visit sites like No!Spec, Creative Latitude, BoDo, Creative Business, and many others, to learn what you can do to help keep the perception of graphic design in a professional light.
More related blog posts concerning this story:
WIRED Magazine: Is Crowdsourcing Evil? The Design Community Weighs In
David Airey: Forbes calls designers snooty
Jeff Andrews: Forbes Magazine: Graphic Design is a Snooty Business
Steven Gibbs: Designers over Contests
Swiss Miss: Forbes calls designers snooty
Brian Yerkes: Why CrowdSpring Owners Should Be Ashamed of Their Business
AIGA: Position on spec work
About.com: What is Spec Work?
Labels: Forbes Magazine, NoSpec, Rant, Snooty Designers
|
At February 3, 2009 6:29 PM, 
Jeff Fisher LogoMotives,
Thanks for your post about this issue - and mention of the attempts by myself and others to present Forbes with another side to the story. As designer David Airey (http://davidairey.com/) noted to me in a "tweet" this morning, the piece ended up being much more of an advertorial than a balanced editorial news piece in the business publication.
At March 13, 2009 6:13 AM, 
Andrew Sabatier,
A crack down on crowdsourcing and spec work is a waste of energy. There's no need for graphic designers to panic either. A good long hard look at the value of graphic design services might make more sense. Let's face it, design is a commodity.
Graphic design is highly commoditised because the market is saturated and the barriers to entry are low. Everyone with a pencil or a computer is a graphic designer. Even the casual designer knows to avoid Comic Sans. On balance we all benefit from graphic design literacy. The market grows and as a result tools improve and client expectations become more sophisticated.
Graphic design tools are being thoroughly democratised. Cost is dropping and the onward march of good free cloudware is unstoppable. It won't be long before services such as Raven, Sumo Paint and Fonstruct are as good as Illustrator, Photoshop and Fontlab. Bring them on I say.
Hats off to Crowdspring and 99Designs, they've capitalised on a commoditised market. They've highlighted the actual value of what gets traded.
If you buy logo design services you will get a logo. The quality of which is measurable against the ambitions of the business strategy. If the only manifestation of the business strategy is a logo then there is not much of a brand identity to speak of. The success of the brand is then likely to be very limited and the logo won't be worth much.
Professional graphic designers need to be specialists. They need to develop proprietary methodologies in service of business strategy. Business strategy requires marketing knowledge best bought from specialists. These specialists are unlikely to be found by crowdsourcing. Designers who work in this manner are also unlikely to feel threatened by crowdsourcing.
As for spec work, that is the prerogative of the graphic design service provider. A client who is not prepared to pay for a taste of the process is probably a client not worth having.
Permalink: http://snipurl.com/dnso3
A.
At March 13, 2009 8:56 AM, Steph,
Andrew,
My concern is sites like 99designs and CrowdSpring, which you are so proud of, are using the unrealistic comparison of being likened to stock photo sites. The difference being that the photographers and illustrators contributing to stock photo sites are getting a royalty or managed rights fee every time someone purchases their copyrighted images. I should know, I have illustrations on such sites.
So tell me, where does the designer who loses out on a design contest at any said crowd source site benefit? He/she doesn't. And ... the logos and/or designs that lose remain the property of the crowd source site. How is that fair, or even ethical?
Another concern I have is that of a negative perception. If designers are perceived to be nothing more than mere decorators providing nothing more than eyewash, cotton candy design, how does that benefit those professionals in the pursuit to market themselves to clients as a designer that focuses on the strategic approach to solving a problem? It doesn't, because the perception will be that ALL designers are cheap and desperate decorators. The process to strategically tackle the design challenge will become a process that most clients will not want to go through, or pay for. So in the end, the design profession loses, and so do the business owners.
Do I think I can stop this trend of crowd sourcing design work? No. Do I want to make businesses and potential clients aware of this damaging and unethical practice? A resounding yes, and I will diligently continue my efforts in doing so.
Downplay it all you want, until it personally bites you in the rear-end and effects your bottom-line!
At October 5, 2009 12:13 PM, Steph,
Sergev,
I loudly repeat; Where does the designer who loses out on a design contest at any said crowd source site benefit? He/she doesn't. The designer gets no compensation for their time or effort. And ... the logos and/or designs that lose remain the property of the crowd source site. How is that fair, or even ethical?