Andrew Hyde – Startups. Start Here.

nice post andrew. I have been browsing crowdspring and found simple amateur mistakes such as a logo not working across different mediums (eg gradients and other photoshop effects) not being picked up by a buyer. Also die-cutting for business cards - do buyers know that this can be very expensive? In hiring an experienced designer proper consultation can take place and the designer can be held for f*ckups when the project goes to print. And I noticed contributors doing more than one revision of a logo - buyer likes this and this and please try this- and in the end there is only one winner. a recipe for disaster but there is always the lure of the dollar - for a south african (like me) $500 is a lot of money and I never have to take pesky phone calls from the client:)

Hey Andrew. Really great post. I'm working a project in this area at the moment and would appreciate your thoughts. I'm curious...Do you think the value of design work lies in the execution or the idea itself ? Its often a blurry line between craft and concept, and I wonder if 'spec work' was based on the sourcing of ideas, rather than the crafting of these, if we could maintain the design standards needed. This would also help protect 'tradional' agency models which are based on offering the best talent and the best production offering ? Matt.

ARRRRRR.... comments are missing here... I am doing my best to get them back up by manually entering them... the dates on these should be 3 months ago.

I understand the conflict between the standard business model and spec work. But I don't understand the accusation of 'unethical'. The designers who choose to participate are doing this knowing they have a 1/25 chance at best. The buyers know that they risk lower quality (perhaps) in exchange for a larger selection. If I choose to use CrowdSpring, it would not save me money, I would have to bid at least the $250 that LogoWorks or LogoCare would charge. I've emailed graphic artists who offered logos and an appealing portfolio only to get no reply. In one case I wrote "your logo for XYZ company looks like a style that would be great for my site, I'm sure we can work together, please let me know when you can schedule a project for me." Didn't even reply with "too busy" or a price he'd charge. I was likely willing to pay whatever his rate was.

Spec work is not only unethical, but ultimately the client that chooses this route will not end up with the best design solution possible. So they think they are saving money, but in actuality they are getting a product that will not properly suit their needs and may lead to loss of business. It's an all around bad idea for every party involved. To young designers and to design-buyers thinking of getting involved in a spec work situation. STOP! Don't do it.

Following the discussion, it amazes my how casually terms such "designer" and "design" are used. This is American Idol to the Graphic Industry: clueless amateurs playing professionals, just because they know the difference between a toaster and a PC. Face it: most results are rubbish, and quantity does not replace quality. Get an education people - or work at McD

I just have one question. If professional designers can do that much better than the hobbyists or amateurs, couldn't a professional go onto Crowdspring and just clean up? Couldn't they win the bid on every project by being above and beyond everyone else? Just as the best photographers on iStock sell WAY more than the others.

I think this model does open up a completely new market, like a previous poster said about a farmer's truck logo. This new market benefits from lower prices and ease of use. But IMO, there will always be a market for higher-end designers. Just like Annie Leibovitz hasn't been affected by iStock(I'm assuming on this).

Good question. I am a designer with a 4 year degree and 10 years of experience. I needed a little extra money and love designing logos. I liked the idea of knowing that I would be paid once selected so I wouldn't get stiffed. And I wouldn't have to deal with the back and forth of establishing a price which lets me focus on what I love designing. So I thought what the heck, I'll design some logos and see what happens, if nothing else I'll have some great logos for my portfolio. I thought I'd at least make money on every third logo or so making it worth my while. What I didn't count on was the sheer number of contestants I was competing against. Clueless Clients who get no direction and make bad decisions. And the copycat mechanics. There are some good designers, some who clearly have no idea what they are doing because ultimately there work would was not printable. To my surprise clients look at all the work as equal and professional because they simply aren't educated in the craft or printing standards, and such. I believe they get overwhelmed so they often turn to the crowd (committee) and choose a winner by committee. With two many cooks in the kitchen the logo gets watered down. They end up with crap frankly, or unprintable logos that should not have been considered in the first place. As a designer, there is a rule of thumb, never show the client a design you don't like because 9 out of 10 times they will choose it. On Crowdspring, a designer also doesn't get much of a chance to educate the client because they are looking though 200 or so designs and comments. It is in the code of ethics that you a designer or creative can't badmouth your competition. Furthermore there are no checks and balances preventing competitors from stealing logo artwork from existing logos and trying to pass it on as there own. The copycat mechanism drives the strategy - a designer puts the work up and 3 or four more competitors throw up logos often based or your design modifying it slightly sometimes. As a designer you can then put a violation on that person and someone from Crowdspring will then assess the two designs and determine whether you have a case. Out of 65 designs I have received 1 reward. Hardly worth my time and effort.

Very interesting discussion. I generally find that a client who asks for spec work isn't willing to pay for quality. They also often try to get us to define their project specs for them and give them a project plan as part of the spec. I'll do this, but charge a flat fee for the requested spec work. If it doesn't suit them, they keep the work and my team gets paid.

I think asking for spec from a qualified professional designer is a sign of in-experience or at least lack of confidence in their ability to communicate effectively. Just say no.

I agree with your blog post Andrew and your comments. It just sad that other designer don't get it.

Luckily, I am happily employed with a fantastic design company in san diego.

But when I was looking for jobs I would get so annoyed with potential employers asking for speculative work in interviews. I've never done Spec work, I am a professional, I went to college and have my B.A. in graphic design. I am skilled and am not going to work for free. I think is is very unprofessional and rude when I'm asked to develop a design that could be used/stolen without any payment in order to get a job. My portfolio accurately portrays my style. If a potential employer asks me to do spec work I simply tell them that it is not in my best interest and I tell them I am no longer interested in working for a company that has no respect for graphic designers. If I were a programmer they would never ask me to create a specific software that they needed and then they might hire me.

right now Earthtrade.com is asking for spec work on craigslist

"PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESUME and Salary History. Include portfolio pieces and having an online portfolio is a plus.
If seriously interested in this opportunity please prepare the following project. DETERMINATION AND PASSION ARE QUALITIES THAT WE CONSTANTLY STRIVE TO FIND, WE WILL NOT VIEW ANY RESUMES THAT DO NOT INCLUDE A SAMPLE :
Make a full color 2 sided postcard that is set up for mailing purposes. The postcard will be for people who do not already know what a water ionizer is and we are trying to get them interested in one.
On the front side design an attractive piece for a water ionizer machine. For more information on what an ionizer is please go to www.lifeionizers.com.
On the back side make up content with a few bullet points on what an ionizer is and why someone should purchase this product. Leave room for postage, an address, etc. Please save project as a PDF and email to address provided in this ad. We look forward to hearing from you!"

A PDF? What the F@asdf?
In this format they can print these and use this free design without even paying anyone...
What Jerks.

Also AutoFusion asked me to design a website for them and then they might consider me for a position- I said that it was not in my best interest to work for free and if they wanted to know what i was capable of then they could check out my portfolio... I told them they could contract me for a design and then hire me if we were a good match but they were asses about it and said they were uninterested in working with me because I wouldn't do a "simple" website design for them for free.

Shady Companies:
Auto Fusion (san diego)
Earth trade (san diego)

INTERNET MAD LIB: This year, <Established Vertical> is being disrupted by <insert adverb> upstarts and the professionals whose livelyhoods are being threatened are <insert adjective>.

Stockbrokers, real estate agents, photographers, journalists, classified ad guys, graphic designers.....disrupted. We all seem to love the economic and technological advantages that this Internet thingy provides...until it starts sniffing around our bank accounts and threatens to take bread off OUR table.

One of my best friends is a designer and hates crowdspring. But I recall her loving how much money she saved using Istockphoto instead of Getty.....she didnt feel too bad for the high-end photogs who were losing business to this crowdsourced photo licensing site.

It is not like spec work is new, it has been a long fight. Largely, it has been a dying trend due to its self destructing manner. Every once and a while it will resurface, then go dormant.

Could your friend get sued for using Istockphoto? No? Using spec, you are opening up to a range of suits. Win or lose, you still lose.

Like I have said many times before, I fully support disruptive models, but can't when there are large ethical and legal ramifications, which spec work, and companies like CrowdSpring fits into.

It seems by the rationale presented in the post, then, ALL competitions in which competitors must submit a completed work/object/design/etc. in order to win a prize are unethical. X Prize? Architectural competitions? Industrial design competitions? Essay competitions? You name it. The analogy is not airtight, but by extending the thought process that's what you arrive at. This is, in essence, spec work that people do for a living, in many cases.

Regardless, I'm a huge fan of great design and feel it should be well compensated. Whenever upfront work is called for there is a HUGE danger of unethical behavior from the client side. This is pretty common in many businesses. (Come to think of it, I used to work in IT consulting. We would always have a few calls before the project in order to talk through what the problem was and how we could help. Sometimes clients would have several calls, get some value out of input from analysts, and then call off the project, never having paid a dime. It sucks but it happens and is just expected in the sales process.)

However, take a small company that can't afford much more than a couple hundred bucks for design work: a mediocre quality design from a site like crowdspring is better than nothing at all and high quality, more expensive designers haven't lost any business. The company would never even consider a high quality, more expensive designer.

Not to mention the changing dynamics of globalization and access to talent worldwide.... Won't get into that whole thing.

It's a fuzzy area.

Hi Andrew – I read with interest your blog post and the discussion that follows. You took the time to write, and I wanted to take a few minutes to respond. I respect that you have an opinion about spec work and about crowdSPRING. As much as we would love crowdSPRING to be loved by all, we understand that very few companies are so lucky. Having said that – we spent nearly a year thoroughly researching, talking to hundreds of designers around the world, and interviewing buyers (from small start-ups to the Fortune 500). We saw an opportunity to think differently about creative services, to innovate and offer a new model that could radically change how some companies buy such services. We recognize that our model is disruptive – as your post points out. But it is also a platform for change – a way for millions of creatives around the world to participate, not just in graphics design, but also fashion design, product design, site design, video and audio, and many other creative fields. And our model is fair –we’ve built a level playing field where people can compete on the basis of their talent, not the size of their offices, where they went to school, or fancy brochures. There is nothing wrong with any of those things – and there will always be a need for high end professional designers. But those designers generally won’t do work for the 500,000 start-ups founded in the United States every month, or the million+ around the world, because those companies have very limited budgets for such work. And there is no dispute that the industry is suffering, the world economy is suffering, and the facts are pretty staggering: Starting salaries for designers are in the lower $30K (USD). Many are out of work. Nearly every single designer wants to freelance and 30% of designers are freelancers. Designers without an education can’t get internships and those who can’t afford an education can forget about design. Designers without a portfolio can’t find jobs or clients and thus have limited means to build a portfolio with strong testimonials. Those who try to find work on Elance, Guru, GetAFreelancer, or any similar sites are outbid by designers from countries where the economic situation is far worse than in the U.S. – where a designer will bid to design a logo for $25. And those prices certainly don’t help the profession and frankly, don’t help the client in most cases.

I was a bit taken back by the concluding remark in your post about doing the right thing. Perhaps you’ll agree that 140-character Twitter conversation is not a real measure of a company or its people.

There’s been remarkable opposition to change in many industries. I recently wrote a blog post about new marketing initiatives in the music industry, for example (http://blog.crowdspring.com/2008/06/30/industry... initiatives received very similar criticisms, not unlike those in your post – people argued that those initiatives will destroy the music industry and the profession.

Your words sound very familiar, because that's what the traditional software industry says about open source.

The parallels between open source and spec work are extremely limited even in my mind. Some key contributions are sponsored by corporations. World-class programmers contribute to open source projects. However traditional software people do think that it is not sustainable. "How are these programmers paying for their computers and compilers? They work another job, so someone is paying." There are lots of people who think that open source is against the interests of the software profession as a whole, and because of that think that it is unethical.

Or take painters, as another example. Some aren't very good, or are just starting, and feel lucky if they can sell their work for the cost of the canvas. Some produce pieces of art sold for millions of dollars. The ones who aren't very good have all the rights to keep doing what they do, because they like what they do, because the only sure way to never become successful is not trying, or maybe because they do make a little bit of money after all.

Not every kid who wants to become a designer can go to a good design school, or intern with a good mentor. How are these kids supposed to get started? They now have a way to build a portfolio, to learn what works and what doesn't, and then move on to the next step up in the profession.

It is not sustainable. Someone is subsisting for the free work. Whether that is pirated copies of photoshop, fonts or working a sidejob, someone is paying. Design is a profession, and their is some ethics involved in dealing with respecting it as that.

Look at advertising in the mid 90's. Spec model gone a muck. Find me a designer that has done spec for more than a year.

Spec is wrong, for everyone involved, not just the client, designer not doing spec, or the firm looking to hire.

First of all, thank you for not calling me a sockpuppet... ;-)

You are correct that 99% of designers don't get a cent. However 100% get a shot at getting $500. Everybody knows that going in, and that chance of winning the $500 must be better than the alternatives or otherwise they would not participate. I don't think that anybody who submits designs through those websites would like to see them disappear, and therefore I doubt that they would welcome you as an advocate. So I truly don't see your "problem" with that mechanism.

Let's talk about the client side. I don't mean to be demeaning to the vast majority of small business owners, but do you really believe that a good designer would be justified for, say, an electrical contractor's business? Do you think that a lot of plumbers would benefit from having their "core identity" brought to light by a "real" designer? I'd say that they just need a cost-effective, decent-looking logo.

Now let's talk about costs. If you live in Boulder's startup world and you rub elbows with lots of world-class designers, getting a phenomenal logo for $500 is probably possible. But if you are a farm equipment dealer in a small town how do you find a good designer? You probably end up stumbling on a moonlighting high school art teacher who will produce something way cheesier than what you can get via CrowdSpring. Or you'll end up spending a whole lot more than $500 in your own time to find a better designer (who will probably look down upon your business and ask for well more than $500).

You say that many industries have been burned by the spec model -- what examples do you have in mind? Taylors have certainly been burned by the "spec model" of manufactured suits, and their industry has been decimated -- is that a bad thing?

"Spec work is wrong" -- it sounds like it's wrong only for those whose business model is being disrupted. If you don't like the rules of the game, don't play. But please don't call "unethical weasels" those who decide to play. If insults are your currency, don't expect to buy understanding.

* 22

If you look at the front page example they use, there were 108 designs for a $500 project. 99% of the people that touched your project are not getting a cent. That is the problem.

""On the other side, what if a company can't afford a truly talented designer?" Then they shouldn't be in business." I didn't mention elitist here, nor did I say you needed to pay an arm and a leg. The design of your core identity is a cost, just like paying your phone bill. Spec work doesn't belong here.

In my experience, $500 can get you a kicking logo, the same price as sending it out to spec. Spec is wrong. Not having a VC round for design is not what I mean at all. Find a quality designer out there that fits your budget, it will help you in the long run.

Many industries have toyed around with the spec model, and many industries have been burned.

This does not make a whole lot of sense to me. A lawful contract among consenting adults "unethical"? You say that there is no compensation, but that's not true -- the best competitor does get the money, and everybody gets a shot at that. If somebody steals a competitor's idea without paying that's a different deal, that's breach of contract.

You say that businesses that can't afford a "real" designer don't deserve to be in business. That's utter elitist nonsense. The world is not just VC funded tech companies. In the real world there are a lot of small business owners who have the right to have a half way decent logo on their business card instead of their business name written in an ugly font, if they can have it for $250.

What about the kid in India or Costa Rica that works through websites like CrowdSpring and 99designs? No matter how talented he is, that kid won't be hired by the next hot VC funded startup to design their website. Doing spec work is the best shot he has at making money doing something he likes to do, and if he's good he can make very decent money compared with the alternatives he has.

If the "traditional" design community wants to fight the threat of a new business model that brings a lot of new competitors into the marketplace, that's fine. But please call it for what it is -- a protectionist effort. Don't call a plumber who wants a decent logo on his truck an unethical weasel. Don't call the kid in Costa Rica who's trying to make a few bucks an unethical weasel.

I came into this debate with no axe to grind, and with an open mind. All I've seen from you is arguments sorely lacking foundations, and unjustified heavy-handed accusations. I must say that my mind is closing fast...

PART 1 ABOVE...

When we founded crowdSPRING (we launched May 2008), we spent a great deal of time thinking through the problems designers had working online. They take huge risks and on other sites, are often scammed when the buyer takes the deliverables and never pays. And we built rules and processes to address such problems. For example, we require buyers to escrow all funds with us before their project is posted. We make NO exceptions. When buyers “abandon” projects – this sometimes does happen - a panel of senior executives at crowdSPRING selects the top design and awards 100% of the money. And we only charge buyers (our commission is 15% – we don’t charge designers a penny). Every project on crowdSPRING is protected by a customized legal contract that defines the rights of the buyer and designer (and we take into account the countries of the buyer and designer to include the proper language for the protection of the intellectual property being bought and sold). Both our user agreement and that contract specifically state that the designer retains ALL rights to their work until the buyer pays them in full for such work. Incidentally, prior to co-founding crowdSPRING, I spent 13 years representing small, midsize and Fortune 100 companies around the world in intellectual property disputes.

Designers chose when and how much to participate in any project and can leave at any time (withdrawing their entries). Most designers contact the buyers to get a better feel for the buyer’s needs and engage in a conversation via Private Message or email to further define the work. Many designers do quite a bit of research before submitting entries – research about the client, the competitive landscape and the audience for the project. Many of our designers have found follow-on work for the same clients and have found new clients when those companies reviewed the work on crowdSPRING (we’ve built a nice section for portfolios, for example, and plan numerous improvements to make that section an even more powerful tool for our community). And unlike other marketplaces who object to such follow-on work, we actually encourage it. Frankly – that’s one of the benefits of working on crowdSPRING and my mailbox is full of people thanking us for giving them an opportunity to find new clients around the world – including from professional designers in the United States. We’ve done many more things but this note is already lengthy, so I won’t mention them. Rest assured, we haven’t stopped innovating.

Thanks for providing a chance to respond and to speak to your readers through this comment. I do hope we have an opportunity to meet so that you can get a better sense of “the team”. Every designer, just like nearly every other working person, has a choice of where to work, and we’re pleased that so many have chosen to work on crowdSPRING. It’s not for everyone, we know. But there’s a groundswell of untapped talent – millions of people – for whom crowdSPRING provides a creative outlet. And we’re not ashamed by this. To the contrary - we’re humbled that buyers from 30 countries have posted nearly 300 projects, designers from 125+ countries (over 3,500) have joined, and we’ve paid nearly $100,000 USD in awards. And that’s just during the 65 days we’ve been in business.

Ross Kimbarovsky
co-Founder
http://www.crowdspring.com

Speculation is essential to most subjective businesses, design included. This speculation is connected to the difficulty of quantifying an act of expression rather than discerning the price of a commodity. Musicians, authors, and even Web entrepreneurs face the same daunting reality of creating work with only a small POSSIBILITY of reward.

Crowdspring is no different. If anything, Crowdspring ensures the demand half of the economic relationship by requiring payment upfront.

Is the quality less? Maybe. Do decreased prices hurt professional designers? Probably. But for the "small minority" of world citizens not familiar with design standards or the power of the Internet, Crowdspring provides a method for easily creating respectable work.

Musicians compose before distribution or sales. Authors write before inking publishing deals. Bloggers write without guarantee of readership or advertising. The Wright Brother's flew without the concept of commercial airline (a stretch, but loosely connected). And now designers design without definite rewards for their work. Such is progress...

"Speculation is essential to most subjective businesses"

Really? I've yet to see one.

Would have to say you got off on the wrong foot here, logic thereafter is very flawed.

I think I'm starting to see where the difference is. I think there are two questions/stances on the issue that might be getting mixed up. One of us is centering our discussion around one of them, and the other one is talking about the other.
1) Is there a deliverable involved?
2) Was there effort/labor expended?

My views are from the perspective of #2. Yes, there is effort involved in creating your "entry" for the spec work. But the way that site works (unless I'm mistaken) is that there is no deliverable involved *unless* the two parties agree to a contract. The website holds the design "in escrow" and only allows a low-resolution preview of the work. I don't have any experience with CrowdSpring, but this is a similar system to LogoWorks, which I've followed for a while. (although they only use a maximum of 4 designers per client)

I want to be very clear about my stance on this: If the client *steals* that work or creates derivative works based on it, or in any other way breaks the law with regard to the designer's implicit copyright, that is 100% absolutely no question unethical and wrong. Period.

But if the client looks at the work, isn't interested, and moves on to a different designer who created work that more closely represents what he/she is looking for, then I see nothing wrong with that. The designer knew before any effort was expended that his/her design might not be chosen. They made the choice to expend the effort.

I see a problem with the analogy between creatives and docs/lawyers/accountants. Those three have a deliverable for their efforts that *directly* benefits the client. In the case of the creative, there isn't a deliverable, only the effort expended (thus the analogy to a job interview).

*If* there is a deliverable that benefits the client, then the creative deserves to be compensated, no question. Again, don't get me wrong.....Violating the copyright of the creative in any way is *not* acceptable. The client must choose the moral high road and must not benefit from the design in any way without compensation to the creative.

Here's another example that I've personally been a part of, and is the accepted modus operandi of the industry: Landscape design.

When you hire someone to come in and do your landscaping, you *always* get their drawing/rendering of what they would do for you. It's not enough to see what they've done for other people, you need to see their design for your specific plot of land. Clearly, you don't get to keep the drawing/rendering, but they still expended the effort to create it. If you get five designs and choose just one company, then those other four have expended the effort without seeing compensation for it. But they knew there was a chance of that when they agreed to show you their design. Good, bad, or indifferent, it is the way the process works.

To me, there isn't a difference between this and what these other sites are doing, save for the fact that there are more creatives involved.

So maybe that's the answer?.....limit the number of creatives so that there is a higher chance they will win the client.

BTW...I'm not in any way associated with any of these sites, and don't wish to be associated with Jake T, below. I'm trying to keep this discussion free of emotion and discuss only the facts involved. I am not pointing fingers. I am not saying "You're Wrong". I'm simply trying to understand.

Thank you for engaging me on this and responding in kind. It is very appreciated!

Good questions, really, thanks for bringing them up.

Is this unethical? "It is a major ethical flaw of both parties." is what I wrote, more so from the client IMHO. Not ethical to ask for professional work for free, not ethical to offer it undermining yourself without legal protections.

With regard to waitstaff, there are cultural norms and labor laws to protect them. It is rare to get stiffed and you still get a paycheck with minimum wage. With spec work, if you have 20 designs submitted, you have a 95% chance of getting stiffed.

With a job interview it is rare that you provide full and complete intellectual property during your half day. Your not asked to provide 'billable' work during the interview, and if that work was used, it would be unethical. These norms are pretty clearly outlined.

This is hilarious! I bet there are a ton of other things we could focus our energy on right now in the best interest of ethics other than spec work. Hmmm, let's start with like world hunger, poverty, etc etc.

Look, here's the bottom line. I'm a designer. If I want to crank out a new homepage design for company x in the hopes that I'll get paid, I'll do it. If not, I won't. It's my choice. And, if I do decide to go for it, it'll be some really good sh#t. Why? Because I can't design any other way. I can't speak for dude over in country z though, but I'm not here to either.

And that's ultimately my point. It's like religion. Shouldn't this be a personal relationship with me and my higher power? In this case, someone I want to pay me for my work? Don't impose your ideologies and beliefs on me everyone that hates spec-work. Don't try to change me, you won't. Like I said, if i want to design for free, I will. If I don't, I won't.

That's what I love about freedom of choice, of decision making, and of opportunity. CrowdSpring has created a platform where people have an opportunity to create and get paid. So what if I don't! Big deal. Not the end of the world. I won't die if I don't win that $250 logo project. Nor will anyone else.

Seriously, spec work is not global issue with profound implications lol!

I actually have a good-paying full-time job. Maybe I'll Robinhood it on cS. If I win a project, all proceeds to to charity. If I don't, whose loss is it other than the 3 hours I spent on that logo? No ones.

If I were to Robinhood it, would the ethical issue still exist? I wonder.

This reminds me of a short story I have yet to write, where writers, photographers, developers, and designers are paid top dollar to do their work. But doctors, lawyers, and accountants are asked to do work for free or with the promise of future reward.

Professionals are professionals. And they should be paid for their effort.

http://www.99designs.com/ those guys are in the same space as croudspring but only initial payment you make is towards the listing, you have 0 commitment. With croudspring at least they take that money and hold it, so their purpose is not to provide a place for you to steal somebody's work, but to simply pick the closest and most talented person for the job. People are not forced to do this and its a great opportunity to not only land that first job, but most likely gain a client for a very long time. Which leads to referrals and leads to all of their contacts and so on and so forth. I would love to hear a different option assuming you cannot use referrals.

When we were looking for a copywriter on GURU, we simply picked the one that put some thought into the project by writing a sample article (we did not ask for a custom sample she decided to provide one to us), something that started at about 200 a month now grown many times over that.

Spec work is not always bad, its a great starting point for new professionals looking to make connections and grow their business. Imagine if you are a full time designer with 0 clients, you have nothing better to do than to create something in hopes of getting paid, why not do it?

Echos my thoughts. I've found very good designers by using these services and have built relationships with them. It has been a much better experience for all parties than hiring a single agency and go through change after change after change. In a recession where services and products (like design and ad serving) have become commodities, putting your best work out there in a social environment is not unethical, it's smart.

Crowdspring is a SWEAT SHOP of desperate designers. It is OUTSOURCING design to countries where $500 is a TON of money. It is not a level playing field at all and is taking jobs away from Americans. Way to support the US economy, Crowdspring!!

I think that next time I want a kick ass dress, I will fly to India and ask 300 seamstresses to make me a dress. I'll give the maker of the best dress $250.

Does THAT seem ethical?

I haven’t found that at all. How is outsourcing to a country where $500 is a lot of money unethical? That’s also assuming all work is outsourced. I’ve only worked with one non USA designer. I think it does level the playing field since it comes down to design skills and availability. And I have a ton of faith in American ingenuity and entrepreneurs to find the next opportunity which is evident all around us.

Interesting post, I appreciate your insights.

I didn't have an opinion on this issue before your write up and now I'd say I am generally with you.

The only thing I question is the fact that we have ignored the forces at work here. Isn't this an example of the impact the web (and globalization, etc) has on an industry? I'm not saying its a good influence but it does impact things.

The impact is similar to file sharing...technology has transformed consumer expectations. For example, I rarely buy music anymore and when I do its a download. Good for me? Yes. Good for the artists? Probably not. Good for the music industry? Tough to say.

Again, I am directionally with you here....I just think its a natural progression and in this case we will probably sacrifice quality and creativity.

A couple of questions...
1) Are these designers being forced to do the work, or are they free to choose whether or not to accept an offer? (or even work with this company at all?)
2) Is this a bad way for a designer to build a portfolio of work?
3) If designers as a group don't like this kind of work, how do sites like this exist?
4) As I understand it, the problem is that designers spend their time & efforts to create work that may not pay them. Is that understanding correct? If so, is that any different from being an intern? Interns are always paid less to do the same or similar work as their full-time colleagues, but in general are in it for the work experience. The resume building. The networking.

A similar situation would be a photographer who is building her portfolio. She will generally do work for a lesser price in the beginning of her career so that she has examples to show clients down the road. She doesn't always keep her prices that low, she's simply "paying" for the experience. She chooses when to make the jump (based on what her clientele will support).

Please note...I don't have feelings one way or another on this issue. I'm simply trying to gather more information so I can form an intelligent opinion. I think everyone should get fair compensation for their work. But who defines "fair"? If designers don't want to participate, then they don't. Clearly some of them do, or sites like Crowdspring or LogoWorks wouldn't exist. Maybe it's a stepping stone for the designer. Maybe it's a stay-at-home mom who thinks she's pretty good at drawing and wants to find out if she's "got what it takes". Is there another way she would go about hawking her talents? Even the No-Spec site says that:
"The only requirement for participation is putting the appropriate value on your profession."
Who defines that value if not the designers themselves? Choosing to participate or not is your call as a designer. Isn't that the beauty of the free market system?

On the other side, what if a company can't afford a truly talented designer? What if they are bootstrapping and are looking for the best they can get for $x ?

I will absolutely be the first to admit that I'm not 100% clear on what this issue is. Perhaps my understanding is wrong, or I'm missing a vital component to the story. I'm truly not trying to be contrarian. My perspective is simply that you have to "pay your dues" upfront to gather the experience it takes to charge full market value for a product or service. However, I'm open to having that perspective changed, given the proper evidence. :-)

'Looking forward to being enlightened. Thanks!

1) Forced- no. Also, in most cases, not paid either.
2) YES.
3) A lot of them don't exists for a reason
4) Interesting connection with interns. We are talking about design as a profession here.

Great point with the photographers, but building a portfolio with discounted rates is different than being one of five photographers at a wedding, with only one getting paid.

"On the other side, what if a company can't afford a truly talented designer?" Then they shouldn't be in business. Hiring a designer will make you more in the longrun, if you short simple costs like this it will show in the long run. There are many tricks with bootstrapping, trading, offering other things of value, that are fine, but asking to do work on spec is wrong.

@J.M.K. I applaud you for seeking the facts. You've asked some excellent questions and this shows that your approach to this issue is thoughtful and intelligent. And not surprisingly - you aren't getting many facts in response. You're hearing the same arguments professional phographers made when iStockphoto came to the scene. Yes - the same ones selling their work on iStockphoto today.

@Andrew - Really? If a company can't afford to pay high design rates they shouldn't be in business? This is a truly condescending attitude and if it's shared by this so called "professional" design community a big shame. Designers are free to chose where they work, what they do and how they do it. Just like every other person and every profession. You don't like it? Don't do it. And the fact that you paint this as a "major ethical flaw" tells me more about what's really behind the objections. It's tougher to compete when you have so much talent around the world competing against you. So you just claim that they are committing something like "a very serious crime"? What utter nonsense. Can you list the companies that have attained great riches by paying their designers in gold bullion? Hiring a designer will make you more in the long run? Where is the evidence to support this? Remarkably, there is not one fact in your article. I'd call that weasel debating. And here is the evidence on the other side: millions of talented people. Artists, musicians, graphic designers, illustrators, writers, fashion designers, landscape designers, product designers, photographers. If you think statements like "companies shouldn't be in business if they can't afford" high priced designers will keep those people at bay - you are wrong. And that there are millions of people willing to create - and succeeding - is huge vote of no confidence for all the drivel spun by the so called no-spec "professionals."

Even Jeffery Zeldman talked about NOT doing spec work back last August. http://www.zeldman.com/2007/08/14/dont-design-on-...

Being a developer if I did spec work it would be like coding a whole website or web application for free before they said ok.

don't leave writers out of this. I get as many, if not more, similar requests from similar people. They all want free work (and they all suck).

I totally agree with all you've said and I'm not surprised with Crowdspring's lack of knowledge in that area, or at least bad examples.

An ad agency I once worked for put a sizable amount of money, time, and staff on spec workfor one potential, large client to try to win their business, only to get burned, and see that potential client use their ideas anyway.

As a designer with designer friends who do these kind of things too I've realized that it's not only the people like Crowdspring, but also the designers who don't care, aren't trained designers, or are just not educated in what effect this has on our profession.

If they don't understand the difference between iStockphoto and what they're doing, then I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. That shows a willful ignorance about what they're doing; I suspect that they know exactly what they're promoting.

Right there with you. Following you on Twitter now, btw.

p0wned

If you don't agree with CrowdSpring, give them a NON-vote here:
http://www.condenet.com/promo/smallbizprogram/s...

This is a fascinating discussion. I own a small boutique design firm, and my 8 years in business, I have never done spec work, would never do spec work, and have a hard time believing that anyone would even consider doing it.

But I can't say that I think the whole thing is unethical. Clearly there are people willing to post their work to CrowdSpring for a mere chance at earning a few hundred dollars. Maybe they are unemployed designers with a lot of time on their hands, or students looking to build their portfolio. Maybe they have poor sales skills and can't get clients of their own. Maybe they live somewhere with a much lower cost of living than Boston. At any rate, if both the designers and the clients get what they want and need out of the deal, and crowdSPRING can make some money in the process, then it sounds like a win-win-win situation.

I am not worried about crowdSPRING competing with professional design firms like mine. Clients work with us because they want a consultative, collaborative working relationship in addition to excellent, custom-tailored results. Then there are others who simply cannot afford or do not value what we do, and that is totally fine too - everyone has different priorities.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post!

Andrew, can you ban Ross from posting links to his website? The guy is a blow hard who cannot get it through his head that his business model is ethically WRONG. Don't let him promote himself, he certainly doesn't let anyone criticize him on his website. As every post I've made in his forums has been deleted. (note: in no way were they objectionable except to Ross himself. Nothing more that mild suggestions that you don't work for free, and allow crowdSPRING to take advantage of you.)

I just want to say f*** crowdSPRING. They have no clue what there doing when it comes to reports of cheating. I had a similar idea as someone else and the kid reported me so what did crowdSPRING do? They deleted my account and it took a week for them to tell me it was because they had several reports "2" that I was stealing other peoples ideas and claiming them as my own. Of course they were my own, I made them. But they looked similar to other peoples so they removed my account and all my entries. 4 of which I was going to win. the site should be shut down because there are a bunch of retards running it.

As an update, I am getting about an email a day with complaints on the staff at crowdspring. (if you google crowdspring or crowdspring sucks, I am in the top 5.)

Sad to see what could have been a great concept (design and client matchmaker with hosted portfolio) has come to.

Just shows what happens when you try to mask spec work as community.

So I 'hired' these designers do do work for me and nothing looked good. I showed it to my secretary and she wasn't impressed either.

She did a logo in Word and it was PERFECT. I wanted to give the prize to her because the other deisngers used all these weird colors and everything. Really stupid. My company name is my logo. Idiots. Putting a square thing next to the words. PEOPLE CAN'T READ SQUARE THINGS.

Won't use them again. They wouldn't pay my secretary, so I had to buy her dinner. Everyone should just hire her instead.

-Doug

Seems like the protectionism racket that the AIGA has been running is coming to an end. Just like istockphoto, online real estate brokerages, craigslist, and napster uprooted industries, it seems that CrowdSPRING and similar sites will do the same.

No amount of complaining and whining about "ethics" will change that fact -- I agree with the poster above who asked "How can a contract between two adults be unethical?"

I don't think designers are being deceived when participating in design contests.

They know what they are getting into, and its obviously working for them or they wouldn't be doing it. No amount of posts or campaigning by the professionals who charge $5000 for a logo will change that. Likewise, it's very obvious that these sites meet the needs of a particular niche. "Luca" put it well when he said:

"I don't mean to be demeaning to the vast majority of small business owners, but do you really believe that a good designer would be justified for, say, an electrical contractor's business? Do you think that a lot of plumbers would benefit from having their "core identity" brought to light by a "real" designer? I'd say that they just need a cost-effective, decent-looking logo."

Crowdspring is a place for amateurs and small business who don't want to spend a ton on design. It's as simple as that. It's like McDonald's--cheap & quantity over quality.

Aspiring designers who use the site might think it's a great idea. To start out, possibly, but give it a few months, or a year tops... I'm pretty sure s/he will find out that the model is NOT sustainable for designers. Cranking out design after design in hope of winning some money is not how you sustain a career (though it's a pretty fast way to get burned out) There's a reason why noone makes a living out of contests.

@ Jason:
- You can sell a photo multiple times on stock photo sites; you can't use the same design for different "clients" on crowdspring.
- Your photos in stock photo sites are never meant for ONE specific client only; you only design for one client per contest in crowdspring (the more appropriate analogy is: asking a number of photographers to photograph your event, and then picking only one out of those).
- You cannot duplicate a photo; you can easily copy a design (logo, etc).

Now I will agree with "Luca" that some businesses don't really need any fancy designs--they just need something simple that works and that's it. In that aspect, a site such as crowdspring might be an alternative. But anything beyond a one-time simple job like that, you're probably better off developing a mutual client/designer relationship in which both parties are compensated fairly and are satisfied with the results.

I wish I found your post before using Crowdspring. I submitted what I thought was a pretty detailed project description for a logo. None of the 'designs' resembled a clearly thought out design. It was all just rubbish with beginner level designers!!!! I couldn't believe what I had signed up for. Before you know it I had over 25 designs...
how do I get my money back?????
I feel ripped off - mislead and completely pissted off!

Thank you thank you thank you! This is one of the most well written arguments for why spec work is bad for the creative community as a whole. I'm a relatively new freelancer (graduated within the last year) and in this economy, I had signed up for crowdspring after swearing off spec work relatively early in my design career. Thankfully, I came across this article and promptly closed my crowdspring account. I've been forwarding this article to other students I know. It's a rallying call.

I just came from the panel at SXSW and I have to say, I really had no idea. I'm an experienced front-end developer and I really want to find a way to hone my design skills. To my way of thinking, Crowdspring isn't a bad way to do that. But, as you state here, and as was stated in the panel, spec work takes advantage of the new designer rather than helping them "build skills and build confidence". I'm now educated, but my question is "If not Crowdspring, then what?".

I feel that CrowdSpring caters to the fact that where I currently live (yes, btw, where DO I live - in airplanes?!) I wouldn't necessarily know to whom to turn for a decent design. Crowdspring makes that decision easy for me - the web! :)

Here's another thought: I see an conservative average of $300 per 'contest', with about 100 submissions each. Let's assume you think you're better than the worst 20% of the pack, that still leaves you with a 1:80 chance. With all the overhead included, I guess you'll take 1-2 hours per logo or design. let's say 1h to be nice. With that kind of competition, you'll have to work 80 hours for $300.

Here's another thought: Could CrowdSpring become you "training camp"? Maybe it can help you to become more efficient and effective in "reading" clients' specs. So next time when a clients wants "not boring", "blue, but not too blue", "modern font", etc. you know what to bring on, because you can look at examples and experience from your submissions. You can even connect with "lost" clients online and ask them what they didn't like or did like about your submission.

Here's a good example for how to use CrowdSpring for a "training camp" http://www.crowdspring.com/projects/graphic_des...
More than half of the submissions didn't read the specs, it looks like :)

"Logo should include the words "Open Preferences" and an icon that can be used when space is limited. The icon is as important as the logo."

'Target audience is people who love to rate movies, TV shows, books and music. The logo should be gender neutral. The user should see the company as trustworthy, on the user's side and innovative."

"Style should be Web 2.0 or Web 3.0 style. No preference on color."

The anti-crowdsourcing group sounds like a profession in denial. This has all happened before in other professions. Business models change, and professionals need to change, too. Here's one close to the design profession.

It's an accepted practice for independent writers to ply their craft on spec. They write a compelling article, and submit it to publications until it is either accepted by a publisher, or the writer gives up. Since there are orders of magnitude more writers than publications, most writers know they won't get paid for their work unless it is really, really good, or if they are willing to accept a low rate for their work. Hungry, lesser-known writers often match up with cash-poor publishers, and well-known writers get top fees from cash-rich publishers. The top writers never complain that most writers are working on spec and are entering writing contests to gain some professional cred. It's part of the profession.

To the designers railing against crowdsourcing, don't hate the business model, hate your brothers and sisters in the design community who embrace it, if you insist on needing a villain in this debate. You can't stop the momentum or crowdsourcing. The more you speak against it, the more the rest of the world knows it is a good thing. You have a vested interest in raising designer's rates, not lowering them. We all know this.

Adapt to this business model or choose a new profession.

With that logic we should look at pyramid schemes as the new biz model, and everyone should evolve to that.

Or we can look to what is sustainable and has the best chance for everyone in the process winning.

This has crashed and burned before. Let us not forget.

First of all, I didn't say an illegal business model is OK, so your logic is quite flawed to make that comparison. There's nothing illegal about posting a figure and requesting spec work. Crowdsourcing technology just makes it easier.

It's interesting how very few people with no vested interest in the design profession are ranting against the crowdsourcing model for design jobs.

Publications have been soliciting spec articles for decades. Why haven't the writers put up a beef? From Readers Digest to Wired, any professional or amateur writer is free to compete for publications space (in print or online). For many writers, this model represents their only chance to break through and get published.

Lawyers have been poo-pooing the commoditization of their craft for a long time. Sites like Legalzoom are selling standard forms and other legal products that have been vetteed by good attorneys at a fraction of the cost of having a lawyer consult with you and give you a similar doc at their overblown hourly rate for this type of work.

In the late 1990's, we had more Y2K needs than we had programmers, so some programmers were making $200.hour. A few years later, we had a lot of programmers in the U.S. and oversees, and the market found ways to match companies' needs with talent across the globe, driving the rates down. While this is not good for the individual professional, it is great for the startup entrepreneur (the little guy) and the larger company who needs to cut costs in order to save the jobs they need at home to remain competitive.

The market will always find more efficient ways to match buyers with sellers. It was only a matter of time before design jobs fell into this efficiency engine.

Supply and demand is very simple. Now that we can easily put out the price we are willing to pay, the market is finding new ways to compete for that money. If some people are willing to do some work on spec, more power to them. The next step might be that designers will compete in a bidding war (kinda like Ebay for design jobs).

Please do tell me about your exciting business idea. Oh, it isn't a pyramid? Oh, it just has multiple levels.

I get it now.

Your logic is flawless. Well. No. Not at all. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If you are referring to Amway/Qixtar...These are legal businesses (not my cuppa tea, but they are legal). Multi0level marketing is not an illegal pyramid scheme.

It's not illegal or a pyramid scheme to post a price and see who wants to work the hardest to win the business.

I have an agency background (I wrote the proposals and pitched them), and we averaged about 200 hours of work responding to an RFP. That included storyboards, finished artwork, strategic analysis, and an execution timeline. We were aware the client could take our work and show it to a lower-priced competitor and have them do it. It was our choice to respond, and we didn't respond to every RFP that was sent to us.

I'd much rather have the client say what they are willing to pay and let us compete on what we could deliver for that price. Let's the client compare apples to apples. RFPs with no budget attached were the worst.

We love Priceline as a way to "Name Your Own Price" and have hoteliers and airline pricing agents compete for our business. We love having bankers compete for our business through LendingTree. But for some reason, the design community thinks they are not subject to the same laws of the market. Why is that?

Spec is asking for custom work to be done with the chance of payment.

Priceline is not custom. LendingTree is not custom (I am sure at a certain point it is, but is a product at first). I find it wrong to ask anyone to create custom work for the less than 1% chance of getting paid.

Please find an industry that has tried the spec model and succeeded. I have not been able to find one.

This is a good discussion, and I wish more were participating.

Elance has paid out over $150 million since 2005. I am well aware of the kind of work that comes out of this model. 70% of it is way off-target or poorly executed. Those people aren't stealing jobs from good designers. 20-25% miss the mark, but are decent attempts, perhaps from less experienced designers or hobbyists. 5-10% are extremely well executed offerings for any given job. Some may be seasoned pros, while others could be unknown but amazing amateurs who have professional-grade chops.

So a good designer is really only competing with the 5-10% who are the only viable candidates for the job. Not bad odds when you look at it that way. If Crowdspring gets 68 submissions per job, it might be worth some time instead of World of Warcraft/Madden/Bars/Tweeting all night on a Saturday.

When $200 US is a week's salary in Russia, you'll get some fantastic work from well-trained people who don't live the American lifestyle of debt and living beyond ones means.

It's not a quality argument anymore. The World is Flat.

BTW, I love the VCGear shirts. Does Guy Kawasaki know about this? If not, I think he would probably blog about it and shoot a link to the site. He has a list of typical VC and lawyer quotes that are hilarious.

VCwear, I mean.

Buyers: Stop being lazy and find a designer that you think will be a good fit. Share with him/her a strategy, an outline of what you want to accomplish with your identity and most importantly a budget. You are getting poor creative from sites like crowdspring. How much time do you think a designer logged with your project for $250?

There's much more to getting a great identity than just posting a request on a competition site. You need to engage with a designer that your are comfortable with and work together to create a great solution. Good clients make for good design. Stop taking shortcuts with sites like crowdspring.

Designers: At sites like crowdspring you are getting ripped off. Do you think that even the smallest start up has only $250 to devote to an identity?

I took a look at CrowdSPRING. My favorite was a buyer upset that a design didn't look professional enough for their Fortune 500 company. I couldn't help laughing. If they are wanting a professional design, then why aren't they sitting down with a company and working on it with them? This process is shoddy, lacks any real communication and to be honest, looks cheap. I run a company and I can't imagine getting something from there. I might as well use those ugly pre-packaged Microsoft templates. I'd save a bundle. LOL

I just dont see how this has turned so quickly into a battle over nothing.
There are three basic facts that have been pointed out NUMEROUS TIMES through out these replies.

1.CrowdSpring is a resource to 95% of graphic artist/graphic students/etc.
People use crowdspring to learn and polish design skills. If youre really good, you have potential to wins some bigtime cash. you lose, at least you got some practice in.

2. It is 100000000% the artists choice to participate and for what length of time they will participate.
EXAMPLE: A project comes up on crowdSPRING. Im interested. I have nothing else to do with my lame excuse for a life. So what do I do, I decide to mock something up for the Client. BASED ON THEIR FEEDBACK, I then decide whether or not I would like to continue working with this project or move on. If I am highly content with the outcome of the logo/whatever I mocked up, I save it to be placed in my portfolio.

I may have spent time designing a piece that I will never use, but it also allows me to try new things, learn new skills, etc. So how is that bad? Simple. Its not.
Why? because it was my choice to participate in the first place.

3. Unless you have a GREAT JOB, making GREAT money, what does it hurt to mess around on a website?

For someone like me, who just loves designing, its a good way to pass the time. Others read, some go for a drive... Me? I sit at my desk creating type treatments.
Its what I Love to do.


and another thing I just thought of...

I, as well as many of my friends in the design community are always looking for a great project.. THAT'S WHAT DESIGNERS DO. THEY DESIGN. THEY HAVE A PASSION FOR DESIGNING THINGS. CREATION IS KEY!
Unless you are a well-established ground breaking designer such as oh say Walter Landor, (google him if you dont know who he is) what is it going to hurt sitting infront of your screen for a few hours to mock up some idea's for a certain client who has already paid upfront for the service, and possibly put some coin in the pocket.

If you ask me, it just sounds like you have way too many opinions and absolutely no reason to complain in the first place. Unless it is directly affecting you, your business, or your checking balance, why even open your mouth in the first place?

Thank you CrowdSPRING. for helping me grow as a designer. Even if Mr. Hyde doesnt consider me a designer. I do my best, and you help me achieve that.

Responses:
1) Then why are they marketing to fortune 500 companies? Seems CS is leading in a direction you don't think they belong.
2) Yes, it is your choice to participate, just like it is my choice to dump, or not to dump oil down the drain. Many people see this as destructive, so I can a) listen to them or b) keep dumping, it doesn't hurt me!
3) It isn't sustainable, plain and simple. If you look at design as a profession where people can make a living, then having to make a completed piece for the chance of getting paid doesn't fit.

If you are questioning my rational for posting this, it is simple, I love design and don't like seeing my friends get burned.

Mind posting a link to your portfolio? Would love to see how you have progressed. I've only seen designers become template generators by participating.

no wonder people call designers snooty ... they call people unethical cause they price cut them

Huge difference.

Having a one on one contract = awesome. Even if it is $1 is fine (and markets will decide if that is sustainable, which it isn't).

Motivating based on monetary means with the chance of payment = unethical. You would say so for more than just design.

But isnt that what competitions are about?

So are you saying all competition whether is it design related or not are unethical?

Perhaps reading this would explain it in a better way. http://andrewhyde.net/spec-work-is-a-ponzi-scheme/

its really strange how you chose to reply to my, but not to the one above me with all the good points.

I was on a plane when the above commenter posted, while I was in front of my computer when you posted.

What i see here are 2 schools of thought, 1 of them that dont mind workin' part time for a website to earn money, on the other hand, we got a side wavin' their no-spec middle finger to anyone who take part or is part of a no-spec work.

Fine you got your own opinion, other got their own, so stop forcing people to see things your way with all these wall of text and big words. You guys got your own stand they got theirs, 99design or crowdspring. Stop harassing people site just cause they don't see things your way. Your guys behave more like spammer in any sense. They are not illegal or unethical just cause you say so.

In the end it all sound like you guys are afraid you will not get enough money for your snooty design ideas.

You are right, I should stop using big words.

Apologies!

Not that I can contribute to this great conversation.
I just recently "learned" of crowdspring, think it is interesting. I googled to see what came up, found this article and kept reading.

I am a designer, I get paid I have a 9 to 5 job as a web designer. I graduated from university almost 2 years ago now and was always looking for project ideas and real briefs after receiving so many fake briefs during university. I am battling if this is really unethical.

I understand working with a client and being able to better understand what they want and the whole process. But if "designers" are willing to submit their work then let them be and the buyers business can suffer or not.

If crowdspring was able to educate the "buyer" into what is needed for a great brief then that could help alleviate the "designer" frustration.

The one horrible thing i think about crowdspring is that the "buyer" is allowed to ask for adjustments before paying for the design/designers time.

Being able to submit work like this is just like freelancing, I can't tell you how many freelance jobs were designers in a room getting the same brief and asked to create something before knowing if they have the job. But to that same point that brief was paid for (mostly).

I actually thought it was quite interesting concept and enjoy reading some briefs as to give me "real" situations to build my portfolio, not necessarily by "bidding" for the job but as a great starting point for various self projects.

If this was set up differently more as a community where designers work together like a forum where asking for advice and information about briefs and a peer to peer designer community maybe it would be less "hated" by many designers.

As you can see I have very mixed feelings, on one hand it is a cheap way for people to get tons of works and examples. It's also interesting to see all the examples and to get real briefs for portfolio work. I don't feel as a designer that someone before paying me or committing to working with me to ask for changes to a submitted design. But at the same time this is just freelancing throw out in the open.

It all comes down to the old saying that you get what you pay for. I think not only are designers being lazy but so are the companies that want the design. To get a true identity that stands the test of time takes a lot of work on both sides. These designers and companies want to go the easy route. So be it. The work they receive looks cheap and they have no one to blame but themselves.

It's not surprising since we have been losing fine craftsmanship in all industries for many years. People want quick, fast and cheap. Just look at our automobiles, new homes, clothing, furniture, etc. There's a reason why everyone wants "retro" because the things being produced now could never live up to the products from the past.

Andrew,
I have just started to do a series of posts at my blog about virtual ad agencies and appreciate your comments about crowdSPRING. I have assigned a rating of Golems (soulless creatures created from inanimate matter) to rate them. crowdSPRING seems better than "ClickNPay" which got a rating of three! But after reading your cogent ant spec work argument I realize that at least they are not pushing a play to get paid model.
Great thinking, great comments.

Visit Sharky's Circle if you are so inclined at: http://sharkyscircle.blogspot.com

Regards—Guy Arceneaux

very cool

Andrew, your elitist attitude is prevalent throughout this discussion. I have looked over most of this page, but where is YOUR portfolio? Apparently, you seem to think you are the best designer in the world and anyone who would even think of creating a logo for less than whatever it is you charge is the most horrible designer. But, for all your elitist attitude, I can't find YOUR "awesome" works linked anywhere on here.

Of course, I am sure you fell right out of college and into the absolutely perfect design job that pays the big bucks you think you deserve, right? You scoff at someone willing to provide a design for $500. You have the nerve to tell someone that if they can't afford high-end, over priced design that they shouldn't be in business. So, apparently, you have never known what it is like to live in a world where $500 might actually put food on someone's table. What is a mere pittance to you, is not to someone else.

But then again, your real agenda here is obvious. Really it is none of your business if a designer wants to throw out a concept on CrowdSpring or if a business wants to go that route. Your agenda is clear. You have to smash this sort of activity because if this business model takes off, you find it harder and harder to over charge for design work. My point is made by the London 2012 Olympic logo. Have you seen that thing? Some "real" designer got paid thousands of dollars for a design that my 10 year old daughter could have scribbled better with her crayons. But THAT sort of bad design is OK because it was done by some "real" designer who got paid way too much, right?

It has nothing to do with price point or ethics. Bad design is bad design whether it is done by "real" designers or a stay-at-home mom with some artistic talents. Using Crowdspring doesn't make one a bad designer......bad design makes one a bad designer, no matter where they ply their trade.

Thanks for stopping by. I stopped doing freelance work a few years ago (why I don't put a portfolio on the site). I'm not coming at this from a designers standpoint, instead from a standpoint of knowing the industry.

I graduated college and did a year of $500-2000 projects, working my ass off and learning a ton. My first year I earned $17,000.

Your 0/2 so far.

A logo is done for the client, and a bad one is a result of a bad client and designer (or a bad audience for that matter). Perhaps the London logo is ahead or behind its time. I hate it.

Elitist? Really? Really?

Perhaps you should check out http://andrewhyde.net/spec-work-is-a-ponzi-scheme/

MAKE THAT SITE!

let me say after participating in 20 contests and winning none (almost winning some and get bypassed by copies, or worst, when realllly bad designs won)

I got really depressed, thought of quitting design for good!

It´s not bad enough to spend hours working for nothing, but to see lousy designs win, people dont understand designers are professionals who study brand identity and social interactions : It´s not just drawing!!

I agree here, there is more to a design than just looking the best next to others.

I like crowdspring. For one, I get to put in as much time as I see fit given the project reward value. If I see something that in the 11th hour looks like I can do better in an hour, then I put in an hour's worth of effort. I've won 4 logos that way, yielding $1450, in about 5 hours-worth of time. I just happen to be very fast in illustrator and can knock out logos quickly. The other issue is that I know - KNOW that there are already pre-qualified buyers on the other end. I don't have to hunt for clients, saving me LOADS of time (+ money). Underbidding has nothing to do with it. The offer is what the offer is. The only underbidding is the actual execution, which bites you in the a$$ if you don't at least try or put in too many hours. I can see your POV, but I have to wonder: Are you angry because, under the aegis of "you get what you pay for", you realize that you cannot compete with this new level of social "reverse bidding"?

I like crowdspring. For one, I get to put in as much time as I see fit given the project reward value. If I see something that in the 11th hour looks like I can do better in an hour, then I put in an hour's worth of effort. I've won 4 logos that way, yielding $1450, in about 5 hours-worth of time. I just happen to be very fast in illustrator and can knock out logos quickly. The other issue is that I know - KNOW that there are already pre-qualified buyers on the other end. I don't have to hunt for clients, saving me LOADS of time (+ money). Underbidding has nothing to do with it. The offer is what the offer is. The only underbidding is the actual execution, which bites you in the a$$ if you don't at least try or put in too many hours. I can see your POV, but I have to wonder: Are you angry because, under the aegis of "you get what you pay for", you realize that you cannot compete with this new level of social "reverse bidding"?

Shale,

In order to keep up your speed, being "very fast" and all, I take it you modify 25% or so of someone else's work and/or stock vector art to complete the work. After all, the world knows that you're quite happy talking about modification of other people's copyright/IP as "very legal".

It's amazing what people say in commentary in unrelated places regarding copyright, IP and attribution and how that affects the graphic design industry as a whole.

Hindsight might help you next time to create a truly original work, not a derivative.

If someone argues ethics, they're going to get an earful from me....

Years ago, my business partner and I hired a PR firm to create a brand for our software and write a press release. We chose a particular firm based on their portfolio of previous work and references from past clients. The resulting brand was mediocre, and the press release was written terribly. It got the facts wrong, had no appeal or "punch," and even contained grammatical errors. What we later learned was that their portfolio and references were based on work done by people who had long left the firm before we hired them. In short, they scammed us by intentionally misrepresenting themselves, and obtained quite a lot of money in the process.

This is the reason I distrust designers and other service people completely. There is no way of guaranteeing the quality of their service. What I find unethical, however, is that the people in the industry perpetuate practices that make such charlatanism possible.

If people who sell services wish to be ethical in any meaningful way, they must adopt practices that promote honest, good-faith dealing with clients. In the context of graphic designers, I would expect adoption of a few principles at a minimum:

1. Disclosure of the identity of the person(s) who created a design, the date of the design, and the price.

2. A performance bond to insure timely performance within agreed-upon project specifications.

3. An absolute satisfaction guarantee. Although I realize that many others believe that people should be paid for their efforts, regardless of the outcome, I don't. I believe that people should only be paid for their efforts that produce effective results. As a therapist/life coach, I personally guarantee my work: if you're not completely satisfied, you owe me nothing for the session.

The plain fact is that crowdsourcing goes a long way towards eliminating charlatans from service jobs and thereby promotes ethics.

Perhaps just as importantly, crowdsourcing permits someone who is highly talented but new to the game to play on a level field with established players who have large budgets for promotion. And I view this outcome as important ethically. It is highly unethical to impede free competition simply for the purpose of favoring established players.

I realize that crowdsourcing is no panacea, but it is far better than business as usual.

Karen Heart,
www.KarenLifeCoach.com

"it is far better than business as usual."

You had me until there.

Sorry you had a bad experience with an agency. The industry has problems, no doubt.

But solving it by making a hundred people complete work before having the chance of payment is wrong. It isn't scalable and is full of holes (did someone just rip off another design to sell to you?).

I used crowdSpring and I used it not because of the pricing but because I wanted lots of ideas. If I would have just hired one designer I never would have gotten what I ended up with.

I could dine at dash at 50 restaurants because I wanted to try their meals, but you would look down upon me.

WOW - you are all SO ignorant!! This issue is not even debatable, people! The law is the law!! Without a proper judging panel, proper contest rules, nor proper “alternate means of entry”, which EVERY real contest must have in order to even be LEGAL in this country, these “contests” are not really contests at all, merely underhanded attempts to rip off naive artists.

Although 99Designs (www.99Designs.com) is an Australian-based company, they are still hosted right here in the US, and they are also conducting business right here in the US, therefore they MUST comply with US laws - and CrowdSPRING (www.CrowdSPRING.com) is based right here, out of Chicago!! Allow me to elaborate on this, and also to educate you in some basics of copyright law in the USA…

What companies like 99Designs and CrowdSPRING is doing is not only illegal in the USA, it is highly unethical as well. First of all, they state that, “After the prize is paid in full, the ownership lies with the contest holder which is royalty-free and irrevocable.”, which is absolutely LUDICROUS!!! There are ONLY nine categories (as enumerated clearly in copyright law) by which works can even be considered eligible to be work-for-hire. These “contests” (and again, I say this loosely, since they do not have a proper judging panel, proper contest rules, nor proper “alternate means of entry”, which EVERY real contest must have in order to even be LEGAL in this country) fall into NONE of these nine categories, so what this company is REALLY doing here is ripping off young designers fresh out of school who are too green to know their rights. They are simply skirting both labor and copyright laws, and attempting to steal intellectual property from others.

Slavery was outlawed in this country long ago. Let me elaborate… even IF these people were on-site employees, their employer would not get any rights to their works if they were not at least paying them the federally established minimum hourly wage, right? RIGHT. So why on earth, when these artists are NOT employees, and they are NOT being fairly paid, would these "crowdsourcing" companies possibly think for a moment that they could own (or transfer the right to own) these artists’ works?

If someone is not your employee, and they perform work off-site, on their own equipment, on their own software, paying for their own electricity, receiving no benefits of any kind whatsoever from your company, and said work results in the creation of intellectual properties, then for those properties to even be ELIGIBLE to be considered work-for-hire they MUST fall into one of the following NINE (and ONLY nine) categories, as enumerated clearly in copyright law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) A contribution to a collective work (such as a magazine, newspaper, encyclopedia, or anthology).

2) A contribution used as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work.

3) A supplementary work, which includes pictorial illustrations, maps, and charts, done to supplement a work done by another author.

4) A compilation (new arrangement of pre-existing works).

5) A translation.

6) An atlas.

7) A test.

8) Answer material for a test.

9) An instructional text (defined as a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Works that fall outside of these nine categories (like LOGO DESIGNS!!) are CLEARLY ineligible to be work for hire, even with a signed contract. Just because 99Designs and CrowdSPRING have tricked some artists into signing away their rights doesn’t mean that it’s legal to do so, or that their contracts are binding. These companies need to realize that you can not bend and interpret the law to suit your needs. Law is law, and any wrongdoing WILL catch up with you eventually. (think NAPSTER, THE PIRATE BAY, DR. JACK KEVORKIAN, etc…)

A contract by very definition MUST be inure to the benefit of BOTH parties. Otherwise, by law, it MUST be construed as a waiver.

Also, if you will read through the blog postings for 99Designs, which can (rather unbelievably) be accessed right from their website, many artists who have fallen for their scam never even receive the measly well-under-market-value pittance amounts that they were promised after the close of one of these “contests”. I have read postings from several artists who have already been waiting well over six months to be paid for their works. This is completely unacceptable, not to mention illegal. Please, fellow artists, we need to stop companies from conducting these illegal and highly unethical "art contests" NOW, while there is still an industry left for us to save. We must stop these dishonest criminals from deceiving anyone else and further devaluing our entire profession.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ARTISTS!!! DO NOT EVER SIGN WORK FOR HIRE AGREEMENTS!! WE HAVE FOUGHT LONG AND HARD FOR THE RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE!! DO NOT LET THESE TRICKSTERS DECEIVE YOU!! YOUR WORK HAS WORTH!! IF YOU HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF OR TRICKED, JOIN A UNION THAT WILL FIGHT FOR YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS, THEN FILE A GRIEVANCE!! SEEK BACK DAMAGES FOR THE USAGE OF WORK THAT IS RIGHTFULLY YOURS!!! JOIN THE GRAPHIC ARTISTS GUILD TODAY!! (HTTP://WWW.GAG.ORG)

I see how some people may say that design contests are unethical, but I will have to say that I have won a few contests, and while I don't win all of them, I have gained an invaluable client that way who has established an exclusive business relationship and given me a lot of work. I'll continue to participate in a few contests in my spare time if it means I can perhaps gain some more clients like that.

BTW, unions are horrible and extremely inefficient. Sorry.

Thank you for this post. I'm not sure definitive evil like eating babies or bombing a subway is in the same league as spec work, but your literary license to exaggerate is welcomed. There is something wrong about exploiting someone's ambitions to be a real designer saying that if they donate their work product, then they have a random chance at winning a prize. This sounds more like a lottery to me. Sure gambling is the exchange of "money" for a random chance at winning a prize, but what is money if not the proxy for one's work product or labor? As such, it should be regulated as a lottery and odds of winning should be posted for each job. And it should be taxed accordingly as well. 90% of all profits of these "contests" should be paid into the state budgets of each state they operate in.