The ‘£25 logo‘ article we recently wrote for Creative Review seemed to cause a nice bit of debate in the comments section of their blog. Which is what we had hoped for. We did however notice their was a bit of confusion over certain wording. Although we never mentioned ‘crowd sourcing’ or ’spec-work’ in the piece, people leaving comments were using these terms in reference to the cheap logo service we used. We thought it was worth clearing things up a bit.
Crowd Sourcing
Outsourcing work to a crowd. The term first came up in a 2006 Wired article and refers to the method of taking a job traditionally performed by a single person and outsourcing it, usually via the internet, to a group of people in the form of open submissions. The benefits? As the client you can see ideas from a huge number of people, all with varying degrees of talent and pick the one you like best. What could be wrong with that? From our point of view, the work has been devalued, the quality of design has been compromised and the free-for-all scrum is never going to produce the most focused results. You may remember with a shudder, the fateful episode in October 2010 when Gap launched, were attacked for, and subsequently withdrew their new logo. At the high point of the controversy, some bright spark at Gap suggested Crowd Sourcing opinions on their new logo, the huge online backlash to this suggestion was arguably the thing that sealed the deal and led them to revert back to the old one. Why? Crowd Sourcing is the epitome of design by committee which cheapens what we do. These are the kind of things we’re talking about. Not good.
Spec work
Working without guarantee of payment. Any form of work in which the client is presented with the finished product before they agree to a fee. Spec work doesn’t just seem wrong from a design perspective, it simply seems like the wrong way to sell any product or service. Decided that you weren’t that keen on the meal you were just served? Don’t bother paying the full amount. Taxi ride take longer than you expected? Have it for free. Without commitment from both sides (client and supplier), the transaction becomes unfairly stacked against the person doing the work. Again, not good. The AIGA seem to agree and they’re not the only ones. Sites such as NO!SPEC and Antispec are on a crusade against this kind of work, Antispec define the problem well – ‘Client asks 3 design agencies to show what they can do for them if they want to win the £60,000. The agencies will spend a solid week, or longer, with many staff involved to prepare the perfect pitch. The pitch has cost the agency £6,000 and there is a 66% chance of losing.’
Paid job
Getting paid a pre-agreed rate to undertake pre-agreed work. A tried and tested system that gets all the fiddly details out of the way up front. Establishing what’s needed, how much it costs, how long it’ll take and how you’re getting paid before doing the work, means you can fully concentrate on the good bit – actually doing the work. In our opinion, this is the fair, sensible way to do business and the only way we work at Mat Dolphin.
Hopefully that’s made everything crystal clear. You may think the above opinions are rubbish and the way you work is best for you – if so, we won’t try and argue with you. Each designer works in different ways and it’s none of our business to tell other people how to deal with theirs. Although it’s worth remembering, as a wise man once said ‘if you’re good at something, never do it for free’.
The only exceptions to this rule are body popping and playing frisbee.
Thanks for reading.
Phil & Tom
I’m a website copywriter. Exactly the same thing is happening in our industry. In some cases, people are buying software to re-jig other people’s work (illegally). I do think that employing someone just to critique them is perhaps not the best way to deal with the issue, but I appreciate that it can be alarming: we are up against the same trend in pricing, and it is extremely frustrating. But if you produce quality work, people will appreciate that. If a client prioritises price over quality, you don’t need them as a client.
Comment by Claire — February 15th, 2012 @ 12:22 pm |Fully agree, design and creativity should be recognised as a highly skilled profession not just cheapened by so many pretenders out there. I have had people come to me with designs which have been created by their previous so called “Designer” in MS Powerpoint, Not really the industry standard software.
Comment by Steve Shepherd — February 15th, 2012 @ 12:25 pm |As with most high streets and town centres now, we are surrounded by £1 shops and crowd sourcing seems to be taking up this position. If you want something cheap be aware it will not last and will be lacking in quality.
Totally agree, I don’t pretend to be an actor, architect or any other profession so why do people think it’s so easy to do graphic design. Recognise designers for what they are – highly skilled professionals and treat them and pay them accordingly.
Comment by Kerry — February 15th, 2012 @ 1:25 pm |Guys, design by committee has nothing to do with crowd sourcing per se, but with the lack of focus on a project where too many people are involved in the decision-making process (both on agency and client side) resulting in watered-down work.
Also, personally I think the whole “I’m anti Spec-work!” mentality a bit simpleminded. If a great opportunity presents itself, are you going to say no, or take a punt if you think you have a good chance (we always think that don’t we)? I’ve done spec work, and occasionally still do because thats sadly the nature of the game. Sometimes the client needs to see something before they can commit themselves and release budgets. Its not always black & white.
I have spoken!
Comment by Tom Muller — February 15th, 2012 @ 3:21 pm |Thanks for the comments guys, really appreciate your interest and involvement.
Tom – Surely too many people being involved in the decision-making process resulting in less focus and watered down work is a pretty good definition of design by committee?
The for / against spec work argument is entirely dependent on whether you see the chance to work for free as a ‘great opportunity’. It’s not our place to tell people which work they should and shouldn’t go for and there are certain situations where we’ve worked for reduced rates or for free because we believe in the work and know what we’re getting into. The problem we have with spec work is that, by definition, the end result is based purely on speculation and all the decision making and power is with only one of the contributing parties – i.e. the client.
Why should only one side of the relationship commit?
Comment by Mat Dolphin — February 16th, 2012 @ 9:32 am |Mat — Yes, but when crowd sourcing, ultimately it takes place between 2 parties (you and the person commissioning), the fact that 300 other people are throwing stuff against the wall doesn’t change that. Its not 1 guy giving you 300 different options, its 300 people each focussing on 1 option. Classic design by committee would be you trying to please the marketing guy, account director, project manager, and director client side — all fighting to see their vision executed instead of rallying behind one idea. Thats how I see it anyway.
Re: Spec — I agree the end decision shouldn’t be one-sided, but as I said, competitive tenders issued by a lot of (even reputable) clients don’t always pay as part of due process, and as you say — its up to you to decide to take the hit or not.
Comment by Tom Muller — February 16th, 2012 @ 9:45 am |Fair point Tom, although I would say that all the other people throwing stuff against the wall certainly makes things much less focused and potentially more confusing for the client.
We try and work with our clients in a pretty collaborative way, getting to the heart of their problem and coming up with an original and creative solution. We do this by talking to them (often a great length) and finding things within the brief they may not have been initially aware of. Zoning in on certain details in these discussions can often give us the answer for an entire brief. Each time we present new work to a client, we give a detailed rationale of the thinking behind the work and why we did what we did. I’m fairly sure it’s impossible to have this kind of dialogue with the client if there are 300 other designers involved in the process.
Comment by Mat Dolphin — February 16th, 2012 @ 6:01 pm |I have the feeling we’re slightly talking next to each other about what DBC actually means. I fear the only solution to this is to discuss this accompanied by alcoholic beverages.
Comment by Tom Muller — February 16th, 2012 @ 6:10 pm |I think you may be right Mr.Muller. Beers soon!
Comment by Mat Dolphin — February 17th, 2012 @ 9:02 am |