The Art of Business: Logo Lessons
Before you blast an angry email my way, let me explain. I’m involved in a (very) non-profit teen suicide prevention organization called Five Alive. We have big dreams, many of which depend on the attention a successful logo can bring. But because our budget is so small, we knew we couldn’t afford the usual logo-design process. Instead, we posted our specs on Sitepoint.
Sitepoint allows clients to post requests for logos, identities, Flash animations, Web sites, or whatever is needed. Designers then compete for compensation by submitting designs based on the client specs. The designers who want to submit their ideas do quite a bit of work without any guarantee of pay. In fact, all but one will receive no compensation for their time and effort. If it weren’t for this struggling non-profit, I wouldn’t have worked this way. [Editor’s note — We understand that Eric’s controversial choice may generate strong reactions from readers of this column. We hope you share those by clicking on the voxbox icon to the left of the article. We’ll be monitoring the conversation closely.]
That being said, I learned a lot from the experience of assessing, providing feedback, and ultimately selecting a logo from the approximately one hundred submitted. This article is about those lessons, which can help any designer work more successfully with clients.
Five Things
But first, a little more about the project. When it comes to suicide prevention, most people are clueless. We have CPR classes, driving safety classes, water lifesaving classes, but nothing to teach kids how to help prevent the third leading cause of death among young adults 15 to 24 years old. Five Alive’s goal is to teach every teen in America (and beyond) the five things to do if they fear a friend is considering suicide:
Take it seriously
Know the warning signs
Make no promises of secrecy
Know where to turn
Act fast
You can learn more at our Web site.
The Brief
Five Alive envisions a multimedia teen awareness campaign with Web sites, t-shirts, concert booths, major celebrity endorsements, bumper stickers — you name it — all driven by the Five Alive logo. To achieve those ends, we posted the following summary on Sitepoint that we hoped would result in a winner of a logo.
Design Brief: LOGO — Five Alive Teen Suicide Prevention Awareness Campaign.
National non-profit campaign aims to teach ALL teens and college students the warning signs of suicide.
Summary: Need EDGY TEEN LOGO!!! Vector-based, to be used widely on Web sites, buttons, bumper stickers, t-shirts, wrist bands, etc.
Description: Every 100 minutes a teenager in America commits suicide. Our non-profit, privately funded campaign seeks to greatly reduce these numbers with a national teen awareness campaign. The program does one thing simply: teach kids how to help other kids considering suicide.
Logo needs to be bold, vibrant, compelling, and appeal to a young audience 14 to 24 years old. Logo should include both Five Alive name and the link to a Web address. Consult your edgy, radical inner teen.
This could develop into a continued relationship for Web site and collateral material. Plus it’s a really great cause.
Desired Style: Radical/Bold/Edgy
Winning design: $225
The Process
It was a lot of fun watching the designs roll in. We received submissions from designers from Indonesia to Israel, Oregon to Florida, and from pros and amateurs alike. Some concepts were great and some less so, but they all provided new ways of thinking about Five Alive and how the logo might look.
I conscripted Jim Nichols, my good friend and great illustrator, to help judge, review, and articulate suggestions for designers. And we conferred with an informal group of teenagers, some with art aspirations of their own. The entire contest spanned seven days, and during that week, we asked for several revisions from the designers of our most favorite entries. We tried to give every designer feedback, and we added information to our general summary as the contest went on to help clarify points.
Lesson #1
Although our design specs called for a radical, bold, and edgy design, several designers submitted logos that were the opposite. We don’t have the rights to post those images here, but you can view one of them at https://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/3176/entries/187287.medium.jpg.
Seeing submissions like this made me come up with the fundamental but often ignored lesson #1:
Follow the specs.
Lesson #2
One of the very first designs to pop up showed great potential: https://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/3176/entries/186963.jpg
We loved the arresting image; the clear and provocative, iconic nature of the logo; and the cool colors. However, Jim pointed out that the hand looked like a paw or cave art.
And so we asked the designer to modify the design with these instructions: “We love the concept, but most comments are about the hand print, mistaken for a paw print or cave art. Could you tweak the fingers to make it look more like a human hand (but still retaining the beautiful artistic rendering you’ve created)? Finally could you try a color other than copper? As we’re afraid of having trouble reproducing that color on uneven surfaces and different media.”
In response, we got this: https://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/3176/entries/189923.medium.jpg
We felt that adding palm prints didn’t address the issue of the hand, and the design was losing its distinction. However, the design remained a top candidate.
We also were intrigued with this initial design: https://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/3176/entries/187632.jpg
And so we wrote the designer back with this: “This has some very great possibilities, very iconic. It seems like the bottom of the V is in perspective but the top is not. Is it possible to put the top and the text in perspective as well.”
A few hours later the designer posted this: https://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/3176/entries/188192.jpg
Both the palm print and the V are examples of promising initial concepts that we felt (and, boy, is everything subjective) did not improve in the second iteration, which brings up lesson #2:
Make sure every iteration is an improvement over the previous.
Lesson #3
Then this design came in:
Our group of teens really liked it. One of the questions we asked the teens about every design was, “Would you wear this on a t-shirt?” This design was the first to get a unanimous “Yes.”
Still, it wasn’t quite as distinctive as we felt it could be. We asked for revisions, and the designer came back with this:
The teens really dug the revision. But we had one fear: It looked too much like the Periodic Table on which it was riffing, and we didn’t want Five Alive to feel like a science project. So we sent this instruction: “Is there something you can do to enliven the text or give the logo a bit more energy?”
Within hours the designer came back with these:
Nice iterations, but still not quite there.
Then the designer did something special. He showed us a number of variations and applied them, so we could see them in action:
And finally, he posted this:
No logo lives in a vacuum. The designer, Darrell, a freshman at Florida State University, knew this and had articulated his concepts by incorporating them into a campaign because he knew that were we were ultimately headed in that direction. He anticipated our need and he imagined what we could do with the design, and in doing so, he acted as a consultant, not just a designer, which brings us to the all-important lesson #3:
Extend the design with visions of how it can be used.
Not surprisingly, we awarded Darrell the prize money for his original design. We’re in the process of building the Five Alive Web site and campaign using elements from several of his submissions, and we truly hope to help reduce the rate of teen suicide. We also hope we can pay Darrell more money, which he richly deserves, as do all the designers who participated in our experiment.
To see the entire design contest, go to https://contests.sitepoint.com/contests/3176.
As for Sitepoint itself, it’s worth spending an hour or so tooling around the site to witness the sheer activity taking place, if nothing else. Here are some observations from this side of the client/designer relationship: Sitepoint attracts a wide range of designers — moonlighters looking for extra cash, late-night design-freak insomniacs, students hoping to break in, stay-at-home parents with talent, and overseas artists for whom $225 is a month’s wage. Designers were extremely responsive. The competition was intense but the atmosphere genial. And as for the number of designs submitted? As Stalin once said, “Quantity has a quality all its own.”
All of which drive home the point I made in a previous column: It’s the value-add of consultation and high quality that will differentiate you from what is becoming, regrettably, a mass market for design services.
Sorry, even though the cause is a good one, that does not excuse using SitePoint. Instead you should have searched for a firm that would do the work probono.
You know, I understand the constraints of projects like this and I certainly appreciate your drive to produce a logo that meets and exceeds the goals of the organization, but come on… doing this on Spec is totally armature hour. Imagine going into a car repair shop and telling 12 mechanics at the dealership that if they fix the water pump on you Mini Cooper, and you like the work that just one of them did, you’ll pay him for their time. Everyone else is SOL.
Shame on you and those working this way, it’s pathetic.
Thanks for the article! Great refresher course.
The advice offered in Eric’s article about the process are valuable, and worth keeping in mind. I’m personally conflicted about the contests site approach. I understand neophite designers wishing to break into the business will use efforts like this to get their name out. You can’t prevent this from happening in the 2.0 logos for $100 culture we live in.
I’m also not sure about the chosen logo(s). I think the figure silhouettes with the words 5 alive would work better without the “periodic table” box. Goes to more of the purpose of the site, to help teens in crisis (a great cause, by the way).
Non-profits are no strangers to small budgets and designers are aware of this. Many talented designers offer their services pro-bono to non-profit organizations as a way to ‘give back’. This is pretty different than the spec work clients expect on a site like SitePoint. It is not the competition that devalues design, it is the expectation that our time and skills are a commodity. If you want different eyes, put two designers on retainer … I think you will also find paying someone keeps them on brief significantly more.
Just go to Craig’s List and see all the people who want free design/photography/modeling, etc. in return for portfolio photos or being on their website–BFD. I’m sure the first day the website is up there will be a million hits, and people will be clamoring for your design genius.
If you can’t afford to pay for design or photography, you shouldn’t be in business. Something this major should be factored into your budget. If you’re a needy non-profit, find someone willing to do pro-bono work. Or use clip art/stock photos/friend with a digicam. We creatives need to eat and pay the mortgage, too.
spec work cheapens the entire industry
Next time you go to the doctor why don’t you tell him that you can’t afford for him to do surgery, so maybe he can recommend someone who will do it for free? I’m sure you will get great results.
Just say NO to spec work!
Innovative way of getting ideas from designers vying for the job and the recognition of being chosen.
Most of the comments posted so far are pathetic and disgusting. Thank you Eric, for being brave! Non-profits have enough trouble raising money to do the great work they do. I have to applaud them for having a budget and finding a way to stick to it. Corporate America could take a lesson there.
I have to admit I’ve never seen this web site before. It’s comedy! And thanks for the entertainment on this Monday morning. I wasn’t threatened by it at all. There are some very tragic designs out there and the few that are good deserve the couple hundred bucks they “win”.
Gosh, everyone is so serious. In addition to the need for a logo for a non-profit, I also used Sitepoint (as I should have pointed out more clearly in the article) as an journalistic experiment…so I could report back to the gentle readers of creativepro. I learned a lot and I hope you gained some insight into this end of the biz, which, like it or not, is here to stay. I don’t recommend spec work for pro designers (if you read to the bottom of the article, you’ll see what I do recommend), but spec can be useful for creatives trying to break into the business or improve their chops. We may not like it, but the Internet is changing the way everything is bought and sold. Our choices are clear: we can huff and puff or change our business model to reflect the new realities. I suggest the latter.
— Eric J. Adams, article author
No need for personal attacks while you express strong feelings. Words like “pathetic and disgusting” directed at people in this voxbox take the conversation in an unproductive direction.
Terri Stone, editor in chief
As a professional I am against using a competition to obtain free or cheap design services. $250 dollars covers less than a day’s work. I understand that you are helping a not-for-profit organization, but surely there is a more honorable way of obtaining design services, many studios will do pro-bono work for not-for-profit organizations. By using this site to obtain design services you are saying it’s a reputable way to get free or cheap services. And it’s not..
Spec work is unacceptable in the services marketplace. Philanthropic spec work is cost-intensive. Look how many revisions the student had to tender. Oh, I guess we all have to go through the learning curve. When the student becomes a professional (maybe), he’ll know better. Charity does not begin with your hand in my pocket. It begins with mutual respect.
Spec work is unacceptable in the services marketplace. Philanthropic spec work is cost-intensive. Look how many revisions the student had to tender. Oh, I guess we all have to go through the learning curve. When the student becomes a professional (maybe), he’ll know better. Charity does not begin with your hand in my pocket. It begins with mutual respect.
“We have big dreams, many of which depend on the attention a successful logo can bring. But because our budget is so small, we knew we couldn’t afford the usual logo-design process.”
Designers have big dreams too.
I’m surprised you didn’t go the Pro bono route … granted, it might have been a lack of knowledge about the design industry.
A lack creativepro does not have.
creativepro, you’ve lost my respect.
Eric, I really liked your article. What an interesting study. Your observations and advice were thoughtful, simple and useful.
As for SitePoint, if it had been around when I was getting started, I’d have jumped on it. What an opportunity to get some real work under your belt while the stakes are still low.
It’s interesting that the negative comments here have been so airy; i.e., spec work is “bad,” “disgraceful,” etc. This is talk. It is not production. If you don’t like spec work, don’t do it. But spec is being done — and it will continue to be done — by free people making free choices in the pursuit of opportunity.
The world is not fair. It’s better than that. It’s alive. Go for it. Cream rises. Your work will rise or fall on its merits. But it will do nothing at all if for “ethical” reasons you never produce it.
Hello catzzz,
Please note that creativepro.com didn’t go to Sitepoint; Eric did. His decisions and actions are his own.
Terri Stone, editor in chief
This was passed on to me by an associate and seems fitting here:
More people are finding themselves in need of some form of illustrative service.
But what they’re NOT doing, unfortunately, is realizing how rare someone with these particular talents can be.
To those who are “seeking artists”, let me ask you; How many people do you know, personally, with the talent and skill to perform the services you need? A dozen? Five? One? …none?
More than likely, you don’t know any.And this is not really a surprise.
In this country, there are almost twice as many neurosurgeons as there are professional illustrators. There are eleven times as many certified mechanics. There are SEVENTY times as many people in the IT field.
So, given that they are less rare, and therefore less in demand, would it make sense to ask your mechanic to work on your car for free? Would you look him in the eye, with a straight face, and tell him that his compensation would be the ability to have his work shown to others as you drive down the street?
Would you be able to seriously even CONSIDER offering your web hosting service the chance to have people see their work, by viewing your website, as their payment for hosting you?
If you answered “yes” to the above, you’re obviously insane. If you answered “no”, then kudos to you for living in the real world.
But then tell me… why would you think it is okay to live out the same, delusional, ridiculous fantasy when seeking someone whose abilities are even less in supply than these folks?
Graphic artists, illustrators, painters, etc., are skilled tradesmen. As such, to consider them as, or deal with them as, anything less than professionals fully deserving of your respect is both insulting and a bad reflection on you as a sane, reasonable person. In short, it makes you look like a twit.
1. It is not a “great opportunity” for an artist to have his work seen on your car/’zine/website/bedroom wall, etc. It IS a “great opportunity” for YOU to have their work there.
2. It is not clever to seek a “student” or “beginner” in an attempt to get work for free. It’s ignorant and insulting. They may be “students”, but that does not mean they don’t deserve to be paid for their hard work. You were a “student” once, too.
3. The chance to have their name on something that is going to be seen by other people, whether it’s one or one million, is NOT a valid enticement. Neither is the right to add that work to their “portfolio”. They get to do those things ANYWAY, after being paid as they should. It’s not compensation. It’s their right, and it’s a given.
4. Stop thinking that you’re giving them some great chance to work. Once they skip over your silly ad, as they should, the next ad is usually for someone who lives in the real world, and as such, will pay them. There are far more jobs needing these skills than there are people who possess these skills.
5. Students DO need “experience”. But they do NOT need to get it by giving their work away. In fact, this does not even offer them the experience they need. Anyone who will not/can not pay them is obviously the type of person or business they should be ashamed to have on their resume anyway.
If you your company was worth listing as desired experience, it would be able to pay for the services it received. The only experience they will get doing free work for you is a lesson learned in what kinds of scrubs they should not lower themselves to deal with.
This was passed on to me by an associate and seems fitting here:
In this country, there are almost twice as many neurosurgeons as there are professional illustrators. There are eleven times as many certified mechanics. There are SEVENTY times as many people in the IT field.
So, given that they are less rare, and therefore less in demand, would it make sense to ask your mechanic to work on your car for free? Would you look him in the eye, with a straight face, and tell him that his compensation would be the ability to have his work shown to others as you drive down the street?
Would you be able to seriously even CONSIDER offering your web hosting service the chance to have people see their work, by viewing your website, as their payment for hosting you?
Graphic artists, illustrators, painters, etc., are skilled tradesmen. As such, to consider them as, or deal with them as, anything less than professionals fully deserving of your respect is both insulting and a bad reflection on you as a sane, reasonable person. It makes you look like a twit.
1. It is not a “great opportunity” for an artist to have his work seen on your car/’zine/website/bedroom wall, etc. It IS a “great opportunity” for YOU to have their work there.
2. It is not clever to seek a “student” or “beginner” in an attempt to get work for free. It’s ignorant and insulting. They may be “students”, but that does not mean they don’t deserve to be paid for their hard work. You were a “student” once, too.
3. The chance to have their name on something that is going to be seen by other people, whether it’s one or one million, is NOT a valid enticement. Neither is the right to add that work to their “portfolio”. They get to do those things ANYWAY, after being paid as they should. It’s not compensation. It’s their right, and it’s a given.
4. Stop thinking that you’re giving them some great chance to work. Once they skip over your silly ad, as they should, the next ad is usually for someone who lives in the real world, and as such, will pay them. There are far more jobs needing these skills than there are people who possess these skills.
5. Students DO need “experience”. But they do NOT need to get it by giving their work away. In fact, this does not even offer them the experience they need. Anyone who will not/can not pay them is obviously the type of person or business they should be ashamed to have on their resume anyway.
If you your company was worth listing as desired experience, it would be able to pay for the services it received.
6. (This one is FOR the artists.) Some will ask you to “submit work for consideration”. The only people who win, here, are the underhanded folks who run these ads. This is speculative, or “spec”, work. It’s risky at best, and a complete scam at worst. For more information on this subject, please visit http://www.no-spec.com.
So to artists/designers/illustrators looking for work, do everyone a favor, ESPECIALLY yourselves, and avoid people who do not intend to pay you. They need you. You do NOT need them.
And for those who are looking for someone to do work for free… please wake up and join the real world. The only thing you’re accomplishing is to insult those with the skills you need.
-Author/Source Unknown (Edited)
As many in the creative field surely knows, allowing spec work on any project is detrimental for anyone trying to make a living. To encourage it is to set back efforts by designers like me to be seen as a legitimate field. Where a client will ask us to work for free in the slim hope of pay, they would never ask a plumber, architect, etc to work on a project for free so they can pick and choose between submission. This was irresponsible.
I do think that the manner in which the logo was selected for this particular nonprofit organization supports the process of speculative work – something I will always encourage design professionals to avoid.The use of sites such as SitePoint, and the like, conveys a message of speculative work being an acceptable industry standard in the creation of a design finished product. It is time for those in the design profession to say “enough already” – and thankfully more individuals and organizations are doing so all the time.
What evolved in this case was another examples of the process being nothing more than a “contest” that is not actually a contest – a topic about which I wrote an article – posted on CreativeLatitude.com, archived in the “Ethics” section of the website of the Society of Graphic Designers of Canada ( http://www.gdc.net ), listed as a resource on businessofdesignonline.com (BoDo), and elsewhere. It has also been referenced on the NO!SPEC site ( http://www.no-spec.com ).
If a nonprofit organization can not find a designer, passionate about the cause of the group, who is willing to contribute the time and energy in producing work pro bono, I always recommend that they follow the Graphic Artists Guild (www.gag.org) “Suggested Guidelines for Art Competitions and Contests” – which are posted on their website under “Resources.” If the procedure used to select a design is going to be nothing more than a “contest” it should be conducted as such.
While the GAG guidelines may not be the perfect industry answer, the recommendations do a go a long ways in educating both the client and designer about the design process, and what needs to be considered by both parties as a result.
Rather than continue to feed the raging fire that is spec work, why not send out a “call for portfolios” to designers looking to take on a pro-bono project? I, myself, accept at least 1 pro-bono project each year – more, depending on the size of the project.
Yes, this is a good cause. And if approached, it’s something I would have seriously considered working on – pro-bono. But having a spec contest means a lot of talented designers out there did a lot of work for nothing. Which demeans those of us who do this for a living.
Being a designer is a legitimate career, but by supporting spec work, you’re adding to its demise.
http://www.no-spec.com
In addition to all the other reasons spec work is “bad,” one of the biggest things that doesn’t appear to have been mentioned yet is the lack of communication inherent in this whole situation. Spec work does not facilitate dual, strategic communications which is necessary on the part of both clients and designers, to develop appropriate solutions. The provided “Design Brief” here was incomplete and subjective. “Edgy”? Please. One person’s idea of edgy is another’s idea of last century’s ubiquitous swoosh. Where’s the opportunity for dialog and questions and back-and-forth? The “lessons” that the author learned were a joke. I wouldn’t call the final logo designs edgy or radical…hmm, perhaps the client didn’t know as much about what he wanted as he thought. (BTW, “the specs” refer to production requirements such as number of colors, size reproductions, etc., not the “style” in which it is executed.) Finally, it will be interesting to see where this org is going to get the money for all the products and placements, and even those stock photos from Corbis.
“Editor’s note — We understand that Eric’s controversial choice may generate strong reactions from readers of this column. We hope you share those by clicking on the voxbox icon to the left of the article. We’ll be monitoring the conversation closely.”
“Hello catzzz,
Please note that creativepro.com didn’t go to Sitepoint; Eric did. His decisions and actions are his own.
Terri Stone, editor in chief”
Ok, I’ll share away …
For the record, my comment, “granted, it might have been a lack of knowledge about the design industry,” was tongue-in-cheek.
“His decisions and actions are his own”.
Eric is a contributing editor of creativepro.com. He’s been here awhile. He 100% aware of the controversial choice he made (hope he enjoys the hits).
But it didn’t seem to me that Eric was writing for creativePRO.com. It was more like creativeDESIGN-HACK.com.
Eric says it was an experiment, but he has two glaring statements that just do not sit easy.
1) “If it weren’t for this struggling non-profit, I wouldn’t have worked this way.”
Eric, an editor of creativepro.com, knows all about hiring designers to work pro bono in a non-profit situation. Yet, he clearly advocated going to a spec competition site for this reason.
Did he write on how to work pro bono? Did he write on how to hire designers to work pro bono?
No, he pointed everyone to Sitepoint, with a teensy blurb at the end of a two page article – “It’s the value-add of consultation and high quality that will differentiate you from what is becoming, regrettably, a mass market for design services.” Easy to miss tucked down at the end, yes?
2) He also gave the typical excuse, “But because our budget is so small, we knew we couldn’t afford the usual logo-design process. Instead, we posted our specs on Sitepoint.”
Well done. It’s an excuse we’ve been trying to educate clients and young designers away from for years.
But, like I said, this is just my strong reaction. As you requested.
Catherine Morley
Creative Latitude
NO!SPEC
It’s really exciting to see the number and passion of the responses. Obviously this is a hot button topic.
In good journalistic fashion I investigated the use of a spec site for two reasons, first to help a struggling non-profit, and second, to sneek a peek into the world of spec.
Let me repeat again, because obviously I didn’t make myself clear in the article: If spec sites don’t work for you, if you think them beneath your talent, or of questionable ethical value, DON’T USE THEM. No one is forcing you.
But accept the fact spec sites are here to stay and they are of value to a segment of the design community that may not be in the lucky position of being established. Overseas creatives, stay-at-home parents, design school students — for them, sites like Sitepoint may be the only source of potential revenue and portfolio creation.
The Internet is the source of new potential clients and also new competition. You can’t love the fact that you can work with clients across the country thanks to the wonders of the Internet and then protest when someone figures out how to use the very same Internet to create a new way to buy/sell design services. A sword has two sides. Markets evolve.
What established designers can and should do is continually differentiate themselves — as mentioned in the article — by stressing quality and client relations. Be a Nordstrom and not a K-mart and you’ll never have to worry about clients chasing Blue Light specials.
Perhaps it’s reasonable to police fellow designers into staying away from spec sites, but don’t expect to keep clients away unless you can offer a clear value above and beyond what spec sites offer. This, for better or worse, is the first law of a free marketplace.
Eric obviously took advantage of a situation and abused it to a T. I’m suprised that Creativepro would even give this any sort of play at all.
I’m all for helping out non-profits. Its needed, and often times deserved, but competitions is not how this should be handled. If you have a good cause, pitch it to a firm that you believe in. Not every firm will design for “free”, but the majority will help a great cause. Many of the top Doctors in the world donate their time. Top law firms in the world do plenty of pro-bono work. Just ask for help. Sale your idea.
…and what a great non-profit idea. BUT, I will never give them any sort of assistance or funding knowing that they’ve de-valued design as a profession.
jobs and talents are going to be affect by a freemarket, so let’s go ahead and participate where and when we can. Let the designers be proactive in fighting spec work, meanwhile I’ll incourage it where I can for a good cause.
btw…what part of the world do you live in that the HOPES of “winning” $225 is a decent (or only) sort of income?
I’m a dinosaur in the industry and this all smacks of when typesetters, color separators and exclusive photo usage contracts roamed the earth. Where are they now? Only the best are still around. Over the years designers have become kerning kings, channel champions and stock-photo fiends. We are responsible for single handedly wiping out many industries by doing it all ourselves. Are we so special that it can’t happen to us too? This industry changes and changes BIG. We all get it, spec work is bad… so don’t do it. But the genie is out of the bottle. Sitepoint is going to survive with or without us. As long as there is someone who gets Photoshop Elements for Christmas – there will be hack designers and their very own showcase like Sitepoint. And as long as there are serious professional designers dedicated to producing solid corporate identity solutions for payment or pro-bono – we’ll have our showcase too.
I’m pleased to see that many people’s agree that spec work is not such a good thing. But, like most people, I’ll try anything once. And I did before. Doing work that doesn’t pay you adequately is a dis-service to you and your client… Why? Because when they need successive changes they tend to forget that you’re a steal. It’s called “responsibility creep” As designers, we’re paid not only for product but also for being professionals who call people back and yada, yada, yada. And not to mention doing this on top of your “real job”: other projects, your homework, etc. has a cost all its own. And by the way a few months of office phone bills is about $200.
This revelation is clearest after using your experience and busting your butt for a couple weeks to either not get recognized or make a million changes for a pittance or have a great project suffer from under-appreciation. I’ve come to understand that most effective designers aren’t Whoudini, but they work hard to understand the client and the work is a give-and-take process which is best represented by a mix of skill (at answering the design question) and relationship with the client (and their issues).
I’ve come to think that spec relationships are mostly evil unless I really get what I want… My compromise is this: “Let me do whatever I want and you pay for it.” Hear me Nike?
Seriously, I think that spec is only cool if you are totally getting something out of it for yourself. And by that, it can mean doing something for a cause you care about.
Spec can be worthwhile on occasion, but the notion that one would open herself up to a contest that she might not win and essentially refuse paying opportunities seems inconsistent with the respect for the profession that I’ve come to expect from Eric’s articles.
I don’t think I’ll ever look for a discount surgeon or dentist and with as much badly designed stuff there is out there, it seems that we can’t say there is no need for professional designers. I had a business consultant who once told me instead of donating your design, make enough money so you can contribute to the causes you care about.
So, non-profits while there are things worth donating, is it a good policy for you to require handouts at every turn and have everyone-not just designers-scrambling to avoid your projects?
Even when there is no money, there is still a budget, still a process. Inform people of such and respect their time and you’ll get “partners,” not “showhorses” trying to outshine each other…
As contentious as the whole process was, I can’t believe the organization went with a logo that was a ripoff of the latest Adobe Creative Suite identity. How creative is that? But I guess “original” wasn’t in the design specs.
A lot of people *will* go to a relative or friend if they know they can get a discount. That’s our human nature wanting to save resources. This is the weird internet version of that.
Besides, other industries hold similar contests all the time. In fact, today on my front page, there’s a little Flash ad for HP. Design the new global special edition HP notebook, it says. You win said notebook if your design is chosen.
The point of the article was an experiment, not the author tauting spec work as the be-all-end-all of methods of having a job done.
We’re becoming a society of DIY’ers. Many sites and systems encourage you to customize your *fill in the blank*. The prices of digital cameras, photo-editing and design programs are dropping steadily. Tutorials proliferate the internet. There’s a league of amateurs out there and if a company wants them to do their work, why should they be denied?
There will likely always be work for pros. Just as there will always be people who will take their car to Uncle Larry rather than a professional mechanic. You can’t stop either side, can you?
It seems to me the pros, if they’re that good, should have nothing to fear. If anything, spec work and amateur work weed out the bad clients for you, right? Right? ;)
I agree with Terry-if you want charity, ask for it. There are plenty of talented designers who would do the job pro bono. Sites that encourage spec work on the cheap are lowering the perceived value of what we provide. Because of sites like these, when speaking with prospective clients, I don’t even refer to myself as a designer any more. It’s like having a sign hanging around your neck that says “kick me, please”. Doing spec work insures that someone will indeed kick you. If the designer gets chosen by you because they’re willing to ‘go the extra mile’ for $225, that means they’ve won the distinction of receiving the most abuse from you. Personally, I’d feel much better about donating the time to charity than I would about doing the work under the assumption that you had paid fairly for it.
Unless you’re just starting out, flat broke, and living in a rooming house, stay away from clients who want you to work on spec. They’ll always expect the same arrangement with every job. The other tactic is, “Do this one on the cheap, and we’ll pay the full rate next time.” Avoid these clients like the plague. They aren’t in business long, and their checks — when they arrive in 120 days (if at all) — bounce.
I agree with some of the others that there are plenty of good designers who could have designed a logo pro-bono within their own processes and would have probably produced something more memorable.
Sites like this just encourage bad business practices and de-value the value of design and its process.
Well, of all the logos I saw on the Sitepoint contest site, you picked the best one. That does not mean it is a good one.
IT looks like the FAB FIVE.
We never “toss up” a bunch of designs for our web site clients or potential clients to look at. You are just asking for them to be “stolen”. Even after a contact is signed, we work on one design at a time. If they don’t like one, we go to the next. We don’t even waste our time on RFQ’s if we know there are a lot of designers competing for them and/or it will take hours or even days to complete when we are sent a multi-page document outlining their desires. NO THANKS! We’ve got enough work.
“Win” the job by offering to do it for $2 if it is a lowest-quote-wins scenario.
Then prioritize the job accordingly.
That’s bound to sort it out if everyone could assist the industry in this way at least once a month.
Andrew
That bit of hyperbole aside, spec is almost always bad for everyone involved. If you’re the client, you almost certainly did not get the best quality work. If you’re the designer, you almost certainly got taken advantage of, no matter whether you actually got paid a piddling amount or not. Spec is the tool used by those who want something for nothing, or next to nothing. There is just no substitute for actual designer/client interaction and nothing better focuses the mind of both clients and designers than sitting across the table from one another when money is on line.
The fact that a client is a not-for-profit is no justification for spec. Not-for-profits have been one of my primary client groups over my career. Nearly all of them have plead poverty at one time or another. At times it’s true to varying degrees, sometimes it’s not true at all. Common to many of them is the inability to see themselves as actual businesses. But that’s what they are. They may not be selling a traditional product but, most assuredly, they are selling something – whether it be awareness raising, safety, skills, education, health, etc. And, just like any other business, they should pay their way.
I try to be as cost-effective as possible for these clients, but I don’t do spec work and I don’t do work for free. First, if the client doesn’t pay for it they have no real appreciation for the true value of what you’ve provided to them. Second, spec and free work frequently results in disaster from an identity standpoint. I’ve watched a number of not-for-profits accept “free” work from one do-gooder after another. But, after spending $800 of their time on a newsletter the do-gooder’s interest frequently wanes, or they simply cannot afford to do it again. So, someone new does it next time, and someone new after that, and eventually you can no longer tell that these newsletters are coming from the same organization. And the posters look different from the brochures, and the brochures look different from each other, and they all look different from the website and who knows what the logo is really supposed to look like anymore. It’s all absolute dreck and it detrimentally affects community support and fundraising.
And, finally, no matter how well we promote our value and customer service to clients, for the most part, they don’t get it and they never will. In a Wal-Mart world of the low price wins out, the design field is really just too esoteric to be comprehended very well by those who don’t live it every day. At the end of the day, even my most appreciative clients, and there have been many, have never understood the complexities inherent in the field and have often unwittingly disparaged the sheer hard work of my efforts on their behalf with their oft-expressed conviction that my job is “fun”.
They’ll say, “Well, wouldn’t you do this kind of work anyway, even if we didn’t pay you?” Well, the answer is “Maybe…for myself. But definitely not for you.” I’m a graphic designer to make a living. I have no expectations of wealth and, in fact, during my 20 year career I’ve never met a wealthy graphic designer. My expectation is simply to be able to trade on my talent, experience and skills to provide a decent living for myself and family. I don’t think that’s expecting too much.
So much for originality: Check out the new 2-page ads for Dow (Human Element)–yet another riff on the periodic table.
See above.
I work full time for a non-profit and do freelance work for other non-profits and for profit foundations/companies. I work on a sliding scale for non-profits based on the annual income of the foundation. I have done a logo design for as low as $250 and I was able to meet with the client and work through the normal process of development. Spec is just wrong because I know there are others out there like me who are willing to work on a sliding fee scale and still deliver full scale service.
No doubt Eric is perfectly willing to post HIS job on SitePoint and see if someone is willing to take a little less money to do what he does? Hmm, Eric?
“Quantity has a quality all its own.” – This illustrates the mentality of contest organizers pretty well. I am yet to see any of them rolling their own sleeves in hopes to maybe, hopefully get paid.
This is wrong in so many ways. Everyone here is gifted in its on right, but you will be either right for the job or not! Although I am a firm believer that experience is what builds a strong portfolio, unpaid experience is what makes a servant. Good job- you just taught him how to be toilet paper, instead of a graphic designer!
Even in art school I never but once-it was mandatory- participated in contests like that. The professors pitch it to you like it`s a great opportunity for learning, but I rather sell my art on ebay and get 10 bucks than give it away.
the problem with the design sites is only realy one thing; the client writes the spec and picks the design.
That is like the patient diagnosing themselves and performing surgery! Cheap yes and Deadly for the business. I submitted a few designs to these contests, until I saw the crap being selected by clients.
The Fa! logo looks like it says ‘F*ck All’ which is somewhat ironic considering the cause being ‘championed’. Anyone stop to consider the number of artists that suicide? I would wager it is a higher percentage than the general population.
So go ahead, devalue art, no one is getting hurt…