Position on spec work
This is an archived page, not AIGA’s current position.
It is presented for informational purposes only. The current, revised policy, released May 2009, was informed by comments posted here.
AIGA believes that doing speculative work—that is, work done without compensation, for the client’s speculation—seriously compromises the quality of work that clients are entitled to and also violates a tacit, long-standing ethical standard in the communication design profession worldwide. AIGA strongly discourages the practice of requesting that design work be produced and submitted on a speculative basis in order to be considered for acceptance on a project.
Sample letters (please refer to current, revised policy for updated letter)
Clients may, at times, request that you compete for an engagement on the basis of spec work. This sample letter is intended to serve as a resource when you communicate with these clients to explain why speculative proposals are wrong. You can modify it based on the needs of your particular situation.
Similarly, organizations sometimes initiate contests as a way of developing logos or other identity work. Unlike disciplines in which the designer can bill for implementation of the proposed design (e.g., architecture), in communication design the submitted solution already represents the bulk of the intellectual work. AIGA encourages organizations to issue a request for proposals from qualified designers. This sample letter may also be sent by AIGA members to help educate organizations offering contests.
2009 developments
Spec work is a perennial issue for designers, at any stage in their careers. In 2008, however, the issue sparked a new dialogue among AIGA chapter presidents and national board members, whose positions ranged from “absolutely no spec work, ever” to a more lenient approach recognizing today’s open-source attitudes. In light of this debate, AIGA President Sean Adams appointed board member Debbie Millman and Presidents Council Chair Mike Joosse to co-chair a Spec Work Task Force, to gather facts and perspectives from chapter and community leaders and members. The task force’s findings and recommendations were presented for action at the AIGA board meeting, in April 2009, and the revised position on spec work was published in May 2009.
-
Thank you for recognizing this urgent issue. It's vital to the future of our industry, in my opinion. Please help the AIGA and communicate with a great Las Vegas resource, Las Vegas AIGA Membership Director, Krystal Hosmer. She's a dear friend and colleague with passion and years of experience on the topic. Visit one great conversation about Spec with CrowdSpring's founders on LinkedIn.
Spec is unfair, offensive and deadly to the survival of small studios like mine. What if attorneys or doctors - or even plumbers - invested hours and got paid on the basis of whether or not you won a contest?
It's not going to be easy, but I do appreciate the AIGA stepping up for the challenge. Every kid with a hacked version of Photoshop can participate in spec. The differentiation between these hacks and a trained professional needs to be identified, and the name "AIGA Member" should indicate that.
Thank you.
Nate Ludens
AIGA Advisory Board Member,
Las Vegas Chapter -
Thank you, thank you, thank you! This is an issue that I simply cannot wrap my head around. Spec work appears in the design field infinitely more times than any other industry. It absolutely floors me that people think that it is even remotely ethical to build their businesses by tearing down ours.
-
If you are too lenient then it may cause a downward spiral. Isn't being "too lenient" just a nice way of saying you're going to "lower the bar."
With the open-source attitudes, there is also a growing movement within organizations to start involving the consumer in the design of the product (eg. Red Bull, Pepsi, Nike ID). This is creating a cultural change on the bridge between brand identity and brand image. If you lower the bar, it may compromise our profession. Be stern and stay on point. I can always make the personal and professional decision to accept Spec work based upon my relationship with the client.
AIGA as the highest possible authority in our community must keep the standard high.
Thoughts anyone? -
I'd be interested to know what AIGA thinks of spec work done for a pitch, where a few firms are competing for the job.
-
It is interesting to look at architects, where some of the world's greatest talents are willing to give their work away to the world's richest property developers. As a result, the overall profession has wages that have generally been much lower than ours. The truth is that giving your work away devalues it and trains clients to think that what we produce is worth less.
-
Bravo to the AIGA board for taking this important issue on. As a consultant to creative professionals I often am asked my perspective on this issue on an ongoing basis and, with the current economy, these types of requests are more common. I completely agree that requesting spec work is unethical, and often love the analogy that would you ask a doctor for an exam and only pay him/her if you agree with the diagnosis? It's very similar. And, many of my design firms clients have made significant progress in educating those clients requesting spec work and in changing minds - but that requires tact and confidence. That said, there are several clients and/or industries where requesting spec work is standard operating procedure, and no amount of great negotiating will change their minds. Several design firms, while firm in their belief against spec work, are still nonetheless tempted when the project or client is particularly exciting, or brings them new opportunities or is offers significant profit. In such cases, designers sometimes will break their own policy to take the risk - despite the damage to our industry overall. Because the competition is much more extensive than it ever was, projects are harder to get, I understand or sympathize with the firm that takes the rare spec work project - yet, it's still not something I support because of the long term damage it does to our profession. The answer? Mostly I think many designers struggle with pushing back to clients, in general. I'd like to see designers learn this skill, so that they can succeed in transforming client's minds and demand the value they so deserve.
-
I'm a commercial photographer (a designer in a "past life"). I thought it may be informative to add to the conversation, which I don't disagree with from the perspectives that have been discussed. However, we are often asked to contribute speculative work to agencies who are providing a proposal or submitting a competitive bid to a new client. It's teaser work in order to stand out and show your stuff as related to a specific client/product/marketing effort. It generally represents extremely high quality work. Yet no one involve in the creative/business collaboration believes that the concepts/work presented will necessarily be used. We have helped our design firm and agency clients win new clients and in turn we receive the photography contract.
I believe that the success of design firms and agencies, in an increasingly competitive environment, will depend even more on this kind of assertive and creative marketing efforts.
This of course is a different perspective on (or type of) speculative work than what most people here are speaking about. However I thought it may be helpful to say in order to help everyone remember that we all follow the progression of learn, execute, present/sell and then we get the client. When we are well established we sometimes forget that process is valid and alive in our work.
I look forward to reading others thoughts on this. -
Here's one, spec work as a requirement for a job interview for full time position, with design as only one of the job requirements. Also called a test. But actually creating work that the company could potentially use. Does the designer then "own" the design, even though it is for the companies products? Opinions here?
-
I definitely agree that doing spec work de-values design in general, but I don't know that I believe contests are the same as spec work, especially when it comes to more fine art than design (I look at threadless.com as an example).
I did want to respond to Heidi's comment, only because I've interviewed (and was hired) somewhere that gave me a design "test" as part of the interview process, then later I hired the position out the same way when I replaced my position.
It was something the owner was adamant about, but that I didn't feel was necessary to hiring for the position - either when I was interviewed or when I was interviewing for it - because in both cases I was (eventually) privy to the competition. As a side note, in both cases, it was made understood that if the person interviewing wasn’t hired, the “test” work wouldn’t be used in anything. From that limited experience, I think that design "tests" for hiring are fairly worthless. A designer’s portfolio and how they present themselves and answer questions are pretty telling as far as how they will handle a position. -
We've been asked to do spec work by large and small, local and long distance potential clients, as part of large bids [10+ firms] and small. We always say No. Always. Politely. Most of the time we get a call or email asking us to reconsider because 'they are very interested in working together, etc.'... At that point we remind them that 'working together' starts with respect and all the other things spec takes off the table. Again, politely. Half the time we get a face to face meeting, half the time we get nothing... Budgets are too tight to waste resources on non-paying, will-never-get-used spec work. We need to all just say No.
And regarding 'open source', the English language is open-source, everyone can learn to write... but that doesn't make everyone a Writer.
Glad to see AIGA National dealing with these issues. -
Spec work is always wrong, in good times or bad. As I heard recently in another context, your time is your work.
Hiring tests are not only as wrong as spec work, but demeaning to the potential employee. And so is the "we'll try you out for a week and maybe then we'll hire you" situation. I have never worked for anyone who made me take a test at the interview or after, nor have I accepted offers for the week-or-two test situations. It's demeaning because they have essentially rejected one's portfolio (which hopefully represents hours of thought, consideration, and hard work) in favor of figuring out if the potential hiree can follow directions like a five-year-old, or, as I have also suspected, a cheap way to get some new ideas. It's easy to figure how someone thinks just from the portfolio.
I have accepted two-week temporary situations, but that's because those people were honest up front about what they needed. This honesty is a sign of respect and good planning.
As for the "open-source" aspect of this discussion: do you (and clients) understand what that means? The term comes from the software world. Its original meaning is this: programmers write code for a project without payment for their time or rights, usually for a freeware project (the Mozilla project is one, and Firefox is based on this), but the programmers don't pay royalties for the code they base their work on if it is for the specific project. So it is volunteering for a non-profit work. The closest thing to this in design that I can think of is projects like AIGA's Get Out The Vote. It is clearly specified that the rights are non-commercial.
So open-source is not the same as spec work, but I wouldn't be surprised if a potential client or employer misused this term to get freebies. -
I have had lengthy discussions with the founders of crowdspring (http://www.crowdspring.com) about their site and ways in which they can change their model to further protect designers and enhance education for both their designers and their customers. In contrast to what you would expect, both gentlemen are very willing to work with AIGA and the professional community in order to make the site the best experience for both designers and buyers. They are actively pursuing a number of community based code of conducts for various aspects of the site as well as discussing various aspects of ethics in their forums on a daily basis. In short, they are not the evil empire looking to devalue design and make a quick buck off the backs of the uninformed. I urge Debbie and Mike to contact them and start a discussion. I'll send their email address to Sean today.
The discussion Nate referred to is linked below:
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers&discussionID=690489&gid=95409&readyToAnswer=false&trk=aaq&goback=.ait.mid_924184390
As you can see, I've had a change of heart on this site in particular. I feel that AIGA has a huge opportunity here to embrace future designers by cooperating with crowdspring (and possibly others sites) to build bridges from "wanna-be designers" to professional designers by getting involved in these early stages of their careers. We can do this by letting them experience the AIGA community and our focus on professional practices and ethics right away, rather than waiting until they stumble upon it later and have all those ingrained habits and attitudes that might make them a detriment to our community goal of furthering design as a vital part of any business endeavor. There are 11,957 creatives on crowdspring right now. Didn't we say we wanted to increase our professional membership to 20,000? That's a lot of people to expose to AIGA. -
Spec work shortchanges the design process, undermines the client's longterm objectives (to find meaningful and enduring solutions), and diminishes the value of the professional designer's work. Lasting design solutions are usually born out of research and getting familiar with a client's business (critical time-intensive upfront work), internal explorations in the design studio (a trial and error process), and design reviews and conversations with the client (an important collaborative dialogue). Spec work doesn't allow for that professional -- and properly compensated -- process. On the rare occasion a potential client inquires about work on spec, noting to them that the process does not do justice to their project usually elicits their agreement -- that spec work, in the end, is speculative. The AIGA sets the design bar for our industry and its long-held discouragement about spec work is crucial to uphold.
-
Thank you for delving into this topic. While I agree wholeheartedly with the "just say no" approach, I can see how the lines are becoming increasingly blurred for younger designers -- and AIGA should aggressively evolve the conversation.
Websites like worth1000 and "reality" television programs such as "Designer's Challenge" are working against the professional psyche -- offering design up-front and a "take or or leave it" attitude.
To me spec work is the line between a hobby and a profession. Spec work is not quality work -- before a designer can get to know the client, personality, goals and challenges. As such, the work is the first to suffer, and if you get the assignment, you actually may irrevocably damage your ability to create a satisfying solution and find yourself tied to the initial solution.
I like to remind my clients that I can't pay for my electric bill with spec work -- and how that is as essential to running my business as my services are to theirs.
Good luck -- keep us posted! -
Isn't spec work a practice that some art schools are using now as projects for their students? Is repurposing a design from an older design considered spec work?
-
I can't believe that the AIGA is even entertaining this issue. Stand your ground. The AIGA is the "Professional" association for design. Professionals get paid for their work.
-
Thanks, AIGA. There are some very good comments posted here.
Another thing to consider is that spec work is damaging to the client as well. Good design is the result of research and substantial interaction with the client. It's success can be measured against predetermined criteria. Spec work is simply guessing, and success cannot be measured. The client then loses, too.
It's incumbent on each of us to spread the word to our associates, as well. Tell them spec is unethical, unprofessional, it undermines the integrity of our profession, and it ultimately drives down all our wages.
Derek Vogel
Reno-Tahoe Chapter Board Member -
Hi all,
Thanks much for posting some great thoughts here. There certainly is a great deal to think about here and I anted to share with you our perspective. Krystal Hosmer (a wonderful designer we have come to know a bit in the last two months) contacted us directly to start a conversation about spec work, design, and crowdSPRING's role in the whole controversy. I wrote back to her in November and I hope she won't mind if I share my initial response to her here. It pretty much sums up our position in the debate:
__________________________________
Hi Krystal and thanks for the email. While we obviously see things differently, we certainly know that our site isn't for everyone and so we respect your opinion. That said, I think I owe you more of a response than that. Feel free to keep reading if you're interested...
It's certainly not our intention to devalue design or the outstanding job that talented designers do. In fact, just the opposite. Just as iStockPhoto has helped bring about a change in the industry, we'd like to do the same. They've opened the door to millions upon millions of people who previously had no way to get noticed in the creative community. These people are more than willing to upload their work and hope that it gets chosen because, at the end of the day, it's what they love doing - and that's why they do it. It's not for the money - it's because creative people can't stop being creative and they look for any outlet they can.
The same goes for Threadless, really. It's a community of creatives who love to create. They upload their submissions with a hope of being chosen but, at the end of the day, knowing full well that only one will be selected. They do it because they love to be creative. The do it because it's fun. They do it because they like to be a part of a community.
We like to think that we're following the path that these other models have blazed. Again, we know it won't be for everyone. That's OK. We understand that there are plenty of established creative professionals who are too busy or uninterested in participating - we respect that. However, for every established creative professional who’s made it, there’s a groundswell of untapped creative talent around the world just looking for a way to express themselves and get noticed. This is who we built crowdSPRING for.
Thanks again for your note. We really do welcome feedback - and I just thought I owed it a thoughtful response instead of just a stock "yeah, thanks for your input"...
_________________________
That's it. We have since had several conversations with Krystal (and others) to listen to feedback on our site and our business model and to discuss ways we could engage constructively to help the design industry and designers in general. We have engaged in some wonderful debates. You'll find some of our thoughts and a healthy debate about the subject here: http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1253-the-nospec-campaign-vs-crowdspring
In addition we would like to invite everyone who will be at SXSW on March 15th to attend our panel discussion on this topic. We've put together a great group to debate the topic: "Is Spec Work Evil? The Online Creative Community Speaks" http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/1481.
Thanks again and best regards,
Mike Samson
co-Founder
http://www.crowdspring.com/ -
I think this argument is going to soon become a moot point - sites like 99Design, CrowdSpring, TopCoder Studio are going to multiply (at a rate that we can barely comprehend). The reality is that, while some designers are opposed to the idea of spec work contests, there are thousands of designers (most of them currently outside the US) who are more than happy to participate - and that number is only going to grow as more and more of us are losing our jobs in this economy. Business owners (both small and massive) are embracing the concept of paying only for the deliverable - and getting to choose their favorite from a number of submissions, at that! So - Like it or not - this isn't going to go away.
-
I just read a disturbing article in Forbes Feb 2009 issue about a company who is all about Spec Work.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0216/062.html
It is a disgrace to graphic design. Please read this article. It makes a mockery out of our profession. I encourage everyone to write a letter to the article's author, "Christopher Steiner" and Forbes magazine, and tell them your opinions! -
TNT (who commented previously), I read that Forbes article, and am to say the least, very surprised that such a respected magazine refers to the design business as "snooty".
I believe the article author had arranged to interview a number of speakers on the other side of the debate, but ultimately didn't get back to them. Curious. -
Hello everyone and thank you for your comments. Ric Grefe and Sean Adams have asked me to chair a task force in an effort to understand the various sentiments about this practice in both the design community and the broader creative community, and report back to the National Board our findings and potential recommendations at the National Board retreat in April, and to share these findings at the Leadership Retreat in June. We are taking this initiative very, very seriously.
The following folks will be joining me on the task force:
Brad Weed, National Board member and director of user experience design and research for the Windows and Windows Live product line at Microsoft
Mike Joose, Presidents Council Chair, AIGA, and Creative Supervisor, Ogilvy Durham
Laurie Churchman, National Board member and principal of Designlore, a place for thinking, making and writing about design. She is also an assistant professor in Fine Arts, Graphic Design, at the University of Pennsylvania
Krystal Hosmer, Membership Director, Las Vegas Chapter, and founder, Sparkcreative
Ric Grefe, Executive Director, AIGA
If anyone would like to reach out to me about this, please feel free to email me: debbie.m@sterlingbrands.com
Thanks very much. -
Like one of the commentors, Heidi, I was asked at an interview to do some spec work too. Needless to say I didn't want the job that much. Unfortunately there is a misconception that because we like what we do that we are willing to do it for free. Next time my car needs a repair I might ask them to fix it first and then I'll decide if I like what they've done.
-
Crowdspring and "multi-resource vendor" companies of their type are unavoidable and are a weathervane for general perception of an industry. Granted, Forbes' article is inflamatory and dismissive, but it is unsettling to feel that Crowdspring was fostered from the idea that "better design comes from more options". I've gone through some of the portfolios on the site and some work is pretty well-done, but the majority are not very unique or compelling. Not sure if the next Coca-Cola or IBM logos will come from this business approach and I don't believe corporations will see this as a viable replacement for an agency's mindshare. I can see designers fresh out of school utilizing this website to get their career started, but I doubt they would build their career around doing work for this organization long term. Keeping inline with AIGA's goal of trying to maintain a standard of quality in the profession, I think we should be collaborating one developing some best practices for this type of business model. I wonder how many of the 15,000 designers are AIGA members and if they feel they are compromising their profession. And while I firmly believe Crowdspring's statement that they are "helping" the industry is purely to maintain good will, their business model and actual practice does not help designers in a professional sense. It may help the businesses lessen the cost of developing a logo, it short-changes these designer's learning experience and development. There are huge lessons to be learned from being in the same room with your client, creating ideas, ironing out solutions to business needs - lessons the participating designers won't experience until they work outside of this process. To me, that's the real issue with crowd-sourcing.
-
Thanks for commenting here, Debbie. All the best to you and the others in the task force. I'm very interested to know what your findings will be.
-
It's just too easy to get burned by doing spec work. I've had experiences where agencies were having me do the spec work without my knowledge and then had difficulties collecting my pay. It also compromises the industry because undiscerning eyes will run with a free comp if they are cheap enough to ask for it in the first place.
-
Speculative work has a value for gaining new clients, demonstrating a work style, competing to win bids, and other valid business reasons. There is free spec and "paid spec". The speculation is shared between two parties, and this is a two way street.
I had an experience developing an agency portfolio on primarily spec creative done to pitch new accounts, all of which became paying clients. These clients were able to see what we could do for them at no cost to them, but the rewards to our agency were amazing. Because we demonstrated we would "go the extra mile" and were already taking the position of helping with their marketing problems, the conversation morphed from "do we want to hire you" to "which layout/concept should we buy".
It's important to remember if you work for free, it is hard for some clients to see you as a professional. In the past I have chosen to do only one free project per year for the pro bono client of my choice, which would allow me to expand my folio and experience. I would spend an hour of free consult with a prospect, but not do design work without first requiring a 50% deposit.
To develop new business or get established as a newcomer, it is important to attach monetary value to the professional services designers provide. Spec may have a valuable place with proper "boundaries" agreed to in advance, including copyright and pricing terms. -
About a year ago i had a big client come to me and ask my company to do spec work. We turned them down, and they came back to us saying but we really love your work.
Our response was if you love our work so much then you should understand the value of what you are paying for. We lost that specific job to someone who was willing to do the spec work, but a month later we were contacted by them again offering to just give us the contract since the company who was willing to do the spec gave them such a low quality end result.
It felt like a bit of a victory for us and made us hold fast in our position that we WILL NOT and HAVE NOT done spec work. -
Hello Everyone,
I go by the name 'R'. I am initiating a program something similar to a grassroots movement.We will form a major community where, we our guild can share our ideas,innovate together, build huge companies, and think about how to change the world.How to make it a better place.We will use all our collaborative resources to achieve this.This will go down in history.This is the defining moment.We need many web page designers,artists,programmers of all fields.So, Anyone willing to participate and volunteer,
Please send me an email to
ImpulzoArts@gmail.com We will be fast and efficient.Thank you. -
I came across this on Facebook as was appalled:
http://logotournament.com/
All this will do is water down design by creating a template that is used over and over until it wins. Instead of a logo design that is specific to the character of the business, they get to set their "prize" and sit back and watch the designs roll in???
Unbelievable. -
I feel spec work is completely and unquestionably wrong.
I wish I would have had the Spec work letter above before getting into the situation I am currently in, which in search of answers and advice lead me here.
I will NEVER EVER do spec work again. I have done it a few times too many as a new and naive designer. I am a graduate from a 3 year design program where Spec work was touched on by a visiting RGD speaker. In fact, some classroom assignments involved students creating specific designs for local businesses who were able to choose which student they would accept and purchase work from.
We need protection. Not enough is being done to make businesses aware, and monitor the practices of smaller design schools. I worked hard for my education, and for the skills I have to not be treated as a "starving artist". I would love to see professional design organizations run full page "SPEC" work awareness ads in business magazines large and small, not only in large areas, but smaller locales.
I know from this point on I will be educating my clients, and not allowing myself to EVER be taking advantage of again. We pay good money to become a professional designers, people need to learn that we are NOT self-taught "dabblers" in design programs. We know what we are doing, and deserve RESPECT.
It is so easy for "do-it-yourselfers" to say they are "Graphic Designers". I meet way to many new clients who have been "taken" by these imposters.
It is so sad so many penny pinching businesses have to learn what professional quality design is the hard way. Sadly, many of these businesses now feel SPEC work is the way to go to be sure they won't get burned again.
I now see the value in becoming a member of a major design organization, the support and client trust factor is priceless. -
I took a look at crowdspring.com and saw nothing I have not seen before. The one question I have is:
How much of the work uses unlicensed typefaces and images? How much of the work is stolen? How much of MY work would be stolen?
This is the problem here is it shows the hands of others work to the world. All one has to do is pinch a little from this, steal a little from that and no one will know. Right? -
I'm lucky to say I've never been in a situation where a spec job was requested, but I agree it's pretty shady and unethical. As everyone has already stated, it's a matter of respect and professional courtesy.
-
One of my designer friends just e-mailed me this website: http://www.crowdspring.com/
I am truly appalled! Is there anything more we can do. This really should be illegal. -
Here's a great look at everything that's wrong about spec design sites, from a client and designer POV. Admittedly, it's written in an extremely caustic style, but it certainly makes some valid points regarding this discussion.
http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/index.php/crowdsource-new-logo-design/ -
I often face this issue with local printers and advertising agencies that give away graphic design in order to gain projects and clients. It has also become harder and harder to trust print vendors with print projects let alone your client's information (so many are now forming in-house agencies). A few months ago, I made the mistake of trusting a print vendor to drop off some proofs with a client. Needless to say, the vendor took this opportunity to try and convince the client that the colors that I was using did not look well together (according to their in-house designer) in hopes of gaining some future work. We all could guess what the outcome would be; my client became furious with the print vendor and we pulled the project from the printer (they were recently bought out by another company because of the lack of business). Karma?
There is such a broad spectrum underlying factors that esachurbate this issue; anyone with some knowledge of Adobe Creative Suite can call himself a “graphic designer” to need. I would imagine that those who post are mostly Adobe Creative Suite users looking for some credibility and some were probably once working in our offices until they were laid-off or recent graduates in need of a few bucks to compliment their income while working at the local bistro or department store. Times are tough! And some businesses will always find someone or someway to do it on the “cheap” no matter how hard we try to convince them otherwise. It is really an unavoidable reality we will always face. In the end, we should all ask ourselves “are we really losing clients that any of us really wants to be working with? I say, let them go to these sites because otherwise they would be bothering us and dragging down our businesses. It’s like the old tale of the scorpion and the frog; it is only human nature. We just need to recognize ours and consider ourselves lucky that the scorpions have somewhere else to sting. -
Thanks for the sample letters
-
The argument that states graphic designers should be viewed in the same light as professionals like doctors, architects, interior designers, accountants, or even plumbers, holds absolutely no water. The truth of the matter is that those and other "professions" require state licensing in order to practice and to hold a professional title that signifies a license or accreditation. ANYONE can say they are a graphic designer, communication designer, interactive designer, etc., regardless of training or ability. I am not an advocate of licensing, but then I have to accept the fact that we are all out there competing based on not only our design abilities but on our ability to make the sale. After decades of debate, I think we need to realize the limits of our collective power to mandate--or even suggest--an ethical approach to practice. And I think we've reached that limit through AIGA's efforts. Now let's move on to being the best we can possibly be--the one and only way we can prove to potential clients that we are worth hiring.
-
Lance,
You say we've reached the limit of suggesting what's ethical. I disagree.
No matter what the profession, we should always hold ethics in high regard. The more they're swept under the carpet, the less widespread effect we'll see, along with an increase in websites clammering for spec work.
If I was outsourcing design, a potential sub-contractor who openly discusses ethics will offer an insight I want to know about.
For me, the debate isn't about attracting more work my way. It's about protecting those budding designers who think it's normal practice to work for free, and protecting those clients who think spec work will yield the results they desire. -
This is going to be short. I disagree with spec work. That's what my portfolio is for! It is completely unnecessary for me to build graphical work specifically for your project, Mr. Requesting Spec-Work Guy, to prove that I can do the job.
-
I appreciate this info and it is right-on with my thinking on the topic of spec work. But it helps to have a powerful organization like the AIGA to back this up when clients ask for spec work. I am very interested in the Sample Letter for Speculative Work but when I tried to download it, it said the file doesn't exist. Can someone please email this to me? Gracias.
-
I really like this post. Thanks for this article, Anyone got any more info about it? I am now your blog' s rss follower. you are now in my bookmarks.
-
Note to AIGA members - This position is likely a violation of the antitrust laws. Whether you like speculative work or not, it is one way in which designers complete with each other. This provision has the effective of eliminating or lessing this area of competition.
So what if it is a violation? Well, you can be on the hook for treble damages.
Please ask your lawyer to review this policy. -
At this moment there is a job posting on Monster by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers asking for spec work as part of consideration for a full-time design position. Here is a portion of their posting:
"2 pdf samples of work specifically designed for the Buccaneers. Ideas include sample schedule card, media guide cover, season ticket, billboard ad for season tickets etc"
Imagine applying for this job and perhaps being passed over for some reason and someday seeing your design on a billboard under the auspice of this application process. All your valuable time and talent for naught. Nice way to get free design ideas in this lousy economy, eh? How unethical! -
One thing I had meant to add to that last post was if the work in my portfolio isn't enough to convince you that I'm the right person for the job, then don't hire me. Don't insult my intelligence by asking me to do free work for you!
-
Listen, there will always be people who like themselves well enough to think that they can do anything, and that includes being a graphic designer. How hard can it be, right?
Just do what you do, do it well (that includes educating others), and don't give it away. -
@Anonymous:
Saying that the AIGA's position on spec work could be a violation of antitrust law is quite a stretch. The position statement is just that: a statement of a position, not a binding policy that attempts to penalize or impede anyone's business activities. If businesses want to require spec work or if designers want to provide it, there's nothing to stop them. AIGA is not in business to provide graphic design services in and of itself, and members are not employees of AIGA. You are way off base here. -
Six Reasons Design Contest Sites Suck (for Buyers)!
Two-Faced Marketing:
One the one hand, these sites are pitched to “creatives” as great practice for amateurs, hobbyists, retirees, stay-at-home moms, newbies, students, and anyone incapable of otherwise finding clients or commanding professional wages. (see The Joker Principle).
On the other hand, these sites pitch their services as offering excellent quality, professional-level design solutions for potential buyers. Somebody gets bamboozled, quality suffers and mediocre (but rapidly churned-out) quantity reigns.
When the crowd you’re sourcing is (regardless of their self-proclamations) made-up of random folks who can’t otherwise figure out how to earn a living as designers, that’s precisely the level of experience, insight and talent, skill and quality the buyer pays for. A buzz-wordy business model doesn’t change that.
Your New Logo May Have Fallen “off the back of a truck.”
It’s inevitable. Contest sites are wellsprings of copied, “inspired-by” and flat-out stolen intellectual property design work already owned (and copyrighted and perhaps trademarked) by existing companies and individuals. The problem is, there’s no real way to stop it, because you’re not working with an experienced, trusted, talented partner guiding you through the process of creating, selecting and trademarking unique and top-notch solutions — you’re working with a random group of anonymous “contest entrants” from anywhere in the world with an internet connection. Each with a powerful incentive toward speed and quantity — certainly not time-consuming labor of creating truly unique, appropriate, trademarkable, quality custom work for each instance of so little chance at so little money.
The “quick-n-dirty,” open-access, all-on-line model virtually guarantees that some will copy-paste and live-trace and rip logos from designers’ online portfolios and vast logo-collection sites such as logopond, logolounge, logomoose, logo faves and logo design love, in seconds flat. It’s terribly easy, with relatively low risk of recognition or exposure (except from random fellow contest entrants also jockeying to win) — until you put the logo out into the wider world, gaining increasing popularity, success and recognition...and someone spots the rip-off.
Like, for example, here: http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/index.php/why-logo-contests-dont-work/
No Real Guarantees, No Real Protection:
Don’t forget to read the policy fine-print before you get slapped with a lawsuit. Crowdspring, the current top design crowdsourcing site, expressly does not even guarantee the legality of its creative services:
“We have no control over and do not guarantee the quality, safety or legality of Creative Services, the truth or accuracy of project listings or member information, the qualifications, background, or abilities of members, the ability of creatives to deliver Creative Services, or that members will complete a transaction.”
So cross your fingers and hope you didn’t accidentally select and distribute a logo that was created using unlicensed, stolen fonts or illegally made on pirated software. (When you think about it — how do so many of these people afford professional industry-standard vector, pixel and layout software which runs into several thousands of USD — especially on the monetary prizes they’re slaving over? What about the thousands of dollars worth of professional fonts from top foundries flying around? (It would take months and months of solid wins for many participants to merely to get out of debt and back to zero, if they’re using these resources legally).
You’re exposed to liability and legal risk:
First, you’re exposed to lawsuits for copyright violation (if your random winning “contest entrant” happened to have been “inspired” by a pre-existing logo from a company, site or individual.
True, you probably won’t find out for a few months or even years — but by then the damage can be irrevocable. For added fun, logo and web-site “chop-shops” are all over the net, preying on the unsuspecting. You can easily be sued when a design is so close to an existing logo that it encroaches on the intellectual copyright of the original. Intentional or not. Aware of the infringement or not. Same with a website.
And don’t forget the ever-present threat of lawsuits from font foundries and software corporations if you happen to own and distribute a work created using stolen or pirated goods. All in all, it’s a nightmare liability risk.
You Get Screwed Come Production Time
The inexperience, un-expertise and lack of production knowledge on the part of your “creative” is invisible to most people. But it will cost you money. Lots and lots of money. Especially when you hand over the files you were given to the printers or web-builders.
Maybe your files are incorrectly formatted. The color gamut is out. Separation plates aren’t clean. Preflight shows embedding trouble. Trapping is off. Overprinting is wrong. Fonts missing. Spots and varnishes? Double-sided five-color business card runs? Vast sums can be saved and lost depending on how much your random “creative” knows — not just in terms of avoiding easy-to-make production mistakes, but at cleverly saving you money at the same time.
“It’s a number’s game,” and a Spam-a-lot Business Model
Contest sites are filled with visual spammers. Churning out metric tons of quick-crap and seeing what sticks. Why? It’s a numbers game. The chances of winning any individual contest are very low, whether your solution is appropriate or not, excellent or not, poor or not, derivative or not, unique or not. (see Judges Are Just No Judge).
“Creatives,” in the quest for higher return on investment (and greater efficiency and lower per-contest costs in time and creative energy) — will regurgitate old failed entries. Make quick tweaks to existing solutions. Have fifteen contests going at once. Barely read the brief. If a logo doesn’t work for one contest, just re-use it for some others. Heck, if it does work for one, reuse it for some others...
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Is it even "Crowdsourcing"?
The reason for sourcing crowds is clear: “a diverse collection of independently-deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better” than any single individual or even a single expert. This is according to one of the greatest examples of crowd-sourcing, Wikipedia.
In short, the theory is this: sometimes crowds, taken in aggregate, predict and decide better than individuals — even expert individuals.
It’s clear from the outset — the design contest model simply isn’t crowdsourcing. Yes, it uses random people from anywhere with an internet connection. But it has nothing to do with harnessing the powerful predictive and decision-making “expertise” of crowds. It’s random outsourcing, not crowdsourcing.
The crowd’s collective wisdom is not harnessed to decide design contests. Or anything else of consequence. The solitary arbiter and decision-maker for each contest is the random paying “buyer” who, by virtue paying a small fee, becomes a “judge” and makes the contest decision alone.
Wikipedia, for example, is a non-profit enterprise made up people who work collectively to ensure a quality encyclopedia of free, openly-accessible and easily-supplemented information. Design contest sites are for-profit enterprises made up of a web “community” of people competing directly against one another to win small sums of money.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -
AHAHAHAHA
bad designers in HIGH PLACES cry while the rest rise to the top and take the jobs they never should of had in the first place.
Go submit some Tshirt designs, 99designs because 99% of you are losers.
Dont be mad that there's pros out there undiscovered.
Bunch of haters connected to no-spec, Don't worry UPS is hiring.
Cream of the crop rises to the top, I'm shocked this site looks halfway decent. -
My stance on spec work as an industry analyst covering social media (crowdsourcing)
It's here to stay, but will have serious weaknesses for buyers and designers who don't recognize the challenges: sub standard designs, requires a lot of time on both parties to manage, and is no subsititue for a true design strategy. -
I am so thankful for the panel on spec work at SXSW. I think that this is a very interesting discussion and I love that it has become this huge debate. David Carson and Jeffrey Kalmikoff offered some great insight, and I love their dedication as designers.
Take it as you want, but as a recent graduate and graphic designer, the best experience you can gain is to be in a work environment and have someone tell you your stuff sucks. David made a great point, that making a bunch of logos on sites like crowdspring does not benefit you because for the most part, the people on these sites are not credible designers.
"90% of the work on these sites are crap" -Jeff Howe -
Jeremiah Owyang's point rings true — "[spec design contest sites] are no substitute for a true design strategy."
No substitute is right. I'd go one step further, and say that these spec "contest" sites make it absolutely 100% impossible for the client to have a true design strategy.
100% IMPOSSIBLE.
First, though, I shouldn't use the word client. The dynamic set-up for these "contests" is buyer/judge of a service/commodity.
This sets up a relationship where "design" means something selected from a menu of random posted visuals.
With this kind of spec, the client who isn't already savvy CAN'T awaken to a more sophisticated understanding of what design can be, and what visual communications can REALLY do for them and their business's bottom line. If they had picked a real designer to work with and interact with, at least they might have had a shot at learning a little about harnessing the power of visual communications for their business's ends.
And to me that's a shame, because a lot of business that may have perhaps had a shot with an excellent visual communications strategy, will burn down. -
The problem with sites like CrowdSpring are the satisfied customers. The ones who got exactly what they were looking using a model many find distasteful.
CrowdSpring and similar sites are a challenge for AIGA, and a challenge that isn't going to be met by policy statements. How can AIGA help uts members fill the market that CorwdSpring has clearly identified?
For example. If a small business owner wanted to hire a designer, where would they go? How would they begin? A Google search? Would they go to AIGA? If they did go to AIGA, where would they click? -
I tend to see Crowdspring, 99Designs, etc. — the spec contest model — not as tending to a market, so much as preying on (or, in kinder words, perpetuating) small business owners' natural lack of awareness as to what design really is, what branding must do, what articulating your core business identity is about, and how a superbly crafted visual communications message is constructed to enhance your bottom line.
It's wrong. It's like selling someone a car with 3 wheels and no engine.
...simply because the buyer doesn't (yet) know better. (Or to really drive the metaphor into the ground), because the buyers aren't totally sure what a car can do for them and have never really seen one up close. It's wrong.
Yes...Caveat Emptor. But it's still just wrong. -
You send them these form letters and I'll send them my spec design. Let's see who gets the account.
-
Actually Clint, if we're playing the odds, nobody wins the account.
What we'd get is this:
Me: Billable hours working hard for paying clients.
You: A form letter of your own after days of wasted, unbillable time slaving over design on spec. The letter will read, "thank you for your time and talented efforts — after much deliberation, we've come to the conclusion this direction is not appropriate for us at this time. However thank you for participating! We hope to see more from you in the future."
And — although everybody is shocked the first time it happens to you personally — six months down the road, surprise...
...the company has mashed and regurgitated the core of your visual communications idea, taking your concepts and free advice / guidance and running with it after all.
Then you get to decide whether to waste the time, energy, money and even more otherwise billable hours trying to sue for recompense. -
I've written quite a bit about this.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: hell no.
http://andrewhyde.net/spec-work-is-evil-why-i-hate-crowdspring/
http://andrewhyde.net/spec-work-is-a-ponzi-scheme/
http://andrewhyde.net/spec-work-panel-at-sxsw/ -
I'm confused here, on one side I hear that AIGA is not for spec work, right?
but most (and I say most cause I have no proof that this happens all the time) time they use agencies/ students to promote AIGA events, they don't pay the designers, is this correct?
You can call technically call it volunteer work, but in the end, both spec work and volunteer work mean that the designer is not getting his/her deserved compensation.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.. I'm just trying to understand AIGA's position on this subject. -
Ron,
Thanks for asking, this is an excellent question. AIGA works with designers and firms to create promotional materials including posters, event programs, event web sites, etc. AIGA’s policy is to always provide an honorarium for design projects as compensation. While we realize it is not set at market rates, it recognizes that no design should be expected without compensation. Implementation, such as printing costs, postage and paper, are covered by AIGA and/or an interested sponsor.
The difference between this and speculative work is that our volunteer designers are never required to do work up front for free before a contract or project begins. Each designer knows explicitly beforehand the terms we are able to offer, which is meant as our demonstration that every designer’s work has significant value, knowing that there are both monetary and non-monetary considerations in any project. Designers typically send us a portfolio of their past work, then have the opportunity to review a design brief and accept or decline the project. At that time, a contract is executed with a commitment to an honorarium, after which work on the project begins.
In an effort to clarify our volunteer policy and provide a way for interested designers to submit proposals, we will create a new page in the FAQ section of this site within the next few weeks. -
Put a nice price on your work especially if thought and creativity are present. Alot of new designs out there are kinda go with the flow designs, mimicking other designers and using the same fonts.the point is, Go against the grain, be original and you will never have to question yourself about charging clients more for great work. I'm a hard worker, appreciation is vital to my existence.
-
Aside from all the other very good reasons indicated here by your respondents what I have found is that clients don't have respect for spec work. Why should they? They don't give their product away free. In addition if they made an investment in your work, even if it"s a small one, they are far more be likely to try and fix or change it to their liking rather than reject it totally. It is really easy for us to put a stop to this dumb practice. Let's us just ban together and stop doing it.
-
I don't support spec work.
[it should be called septic work]
AIGA—by mission statement alone—shouldn't support spec work either.
A great presentation had mentioned that the difference between designers and artists is that designers dont' just create pretty pictures, they research and delve deeper to create meaning and real, lasting value.
Doing spec work to get a job, a client or to otherwise compete means that the designer loses the time & opportunity to research, think and fully understand the client and thier needs; and thus loses the ability to create a design that has meaning & value. Spec work is then just a 'pretty picture.'
I have been in the position to create spec work for a potential. What made me do it? I was hungry and ignorant.
It results in an un-finished work that is void of meaning or the ability to stand the test of time. Spec work falls on the shoulders of trends and quickly falls apart, only to be 're-designed' a short time later when the next trend rolls in.
It's like buying the cheap pencil sharpener for $3. You end up replacing it 4 times. The more expensive one would have cost you $6 or $9. In the end, you paid more money for cheap product and your reward was a headache and wasted time.
To play devils advocate:
Unfortunately, spec work is a lot like an internship. Someone hired as an intern still has bills to pay. Still needs money to eat. Yet they do work for free trying to get a start in the world; competing with fellow students and new designers for potential.
Spec work is perpetuated by ignorance and hunger; so long as young artists are hungry, or so long as companies are ignorant to the processes and outcome of good designs that work, there will always be spec work around.
However, we can teach companies what is really involved in the design process, what sets professional designers apart from the 'fly-by-night-designers'. We can educate the masses on the values of designs that work. Design is both a service and a product that 'you get what you pay for'.
After that, whomever chooses to work with or buy from a non-professional, or which ever 'designer' chooses to subject themselves to spec work, will then be left to the dust. Why associate with those who dilute our abilities, knowledge, hard work and skills?
Yes, cream may float to the top, but so does pond scum. -
I've been doing a lot of reading on this topic in preparation for my role in the AIGA Spec Work Task force. This discussion has provided a lot of points to ponder.
At this time, I tend to agree with Jerimiah O. (from the SXSW panel): spec work isn't going anywhere. Market forces are driving it and it has a niche in the design ecosystem.
What AIGA can do is EDUCATE, both buyers of design services and providers about the value of having a long term relationship with a designer vs. one-off design concepts with all the risk that is inherant in specwork/contest generated designs.
We all know effective design does not occur in a vaccum. Now how can we help buyers and designers see this? I don't think standing up in our ivory tower and shouting about how spec work is bad/evil/wrong will work. If you only complain about the problem and bring no solutions to the table, no one listens to your side. We have to clearly articulate to BOTH audiences the business value of a strategic long-term relationship with a design thinker vs. instant gratification from an artifact creator. -
Krystal Hosmer! Spark Creative right?
http://www.sparkcreative-lv.com/
And ongoing design contest spec participant SparkCreative, right?
http://www.crowdspring.com/myspring/profile/SparkCreative
And your position is squarely articulated in the thread "Is This Site Morally Right?" at crowdspring (entry #9, etc.) right?
http://forums.crowdspring.com/showthread.php?t=590
I have a few quick questions for clarity's sake. First, what solutions do you envision coming out of you (quote) "advocat[ing] with AIGA national leadership to get AIGA and CrowdSpring working together"?
And what kind of spec education do you want this AIGA "task force" to participate in? -
In the hopes of bringing a small amount of clarity to this complex and emotionally charged issue, let me recap what the AIGA board is doing. As an organization, we must always be willing to adapt and lead. This does not mean that we should ever lower the bar or our standards. The Spec Work Task Force has spent several months examining the issue and presented the findings to the national board last weekend. The board is currently examining all options and ramifications. I cannot comment on the outcome, as it has yet to be determined. But I will state plainly, no decision will be made that will not strengthen our members and the design community and will never be an adoption of lower standards. Finally, the debate and conversation here has been vital for us, and I deeply appreciate everyone who has engaged in this conversation.
Thank you. -
I've thought about this a lot, and it seems most of you are making your arguments based on an idyllic situation between professional designers and companies, where the designers get paid appropriately for their work, and the company walks away with outstanding work that strengthens their brand. In this perfect world, of course, spec work has no place.
We do not live in this world, however. The majority of companies are happy with their cousin's friend with photoshop cs2 producing a 30 minute logo in his basement. They don't even know the difference. The majority of their customers could care less if they even had a logo, nevermind who it was designed by or how they paid for it. The average person just doesn't care. This is why for the slightly better than average person, 100 logo choices for $100 is the ideal solution. It just doesn't make sense for their small company to pay several hundred or thousand dollars for a more clever/unique logo concept, because they just don't care. Jose the gardener gets paid for doing cheap, efficient work; not because his business card stands out. Your average company doesn't *need* a better design than something they can get on a design site — this is the point many of you are missing (and actually, I've seen a fair share of very decent work on these sites that would likely be just as good, likely better than a local design studio down the street). If designers (or hobbyist "designers") have time to kill and want to practice their skills by creating concepts for companies, that is their deal. It's the same exercises you do in design school (albeit without the instructor's feedback). If you think it devalues their work, fine, let them "devalue" themselves, it makes you look better.
So, obviously this system is working. It works for both the companies and the designers who participate (or it wouldn't be as popular as it is). Professional designers will just have to accept this fate. The companies who really see the value of a strong brand identity will still be around, and so will competent designers. The only thing it seems that can make a difference is for those companies who would benefit from a strong identity to realize this and become willing to pay a designer to create this for them. This is a slow and tedious process, however, and will not eliminate those companies who are satisfied with an average logo. -
Jen, "this system" is not working. At all.
It even has a Bernie Maddoff of its own, named Jon Engle. Spec contest rip-off artist extraordinare. Well, one of them, anyway.
For anyone unplugged / stuck under a rock of late:
http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/index.php/anti-spec-work-parable/ -
We don't do spec work. We try to work with client's that understand the value of the creative process, from concept to completed design. Those that don't care or don't see the value in the creative process aren't the types of clients that we're going after.
-
As some of you may know, AIGA's own web director, Lydia Mann, was on the spec work panel at SXSWi last month. You can listen to the full audio recording here:
http://ow.ly/48C4 -
To all-
I understand your belief that this practice is unethical. I respect you and want you to know you are entitled to your opinion. I would fight for your right to voice it and organize in its cause.
However...as a company that once posted a contest, I would like to offer up an opposing point of view. We have a professional Design Firm we have hired to do our website, create collateral items, etc. Some time ago, we were approached by a student in Portland who wanted to do some work for us. His prices were too good to believe and his work showed he was not a great designer. But, we realized there were people out there who needed help with school, stay at home parents who needed to help with household income, etc. I believe there is nothing wrong with offering them a chance to submit something artistic for a chance at a small sum of money. We still have our graphics firm for the big projects and professional imagary.
The worst part of this was all of the HATE mail from members of AIGI. I was told by one person, in very graphic terms, that they were put on to my ad by this association and they intended to barrage me with horrible, unprofessional email until the ad was pulled.
How nice it was to come in every morning to email on ways to violate myself and my company. I believe you represent yourself as a "professional" association. Is this ethical? If you want to email me and share your point of view, great! I want to hear it. But, I don't need to feel threatened or have profanity shoved at me. Thanks for reading this and I hope it might make someone think twice about hateful email campaigns. -
I want a new car. I am going to call Ford and GM and Chrysler to each design and build a car specifically for me and then I will choose which one I feel like buying. Never mind what it costs to design and build them, I am only paying for one of them.
If a company wants a logo and is not concerned with something unique or designed by a pro especially for them, then so be it. They will probably value your $2,000 worth of work at $200 anyways and then tell you "I got my kid a new laptop and he could do that!"
"I believe there is nothing wrong with offering them a chance to submit something artistic for a chance at a small sum of money."
Logan, here is the fatal flaw in your plan:
This is not art, this is a commercial product. Art is done for fun, commercial design is done as a business. You are confusing the two and are making this out to be gladiator sport for a small prize.
You mentioned the student's prices were "too good to be true" and the work "showed he was not a great designer".
What do you think a site like crowdspring.com does? The same exact thing you complained about.
Let's wait until some more poached and pinched designs wind up in someone's expensive 50,000 piece mail drop...
Your idea is clever, but not with out some serious flaws that your lawyers no doubt have sewn all the loopholes shut to keep you out of trouble while you pocket money on these so called "designs". -
Dylan,
Interesting analogy with the cars... Who cares? If the car company wants to do it, why should other car manufacturers get upset? That is a business decision for the car company.
Again, we have to agree to disagree. You are not going to convince me it is wrong and I am not going to be able to convince you it is right.
My main point is that there are design firms out there who share your point of view and your association who send out pornographic, profane, and unprofessional emails about this subject. I like the comment from above that states something to the effect that you can't stand in your ivory tower and tell us all that we are wrong. You just are not going to win over clients. Do your best work and you will get recognition. Don't start campaigns that lower you and your colleagues to the mud. You are better than that. Maintain professionalism and try to get your message out in a professional way. I support you trying to do that. I am a HUGE proponent of free speech. Unfortunately for some design firms, I am also a supporter of the free market. -
Logan,
AIGA believes that all designers should demonstrate integrity and civility in all their professional interactions and this is an elemental part of the AIGA statement of professional standards. We also believe strongly that spec work diminishes the value of a design engagement for a client. Clearly, many designers also feel very passionate about this issue. However, we would neither encourage nor condone any designer being uncivil or abusive in advancing their point of view. -
As a former manager of projects that included extremely talented designers I have a lot of respect for good design and the frequent difficulty in communicating its value to uninformed and uninterested clients.
As an entrepreneur and small business owner, I also appreciate the need to manage costs and get a business running on a very tight budget.
As has been documented in this thread, there are many horror stories about businesses ripping off vulnerable suppliers like designers. That sucks and hurts everyone's business.
However, I am very surprised at the depth of ignorance about basic realities that some contributors to this page have displayed:
+ Forbes is right, you *do* sound snooty - think you *deserve* a "fair" (I read 'high') price? No, you deserve what anyone is willing to pay, no more, no less.
The 'market price' is the highest number amongst your prospective buyers - on that day, for that project, under those circumstances. It's your job to increase the perceived value of that.
+ It's natural for a 'guild' like the AIGA to want to maintain the 'market' price for its members - but the only sustainable way nowadays is to constantly communicate the value to customers.
+ It is your job to differentiate yourselves clearly to consumers of design work and to clearly establish in their minds why your work is better - most clients probably don't know much about how to buy design services, in the same way as those buying legal or accounting services are often ignorant about them.
They do know that they don't want to pay for something they can't explain or value. How can the design profession, whose job it it is to communicate visually, have failed so badly at communication?!
+ There will always be a market for cheap design - for many businesses I start I *want* a throw-away design because I'm initially aiming for a slightly different target market (investors, partners) than the ultimate consumers, for whom I'd rather do a proper job of visual communication when I've refined the concept. I don't have enough money to do both.
+ If one of the dangers of spec work is using a design that will be litigated for infringement later, why not sell the benefit of avoiding this to your clients? I can't think of any sensible business owner wanting to risk buge legal bills for the sake of a cheap design. Maybe they just haven't thought about it or don't understand the risks? So explain it to them!
+ This 'spec work is immoral' idea is nonsense and an unproductive contribution. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it immoral. There are many unscrupulous companies out there that will purposefully rip people off. That's immoral.
For a company wanting to understand more fully what they get when they buy design (which most do *not*, I would wager) or manage the risk of buying something they know nothing about, setting up a competition or asking for something more seems a reasonable thing to do.
If this does not suit you, then why not figure out a middle ground to *show* them, rather than retreating into your ivory tower with a huge huff of indignation?
If designers don't really understand what makes a market tick and how to best take advantage of it, they may end up in the same predicament as the music or print news industries. They didn't fare so well sticking to the old thinking.
With respect,
Justin M -
There is a normal evolution to most people who work in the creative arts industry.
Work for free => Work for free with the hopes of getting paid = > Work for pay
Once you reach the point where you consistently get paid before work begins, spec work offers are really frustrating. It is a waste of time. I think if more designers would have specific pricing on their website, they wouldn't have to worry so much about getting spec work offers. By not putting prices on your site you are opening yourself up to an aggravating experience.
Sincerely,
Staniel -
I see this a lot at the agency I currently work for. What I don't understand is the agency has been around for 15+ years and you would think that they would have seen the pattern of wasted time and energy before.
I assume that mgmt knows what its doing, but i do question a lot of the procedures. -
Wow - I was going to make a comment and then I read Justin M's post on April 30, 2009. He made my points way better than I think I could have. Justin, I definitely share his sentiments. Spec work is not immoral.
Add a Comment
Comments may no longer be added to this page. If you feel the discussion has been archived in error, please contact us.
© 2009 AIGA | 164 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10010 | 212 807 1990
Comments