From AIGA Insight ~ Topics: copyright, ethics
What is AIGA’s position on spec work? And how are ethical standards determined?
The web’s impact on traditional business practices and spec work—speculative work done prior to engagement with a client in anticipation of being paid—recently reinvigorated discussions of ethics and professional standards for the design industry. In addition to prompting AIGA to re-examine its own position on spec work, through a task force led by members of the national board of directors, these conversations also raised the question of who determines an ethical standard.
AIGA believes that a professional association should not be a monolithic authority releasing edicts for all to observe. Rather, the ethics of a profession should emerge from its members, reflecting the tacit agreement of a profession on behavior that is deemed appropriate, respectful and honorable. An association may articulate the implicit standards of integrity, but it does not set them. And as social, professional and business conditions change, it is important to restate positions so they are relevant to the context in which they will be applied—in this case, AIGA’s position on spec work.
Changes in context that require a refinement of AIGA’s approach
The internet has radically changed the means of soliciting and offering design, democratizing participation in creative endeavors paid and free, commissioned and speculative. This warrants a change in the approach AIGA takes toward spec work, even while holding firm to the core belief that spec work embodies inherent risks.
In a world where visual communication is increasingly prevalent, necessary and demanding, the profession’s role should not be to reduce the pursuit of visual creativity by the masses. AIGA, on behalf of the design profession, is committed to improving the visual literacy of business, government and society, and to help them understand the true value of design well executed. The design profession should not position itself against the popular pursuit of creative endeavors. But design is not merely a form of creative expression, and AIGA must also promote the designer’s ability to solve problems, think strategically and make the intangible tangible.
AIGA’s revised position on spec work
AIGA acknowledges that spec work has long been practiced, continues to occur and may indeed be increasing, particularly as the internet alters and augments solicitation, bidding, marketing and distribution practices. The AIGA board, in consultation with a number of interested members, recently revisited AIGA’s long-standing policy against spec work in the context of changing dynamics in the marketplace.
As an institution that is a reflection of its membership, AIGA encourages designers to exercise their individual decision-making rights to engage in design as they see fit. AIGA’s role is to extend an understanding of the risks associated with certain practices—risks to the individual designer, the client and the profession as a whole.
AIGA’s official position on spec work
AIGA, the professional association for design, believes that professional designers should be compensated fairly for the value of their work and should negotiate the ownership or use rights of their intellectual and creative property through an engagement with clients.
AIGA acknowledges that speculative work occurs among clients and designers. Instead of working speculatively, AIGA strongly encourages designers to enter into projects with full engagement to continue to show the value of their creative endeavor. Designers and clients should be aware of all potential risks before entering into speculative work.
AIGA is committed to informing designers, students, educators, clients and the general public on the risks of compromising the design process though information, materials and services that can help in forging a healthy working relationship between designers and their clients.
AIGA maintains that speculative work can compromise the benefits of effective design for both clients and designers. A designer fully engaged in a client’s challenges is as necessary to an effective solution as it is fair in terms of compensating creative and professional efforts. With the current trends and practices of open source creative development and online bidding for work, the designer and client will engage as they see fit, although they should assume responsibility for risks involved in spec work should they choose that course.
It is the duty of AIGA to continue to inform the public, business and the design community of the potential risks of spec work, including implications for the quality of the outcome, intellectual property rights and economic fairness. In the long run, AIGA is committed to encouraging creative expression and enhancing visual literacy for all. It is our hope and belief that only through education will the understanding and appreciation of professional design be extended and perpetuated.
-
I've just downloaded the new AIGA pdf sample letter for spec work — thank you for a solid document. It walks a difficult wire... kindly but forthrightly articulating the pitfalls of a potential client's current spec trajectory, while also suggesting an excellent professional solution.
The update/re-consideration was needed and much appreciated. -
This is a very hot topic right now. I have come across a few "Design Contests" recently some of which seem to fall in a spec work gray area.
The following are two "Spec Work" related articles which discuss some real world examples.
Design for Sale
http://www.korkitchen.com/2009/05/08/design-for-sale/
Is Crowdsourcing Evil? The Design Community Weighs In
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/03/is-crowdsourcin/ -
Ric,
Thanks to you and the whole team involved for a well-reasoned, thoughtfully-written response to the evolving issue of spec work. I particularly appreciate the understanding that this is not a black-and-white matter, but instead one that designers must tackle individually, with knowledge of the pros and cons of both "sides". I applaud your work.
Drew Davies
Owner, Oxide Design Co.
Design Director, AIGA | Design for Democracy -
Isn't Spec, as it's used here the same as "work for hire?"
When I took courses on graphic design that was one of things we were told, not to do "work for hire" I think I've read that some were as well maybe in the Graphic Arts Guild Handbook..Love that handbook, it's helped me out a lot.
I agree, that some times it's better to let the client go than to continue doing business with them. I did some work for a non-profit, and that was okay because I could donate some of my time, but in the end the client started to become to pushy as if I were his employee.
I did get paid first with down payments, and final payments for work that I did because thankful to the handbook, I learned that I should get paid first before doing any work. Though, I did give a lot of extra time because it was a non profit organization.
I eventually told the client that I needed a break.. Mostly, because the client became to pushy and wanted me to do a lot of work without being paid, so I had to put an end to it.
I lost a lot of time and money, but I learned a BIG lesson from that experience.
Don't do Spec Work! -
US congressman Mike Honda (D), whose constituents are largely Silicon Valley folks, is having his government website designed through a crowdsourcing "contest" site — but the BEST part?
He's ALSO having his constituents vote to decide the winning entry:
http://www.crowdspring.com/projects/website_design/small_website_uncoded/congressman_seeks_innovative_redesign_of_website/details
Design demagoguery?
A recipe for ensuring a craptastic mediocrity of a site?
Or a clever way of creating constituent buy-in, social engagement, a little buzz for the "Mike Honda, Innovator" brand?
Can't wait to see what bedazzles us from this...but still. Maybe it's time for us to dust-off that new spec work & ethical standards form. -
Hello Richard,
Thanks for the update. I've been eagerly awaiting the result of your (and Debbie's) re-examination.
It's heartening to see a solid and understanding assessment, where the dangers are emphasized, but you don't preach heavily.
Spec / design contest websites are fighting an uphill battle. Always will be. So I'm glad you haven't changed tact following their prompts. -
I do both design & illo work, over 25 years now. I've never done spec in design, with no ill-effects, I suspect. However, I've succumbed to spec for illo work a few times and have never, ever gotten a job from it.
I am curious, do others find this to be true, the different mindset between design & illo clients about spec?
Honestly, has any experienced professional out there ever gotten seriously profitable work generated from a spec? This might be a good subject for a survey. -
I think that the answer is simple. Charge people money for your time and ensure there is a written contract before the creative process begins. Only work with people you meet.
-
An emerging trend that my company, pH3 Design, has seen has seemly added another face to spec work. We are often approached with a new emerging business idea that needs a brand and web design. The proposal is that we do the work upfront and if the business does well and takes off, we will be compensated by some sort of percentage of the profits or specific amount.
-
How does AIGA feel about having one of its official sponsors participate in speculative work by posting a job on a spec site? Shouldn't the sponsors follow AIGA's ethical standards?
-
Absolutely. And we make clear to sponsors and literally scores of other corporations that we believe spec work, for communication design, is inappropriate, disrespectful, and risks a result that is less than is deserved by either the designer or the client. In many cases we are successful in changing behavior and most times in enhancing understanding. But not always. So we continue the dialogue and the quest...AIGA and every designer need to articulate our point of view forcefully and consistently.
-
Thank you, Ric, for this much-needed update, and the firm stance against spec work.
I think one of the biggest and growing problems is the exploding population of self trained amateur designers--anyone who has Photoshop can fancy him/herself a graphic artist or graphic designer, and promote him/herself as such. In and of itself, the democratization of our profession is not a bad thing, except when instances of their ineptitude give us actual professionals a bad name. I have seen examples of this.
The average new or infrequent design buyer likely does not know how to evaluate a practitioner and his/her design business practices. They will simply try to garner what they think of as the best value (cheapest) design for the project with which they were entrusted. This can cause severe problems especially in the world of print design, where making sure the design can print correctly is the most important part of the job. You just would not believe the ignorance out there. And the misinformation just gets twittered and blogged about all over the place. (This article is a case in point: http://www.fuelyourcreativity.com/3-deadly-sins-of-print-design / especially if you read all the comments.) Clients learn the hard way when they get burned, but sometimes that just turns them off altogether.
So, what is the best defense against spec work and its associated ills? From a practitioner perspective, it's "just say no." But from a bigger picture I believe it is to elevate professional design and educate the design-buying public. This is where AIGA as a national organization can come in. Because surely, even as individual designers may participate in educating individual clients, greater strides can be made by a large, national, prominent organization.
Here's one idea: encourage, empower, and facilitate chapters to give one program a year to their area's client base (instead of the members). Focus on professional design, professional designers, demystifying the process. Maybe solicit questions from that base. Make it a roundtable. Maybe have client/designer pairs so the audience literally sees both sides of a successful partnership. Charge no admission. Invite the business, nonprofit, and government communities. Do it in association with the chamber of commerce, or an association of associations, etc. Because knowledge is power. For all of us. -
I think this is a very important discussion, especially in this economic climate. I wanted to respond to TK, who had problems with a non-profit client. I do a lot of work for non-profits, which is occasionally donated.
You must always have a contract, even if you are not getting paid. It should contain the same parameters as any other contract, as well as what the cost of the actual work would be. You would be amazed at how well people get their act together and organize their changes if they know they will have to pay extra for additional work.
Non- profit people care passionately about their causes, but they don't always understand that it is not necessarily your cause, and that your time is work actual money in the same way as a doctor or a lawyer.
I often retain the copyright on donated work and ask for to be acknowledged as any other donor, based on the value of the work. I have found that this really puts the value of what you are doing in perspective for the client. -
I appreciate the stance, and wholeheartedly agree. This is something that our studio was up wrestling with as the recent policy update came through the line, and feel like this provides us with additional resources to better articulate the dirty nature of speculative work. Thank you.
-
I deeply appreciate the stand the AIGA is taking on the issue of Spec work, but am beginning to think we may be swimming upstream and wonder if there are any lessons from other industries that create intellectual property like music, publishing etc, that we can learn from. Seems to me that we may be facing a long-term shift in the the way we engage clients. Are these new crowd-sourced design resources the equivalent of the music industry's iTunes, or the publishing industry's Kindle? Hope not!
FYI, there is an article on this subject at the Business Week Innovation site at,
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jun2009/id20090615_946326.htm?chan=innovation_innovation+%2B+design_top+stories
I have also written a couple blog entries on the subject at,
http://richardshear.wordpress.com/ -
I euphemistically refer to "spec work" as "white-collar crime," and I discourage my students from participating. I do, however, encourage them to engage in option 3, if they need to build a more comprehensive portfolio.
-
Hello again, Richard.
I've been thinking this over for a while now, and it seems that your stance as anti-spec has become severely diluted by the recent press release where you "leave it up to the individual" to decide if they should be exploited by "spec websites".
In your comment above, you say, "...we believe spec work is inappropriate, disrespectful, and risks a result that is less than is deserved by either the designer or the client."
That's a much clearer title for your release, and would've been more helpful for designers. -
How could you not ethically agree with the AIGA position and not seek fair compensation for your work? And of course I want my phone to ring and the first words on the other end to be ... "Hey you don't know me but I've seen your work, want to hire you and pay you fairly." But things are different out there.
I was happy to see AIGA update its position, and take the ethical high road. Glad you did not bury your heads in the sand and still encourage membership to exercise their individual decision-making rights and engage in design as they see fit.
I applaud all efforts to communicate positive understanding between clients and designers, but felt the sample letter was quite brusque. They aren't all malicious, some just never got beyond the "Design a Logo and win $25 mentality". If you're going to bother sending a letter, I think the purpose should be educational, ethical, and relational. Albeit true, scolding with violations of professional ethical standards, and challenging client's practices and standards and appropriateness won't generate goodwill.
The goal should be to keep the doors open. Otherwise just skip the lecture. I'd love to hear about anyone who uses the letter and still successfully lands the business.
Keep up the great work!!! -
I would like to take a pro-active role on gathering case-studies of the good, the bad, and the ugly of spec work. If ever there was a gray area, I would say it best resides in the realm of spec work.
I always come back to the question, "What is the value of design?" Beyond money compensation, offering design services can have the value of exposure, community outreach, networking, portfolio and resume building, and growing design awareness to those who could not otherwise afford an expensive purchase order.
Tools to help contractually quantify these items, and how to compare them against the impact on the design community as a whole is needed. Awareness on all levels is needed.
Thank you AIGA for actively leading the way to building that awareness. -
I tried this for a little at a brand crowd sourcing site bit and was really uncomfortable. I blogged about my experiences here if anyone wishes to get a more first hand idea;
http://imokon.com/2009/06/30/crowdsourcing/ -
I support and agree with AIGA on this stance. The market values you as you value yourself and giving it out gratis isn't a viable option if you want to make a living from design. I actively discouraged spec work in my department for several reasons:
1.All or part of your work/design can be, and often is, used without compensation or credit. It's time consuming and expensive to pursue.
2.The idea is used, gone, out there. It's hard to recycle a great idea. If it wasn't selected the first time out, that doesn't make it a bad idea, but it does tarnish its uniqueness.
3.Wearing all your best clothes at once looks desperate and diminishes the value of design. Its like cruising for a hooker. You don't want to be a part of it.
Something isn't better than nothing. Work, creative work particularly, is valuable. -
I've just posted my view on Spec Work, I would love to hear your thoughts.
The "Pros" and Cons of Spec Work -
The "Pros" and Cons of Spec Work:
The link is:
http://justcreativedesign.com/2009/08/12/the-pros-and-cons-of-spec-work -
Richard Grefé:
Its my belief that as long as designers take part in spec work and other unfair practices, the professionalism of the industry will falter.
Thank you for your article. -
AIGA's spec work policy recognizes the role the web has assumed in creating new marketplaces for all kinds of services, including design. These more open marketplaces result in broad access to less expensive options for many services and products, which some may feel commoditizes professional services.
In one example of the ambiguity that we face currently, iStockphoto announced a stock logo marketplace inviting designers to submit logo designs, which then would be priced at roughly between $100 and $1,000, with the aim that small businesses who would not otherwise retain a designer might purchase logo art. The creator would receive half the sale price. Is this spec work? Is the company doing something wrong in developing this marketplace? How does this relate to AIGA's standards of professional practice?
AIGA believes this situation requires first and foremost that a distinction be drawn between creating logos, without a client, and designing.
Communication design is the purposeful use of words and images to address a communication challenge of a client, after a designer has understood the problem and the context in which the message will be communicated, all in order to achieve the client’s goals and objectives. Design creates value and designers should be compensated for their contribution appropriately.
While the iStockphoto invitation appears to challenge all these attributes, AIGA believes it is not a call for design, but a call for commercial art—images that might have commercial application somewhere, sometime. It is speculative work in that the artist creates the image speculatively, in the anticipation of being compensated (half of net revenues) if selected—which is counter to the professional ethos of design, since it results in design being created without a clear understanding of its purpose and effect.
Each creative professional must decide on his or her own whether to submit artwork. However, this should not be confused with designers, designing or design.
iStockphoto is taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by the web; its actions are not wrong or unethical. Unless the role of design is properly supported, iStockphoto may be trivializing designers' contribution by selling generic logos inexpensively and many designers may feel this is disrespectful.
The real losers, however, will be clients who will not receive the strategic value inherent in a successful design or branding engagement, in which designers do not guess at visual options that might be acceptable, but rather counsel enterprises on how to embody their brand values visually and differentiate their product. Fortunately, designers committed to creating value through a design process are unlikely to respond.
iStockphoto, in turn, would argue that it actually creates a market for logos among small enterprises that would not otherwise hire a designer, so it expands the market for design and this can result in royalty checks to many designers who will choose to participate.
AIGA has been in communication with the top management of iStockphoto to assure their commitment to the design profession and to place this initiative in context. It will also inform designers of the risk (and rewards) of this initiative. -
Ric,
Thank you for insight in this matter. As with everything, you confront the issue head-on but with tact.
Keep up the good work. -
The market, the economy and consumer centric world warranted a revamp of the AIGA postion. Thank you
-
Thanks for all this great information and all the great comments. I always worry about logo 'spec' sites that have generic logos for sale which devalue our expertise and what we do. I hope these materials help me, and everyone else, in the future. I also liked another poster's suggestion on creating a roundtable discussion with businesses in each AIGA chapter area to get them in on the discussions - help them understand more directly the value of our work besides each individual designer trying to tackle it on their own. Great stuff here!
-
alonso creative tweeted this a.m. alluding to aiga weighing in on the upcoming speculation (sorry, had to use that word) about istock logos. his link lead me to a revised statement from aiga about spec work and, it seems they've softened their stance a bit. i've long since believed participation in spec work is not only a personal decision but also, by definition, very loosely interpreted. while i personally agree that everybody needs to be fairly compensated for any work they perform haven't we all — at some point in time — done work that didn't fairly compensate us in the hopes of some future glory?
the debate gets interesting regarding istock logo services. now we know how photographers felt years ago. if there is any aiga member today who hasn't purchased an inexpensive stock photo, illustration, movie clip, audio file — whatever — i tip my made-in-china knock off baseball cap to them. -
Anne Kerns' suggestion about events to educate clients is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Let's do it. Why don't we start with the new Metro-North chapter?
-
Our industry is becoming more and more saturated with "Toolers." Crowd sourcing and pre-fab stock logos is just a side effect of this fact.
What is a Tooler? Read about it here: http://snipurl.com/toolers -
Very happy to see the AIGA weigh in on this! I, for one, am not happy to see iStock move in this direction. I am curious, how does the AIGA repond to websites like Brandstack that offer a similar service, but allow designers to set more of a price?
-
Spec work is not "work for hire".
Spec is an easy target because it is a target you can see. It is easy to understand. Easy to identify. Easy to get worked up about. And, yes, it is a growing problem.
Work For Hire is an entirely different animal and one few people really understand. It is far more damaging and far more pervasive than most would like to believe.
http://www.stopworkforhire.com -
Forums are now overloaded with outraged designers shouting to boycott istock and crowdsourcing, not without good reason. As a graphic designer, I believe an offering like this diminishes the value that designers offer when creating identities.
In creating an identity, designers go through a 3-step process:
1. Research. It’s only through research and collaboration with a client that the designer begins to gain an understanding of a business and its goals. This is the most important stage of a logo design. Who do they want to be? How would they like to be perceived? How do they differ in the marketplace?
2. Design. The designer begins to assess what type solution is appropriate, explore relevant imagery, stylistic approach and color choices. All of these are calculated choices to express something about the company. They come together for the design phase.
3. Refine. Through client feedback, the logo may evolve through illustration, color exploration and font selection.
The istock offer eliminates the research and refine stage, and therefore, the unique personality of the company. Eliminating 2/3 of the work that goes into an identity explains the bargain price. istock is not the first to offer logos at basement prices and they won’t be the last. So go ahead… Upload your logos for “company x” and carve out their unique position in “marketplace y”.
I’ll be here working on step 1. See above. -
Ric, that's quite a dance around the topic there, almost as if you're still supporting iStock whilst trying to make it look otherwise.
I wonder if you'd be more firm in your stance against the spec work that this is if iStock wasn't an AIGA sponsor. -
As a practicing professional, I'm compelled to weigh in on this subject. http://tinyurl.com/y962f3s
-
Thanks Ric. Your dedication is, as always, greatly admired and appreciated.
Heather Dougherty
AIGA Portland -
I agree with David Airey. Sounds like soft spin intended to not offend the sponsor. I am expecting the same position to come out of the GDC.
-
I too agree with David Airey. There is also a heated discussion that includes disappointment with AIGA's position here on the HOWdesign forum:http://tinyurl.com/istock-logo-howforum
-
You know... I've thought long and hard on stuff like this. I used to be really vocal about templated designs and what not. The truth is, this will become more and more prominent as time goes on regardless of what AIGA thinks of it.
Beginning of rant....
When istockphoto first came onto the scene, many pro photographers expressed concern about how it was going to threaten their industry. Many of them voiced the same concerns. When istock allowed vector submissions, many illustrators also echoed the same concerns. The truth of the matter is that it has not affected their industry. If anything, it made it better. Designers from smaller companies now had access to high quality stock for cheap prices and bigger agencies got even better quality images and illustrations from bigger media agencies like Corbis and Veer because those photographers and illustrators had to step up their game to compete.
When sites like template monster and woo themes started offering cheap, templated web designs, many web designers also reacted the same way. Well, if anything it has made web design much better because it forced web designers to step up and produce better designs with better usability into their web designs.
I'm willing to bet that 80% of the designers who are complaining about the logo submissions at istock are the same ones who use istock photos and illustrations exclusively. I bet these are the same designers to basically told photographers and illustrators to "STFU" when they were complaining about istock offering cheap stock vectors and images to the masses.
Istockphoto identified a need and is providing a solution to mom and pop shops who can't afford good designers. Will it hurt designers in the lower tiers of the industry? You bet. But that is the name of the game and it is up to designers (and AIGA) to step up and react with the punches. In the long run, I believe this will strengthen the design industry by forcing innovation and change.
Not that I whoely support this or think AIGA should just lay down.... If anything, hopefully this will be a wake up call to AIGA to institute innovation and positive change in the design industry. This should prompt AIGA to make stronger attempts to educate and inform the public of good design (vs lame templated design) and where to find good design.
AIGA's reaction and the reaction of many designers reminds me of the Record industry condemning Mp3's and file sharing. Instead of finding new ways to innovate and compete, they are doing everything they can to protect their way of business that has been in place for decades. Are we becoming outdated like the record industry? Are we really a bunch of nagging-old bastards who refuse the change and are fighting hard to keep the status quo?
Anyways, just my thoughts. I know this may rub some people the wrong way. I just think that a statement of condemnation and complaining is not going to do anything. I think this is a time for AIGA to seriously have discussions about how we as designers can compete in today's marketplace. -
I kinda agree with Tom^, the same rule could apply to photographers on iStock.
We can't really think of a massive change, I'm afraid. It just seems this is the new way we're following. -
We never did spec work before. Time is to be paid for like any other services. We know design firms that did and got burn from it. You weed out the bad players fast with no spec work. How are you going to pay bills with soec work?
-
Thank you for the thorough, and very professional letter to share with clients on the very sensitive topic of spec work.
- Althea Jasper -
Does it really surprise anyone that AIGA won't just come out and address directly the pre-fab logo service that iStockPhoto.com will be launching in January?
I'll believe AIGA has the industries best interest at heart when they give back the money they took from iStockPhoto.com to be a Platinum sponsor at their own "Make/Think" Conference.
As of now it's hard to take AIGA seriously when they are in bed with prefab: http://tinyurl.com/inbedwithprefab
The problem as others have stated above is the lack of process in iStockPhoto.com approach. But that is expected because it'll be "Toolers" that feed this new service. http://snipurl.com/toolers
Von -
We have been burned in the past with spec work. At this point we have started charging for research towards large projects even.
The problem is that if a project starts off with a spec, the client already is showing they don't respect the value of your time, and this is just not right.


Comments