" At the end of the day, there is a certain irony in spec work. A prospect requesting it is ultimately saying, 'My project isn’t important enough to hire a professional who will take the time to understand my situation and goals and invest the time needed to create a suitable solution.' "
Is there something wrong with is? If I want to create a webapp and have no clue about graphic design, I would be happy with something that looks ok. I'm not looking for somebody to understand my situation, I just want something better then a border="1" table with default buttons.
Of course there's nothing wrong with it. I want my offices to look nice, too, but I don't need a weeklong branding consultation to figure out what kind of potted plants best complement my company's persona.
I think this is a classic business model problem with consultative services: 60-80% of the work is, in fact, cookie-cutter stuff that can be executed by any barely-competant practioner, and the remaining 20-40% doesn't easily command the premium required to staff an expert firm. So firms pretend that the low-margin 60% doesn't exist.
I don't get why graphic design, alone among all professional service practices, should be exempt from project risk. Some high-end lawyers we've worked with have practically fallen over themselves to offer advice in anticipation of a professional relationship; I've tried to do the same thing with my clients, prospects, and peers.
"Some high-end lawyers we've worked with have practically fallen over themselves to offer advice in anticipation of a professional relationship."
Offering advice is completely different than them drawing up a few sample usable contracts for you to use without restriction, all as a taste of more possible work to come.
Why is it that some programmers think design is so easy? Designers that think programming is easy bug the shit out of me so the reverse is no less arrogant. The percentage breakdown is taken completely out of thin air or maybe only applies to mid-level designers with cookie cutter work.
Having said all that, I'm a designer that's actually not against crowdsourcing designs (I like crowdspring more than 99designs) because it's not the same as spec work. Rather than a one-on-one type of relationship without any transparency, basically a closed door job audition, the crowdsourcing sites allow designers to compete openly and showcase their talent, even if their work isn't selected. They can also reuse work that isn't selected for future projects, for design layouts at least (not so much for logos), and eat the whole buffalo as it were.
It's funny, because WSGR (probably the most famous of the Bay Area law firms) did exactly that with YC, drafting a series of term sheet contracts for free.
I don't think design work is easy, and I'm not saying I advocate spec work as a sound business choice, but I don't see the ethical problem. Design firms sound a lot like realtors when they talk about boycotting things like 99designs.
And again, it is also the case that for 80% of the market, "competant" is the hurdle, not "groundbreaking" or even "distinctive". People who need "competant" design are ill-served by projects padded with weeklong branding sessions, or even multiple rough comps to choose from.
> I think this is a classic business model problem with consultative services: 60-80% of the work is, in fact, cookie-cutter stuff that can be executed by any barely-competant practioner...
The "cookie cutter nature" depends on whether the client thinks s/he knows what s/he wants already.
A real, good design consultant will come up with awesome, non-cookie-cutter shit taht the client would never think of. That's why the client is not a designer.
A "barely competent" designer will implement the client's mediocre, pedestrian request in a barely competent way.
And when you hire somebody "barely competent," even for something "cookie cutter," you get things such as a brochureware cafe site that talks about its beautiful gardens but does not list an address, hours, or a contact number.
The problem, for clients, for hiring based on spec work, is the fact that the designer "wins" by shiny, not with careful consideration of the "problem."
And if design is any part of your strategy (and it ought to be), you're undercutting your own success.
EDIT: This is not to say that anybody calling themselves a design consultant is any good. There are very few truly excellent people out there -- in any field.
This is what every professional services firm says in every situation ever. "You get what you pay for". Two problems with that: first, like you said, you don't always get what you pay for. Second, and more importantly, you don't always need what you paid for.
90% of clients "awesome, non-cookie-cutter shit" would do just fine with mediocre, pedestrian work. And of course, work doesn't become mediocre just because the client doesn't pay agency rates.
What are you talking about? Soliciting spec work and then shoplifting it without paying is exactly that --- theft. But asking designers to take potentially billable hours to audition is also just that: an audition. If you win, you get paid.
Obviously you're not going to get Happy Cog or Coudal to participate in spec projects, but that just seems like the market working; proven talent doesn't need to audition, because they get their pick of projects. Indie filmmakers probably won't ask Ed Norton to audition either.
It is hardly surprising that design agencies with huge hourly fees don't like sites like 99designs.com. But I won't be shedding a tear for them.
I am a bit more concerned about the fact that the vast majority of work on 99designs.com (much of it excellent) doesn't make a penny for the designer. I guess the designers know what they are doing though.
It sucks when it affects your livelihood, but you just can't fight a changing market. Artistic skills and talents are commodities, shared by many. All we're seeing now is that artificial barriers that have been previously created are no longer sustainable.
It appears there are two ways to submit design briefs(job offers) on 99designs, one guarantees money to winner and one does not. Former seems to me the "right" way.
OTOH, it does seem "wrong" that 80 people are competing over one job. Insert a mental image of a multitude of starving artists in their huts...
Still, 99designs must not be too bad for young up and coming designers, similar to how getacoder "exploits" young overseas programmers.
Smithfield says the union, the United Food and Commercial Workers International, and its officials violated RICO by issuing press releases, contacting civil rights and environmental groups, organizing protests and calling for boycotts.
For one consulting project I outsourced logo design to 99designs.com with a $300 "contest" and was absolutely blown away by the quantity and quality of submissions. I got probably a dozen out of 80+ submissions that would've been perfectly suitable.
I agree - I got great value for a $350 logo contest.
The two designers whose logos I liked the best participate in many contests at once and win about 10% of the ones they enter. They must look at the prize money and divide by 10 for their expected payout and then know how much time to put into each contest.
With the price of custom graphical work these days, either from 99designs.com or from your favorite graphical talent in the 3rd world (if you find one you like and works well with you, hang onto them -- solid gold), you can justify quality original graphics for projects that would never have merited it before.
My little brother is trying to break into comics without drawing ability -- so he's outsourcing it, for prices that are a) cheap enough for an American college student to afford and b) impressive for an Indian college student to command.
I've written very negatively about spec work in the past, and because of this I get approached at conferences to discuss this issue.
I've now met 5 people doing work for 99designs and other spec work sites with an intent of coming back later in a legal form. It is all about intent, and you are asking a designer to do custom work for you with the intent not to pay.
I've said it is inherently evil, and somethings like this are going to happen.
I like the saying "there is no such thing as a great designer, only a great client." You drive the design, and if you resort to sites like these, you open yourself up to a slew of legal issues, and wave the flag that you are not willing to work on one of the most important public parts of you company.
I guess it depends on which stage of your website development you are in. When I'm bootstrapping it and I'm not even sure whether the idea will be a success, I'm not willing to invest in anything more than good enough. When I have some empirical evidence that the idea will fly (e.g. a/b tests, first sale closed), only then will I get in touch with a great designer to do custom work. As a plus, I will probably have discovered what I really want from the designer by that time and will be able to drive the design in a better way.
