Speculative Work : Does it Democratize or Devalue Design?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Comber on April 23, 2009 at 12:24pm

Unfortunately, the digital age has made it possible for "stay at home moms" and "hobbyists" to dabble in the field of graphic design, and—as much as it pains me to admit—I do agree that it is here to stay. This is nothing new, really. Quick printers and sign shops have bastardizing graphic design since the discipline was born. The internet, and crowdsourcing, has simply made it possible for more people to do bad work. All of it deeply devalues what we do, rewards mediocrity, and serves to perpetuate bad design. Case in point: how many good logos do you see in a day? How many bad? I'm betting the former is hopelessly outnumbered by the latter. Hopefully, sites like Design Democracy can, in addition to "bringing the value of design to the masses," help to educate the public on the difference between good and bad design.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by StandUP4Design on April 23, 2009 at 3:37pm

Here's another perspective.

i think organizations like AIGA, who claim to represent the professional design community, need to step their game up at the national level. They need to bring the issues that concern designers squarely out into the public domain. And why shouldn't they? You would either have to be living in a remote, non-commercialized region of the world or have been hiding under a rock not to have been exposed to some level of design. it's in our cars, our packaging, our homes, our workplaces and the places we take leisure in. Design is everywhere.

So why continue with the "secret society" modus operandi and go toe to toe with the public? We are not some elitist society of us versus them know-it-alls. Let's show them what design can do and why design is powerful and valuable. As the sitting vice president of AIGA Las Vegas, I am determined to make this happen. I am tired (and have been for some time) of people thinking of designers and design as the cake topper or the people who make pretty pictures. I'm fed up with corporate America (most, not all) treating designers and creative professionals as commodities and not experts, not thinkers, not strategists. it's time for a change. CHANGE HAPPENS NOW.

Let me chill for a second…

Okay, on the matter of speculative work. I think it is a reality that has been around for perhaps as long as the profession itself. The web has just magnified it exponentially. I'm not against those who would want to learn to become designers. Heck, I think it's great! We should all aspire to reach our creative centers and if there are people who are interested in becoming designers, then go for it. BUT—and let me underscore this—anyone wanting to BECOME a designer must LEARN how to design. You don't just order a copy of graphics software and >poof< you're a designer! No, no, no. That's not to say that a college education is necessarily the way to do it. I have many friends and colleagues who have never taken a formal class at a higher educational institution and do great design work, but they have taken the time to learn the foundational principles of design, typography, color theory and so forth and still continue to self-educate. They also learn from other designers who have a bachelor of fine arts in design. So, there's a case for them. Still, I say if you can afford to, attend a school for design, attend one with a outstanding reputation for its staff, job placement penetration and coursework. Furthermore, if you can afford a 4-year college or university education, I'd say go the distance. The learning you get from taking other courses in history, science and literature will only help you become an even better designer than those who just learn the software and the basic foundation. This really applies to those who have the time and money to do it and is mostly aimed at graduating high school seniors. Adults looking to make a career transition would benefit from a 2-year study.

There are also those who are just supremely talented but haven't the slightest idea on how type is set, or what PMS swatches are. I'd say the greatest number of raw talent has come in the way web designers. Without the constraints of large file sizes, inks, presses, folds, die cuts and so on, web designers have had much more freedom to explore such things as effects, transparencies, gradients, and massive layering and texture. True, they still must conform to standards but it is relatively easier to learn to design for the web than it is for print. Case in point, my friend Manya, of Las Vegas. She told me she started designing web pages when she was like 13. She said it just came naturally to her. And she isn't alone. Contrast that with this thought—who, while in high school, would know how to match a 4-color build with a PMS swatch?

Still, no amount of talent can substitute for learning the fundamentals and rules of design. Perhaps the biggest area where designers today are lacking is a true understanding of type design and typography. My biggest pet peeve.

My passion is to promote design and thinking. This is what separates the professionals from the moonlighers, the freelancers and the amateurs who participate in those contests. Instead of scoffing at those who are not as adept or properly educated, chalk it up to being part of the group that knows what they're doing. Just as there is a market for Nordstrom, there's a market for WalMart. Be mad at the people who ask designers to do a logo for $150, not at the people who take them on so they can survive especially in this economy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tom Comber on April 24, 2009 at 8:17am

Some good points here.

I'm all for design education, whether it be through formal instruction or mentorship programs, or the result of "boot-strappers" learning the fundamentals on their own. But the fundamentals should be learned before you hang out your shingle as a designer. I've actually known people who thought purchasing a copy of Illustrator made them a designer. There was no intent to actually learn anything about design, just a desire to get paid. To paraphrase the previous post, ownership of design software doesn't make you a designer any more than owning a hammer makes you a carpenter.

It's tough to assign blame for the commoditization of design. Do we blame someone who asks for a $150 logo because they don't know any better, or the hungry designer who agrees to work for that price? I don't know. But, I do think that spec work, and contest sites both seek to get something for nothing (or very little), and exploit the hungry designer. I just don't see how either can be good for the profession, and have yet to hear a compelling argument to convince me otherwise.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nate Ludens on April 24, 2009 at 12:44pm

Arnold, thanks for bringing attention to this. I feel like I should chime in.

I wouldn't say I'm "mad" about any of this. I'm typically "down with the new," and always have been. But, I'm a realist, and I realize that spec work was here way before me, and it will survive long after I hang up my Wacom Tablet... the plea that I have to the AIGA and all creative professionals is this: Educate ad nauseum about the importance and value of good design and the relationship with your creative team to the PUBLIC - and maybe even more importantly - to CREATIVES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE BLINDLY.
Additionally, companies like LG can afford to hire professional creatives, and are quite simply above holding a glorified T-shirt contest. By participating in spec, they're legitimizing it for their competitors to join in, and the AIGA and other organizations must act soon or this will become the norm - it may already be too late. (Just ask a stock photographer pre-istockphoto).

Far more than we exist in a society that promotes democratization of design, we're in a society that has and will continue to democratize information. (Just ask a newspaper company). So then, why is it such a unreachable task to mass-market the risk of doing spec work?

It's insane to me that a 100-year old organization calling itself "The Professional Organization For Design" sits on standby (acts it's age?) while sites like CrowdSpring and 99Designs mass-market spec via a continual wave of public relations - literally - they're ALWAYS ON, and they're subsequently gaining lots of attention. Perhaps it's because they're controversial or newsworthy (at least to WIRED, etc.). One thing is certain: the spec sites have got traditional design advocates smoked on new media usage - Ross and Mike from Crowdspring "get" social media. They utilize any and all free media, while investing heavily in cutting edge web design. Additionally, they're brilliant, and they're not bad guys. They even claim to be defending creatives by providing access to work and by making available performance agreements that protect creatives. Sure, great. They fail to mention that they get paid a cut per project. (The client pre-pays for the use of their army of 20,000 creatives - some of them are damn good, too).

I guess my message is this: I'm not "out to get" sites like crowdspring*. I'm simply begging for someone from the 99% that DOESN'T GET A PENNY FOR THEIR TIME/TALEN/TRAINING to speak up about the odds and the long term risk of locking their whole industry into a price bracket that simply cannot be broken. CrowdSpring ain't gonna tell anyone about that, I promise.

*NOTE: I even tried crowdspring for a month or so ("can't knock it till ya try it" = it left a very sour taste in my mouth when my concept was ripped and then won. CS didn't investigate it for a month, then said it wasn't a violation. Puke. It was blatant).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nate Ludens on April 25, 2009 at 5:59pm

After reading my own reply, I thought I should share some links to help everyone get caught up...


This link has an argument by Ross from Crowdspring, but more importantly, read the comments after it.
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1253-the-nospec-campaign-vs-crow...

NO!SPEC:
http://www.no-spec.com/

The AIGA's postition on spec work (including some comments from yours truly)
http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/position-spec-work

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Arnold Dela Cruz on April 27, 2009 at 11:55am

Nate, both you and Tom offer up valid concerns I share as a professional designer. As sitting vice president of AIGA Las Vegas, I am compelled to change the perception that businesses in our city hold about designers. I see job postings for high-level creative positions at some of the major casinos, for example, show up every few months. I'm thinking to myself are these companies not hiring qualified people or do they fire someone because they don't do what they're told? I really don't know the answer to that, but I have heard from former employees and out-of-work designers that places like the casino resorts don't treat their designers with respect and don't allow for innovative thinking. Again, I don't know if this is true for the whole industry but I'm sure it's true in some circles.

Another indication of the public's low view of designers are the countless ads on Craigslist looking for designers. Just read how some of these ads are written and you just feel disgusted. Take the following ad I copied directly from the following link:

http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/med/1138807734.html

GRAPHIC DESIGNER WANTED
Reply to: job-6cedz-1138807734@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-04-24, 5:22PM PDT

Web Designer Wanted

Must have good design capability and portfolio of websites to show. Hand-code HTML, CSS, Photoshop. Attention to detail, good team player. $20 an hour for part-time/full-time, contract work. Excellent skills with graphics is a must.
DRUG TESTING REQUIRED
Please email websites and resume to: hlywillis@aol.com

Las Vegas locals only please!


* Compensation: $$

* Compensation: $$$
* Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
* Please, no phone calls about this job!
* Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial

PostingID: 1138807734

Seriously? $20 per hour? For someone who actually has a portfolio?

This perception of getting design for cheap is what perpetuates sites like Crowdspring and 99designs. But what they do is worse than the Craigslist ad because they DO take advantage of designers.

It's difficult to sway a mob from their mentality. And that's exactly what sites like these are. Hubs for the mobs. The best we can do is continually collect and present the facts to both sides of the stream and keep teaching upcoming designers about the pitfalls of spec work.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tom Comber on April 30, 2009 at 9:34am

I'll go you one better (or worse) with the title of a classified want ad I saw before leaving NJ in 2000. The ad was for a single position. The title?

"Receptionist/Graphic Artist Wanted."

The pay? $10/hr.

'Nuff said. Keep fighting the good fight.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Arnold Dela Cruz on April 30, 2009 at 10:27am

That definitely tops my example.

Again, while I think it's great that people want to be designers, there is a world of difference between wanting to be a designer, thinking you're a designer and being a designer.

The realtor who fancies herself "quite good" at design because she uses Microsoft's Publisher and can import clip art into a template suffers from delusion. Not entirely her fault. The marketing of graphics software and the accessibility of web applications that enable designing within a web interface has emboldened people to take on design as a "career change". They feel that because they have and use the same tools as the "pros" they now can go out and charge for their services. And why wouldn't they when companies like Adobe tout, "Look at how easy it is to pull off these neat tricks! Now you can be as creative as the rest of us!"

HEREIN LIES THE FIRST REAL PROBLEM

Inexperienced designers looking to parlay their services do not know how to price their work.

They peddle their services to their friends, co-workers and sometimes the more savvy ones even put up a blog or website. They do work for trade or sometimes for free just to get experience. Ah, there's that lovely phrase that countless people, especially on the web today, think sounds appealing to designers: "I need a designer who's looking for a good experience!" Pfft! What?!

The actions and ignorance of new inexperienced designers is what propels such responses to professional designers' estimates from even more ignorant clients as…

"What? You want me to pay what? Well, I'll just have my nephew do it then. He's got Photoshop."

Serious designers must not stand for mediocrity—not in their work and definitely not in the way they do business.

Do the research, ask your peers, read books written for designers wanting to start a business. Don't just wave your mouse in the air and shout, "Hey! Look at me! I've got a Mac and some software! I wear designer glasses. I can design!"

As Geoff Jenkins pointed out in a comment on my page, graphic design was around long before the likes of Adobe showed up. Designers like Walter Gropius, Frank Lloyd Wright, Paul Rand, and Jan Tschichold were masters without the use of slick software. They were problem solvers who used design. True, they still set the bar for what is considered great design. For what is design without the appreciation of the human eye to capture and the mind to interpret?

HEREIN LIES THE SECOND PROBLEM

Most designers don't think like business people. They just want to be designers.

This is especially true of new designers entering the work force fresh from graduation. Again, this isn't entirely their fault. Many institutions of higher learning don't teach the business side of design. I believe it's important to include courses on at least the basics of design as a business in the upper division years. It's not enough to learn color theory, the finer points of typography, and composition.

When inexperienced designers price their work far below (or above) the market, they don't realize that by beating out the competition with "great pricing", they perpetuate the mentality in most people's minds that they can get a logo for $150. Without realizing it or not, they effectively impact the business of professional designers and design agencies who do use their brains not just push pixels.

In order to properly serve a client's needs, designers must ask questions. The right questions. I believe this is what separates the novice from the professional. Design thinking. Spec work and design contests leave this out of the equation. There is no formal creative process—having a discovery meeting, writing the brief, mapping out the strategy, building the milestones, and measuring the progress and outcomes. Sadly, for many designers who are drawn to sites like 99designs, it boils down to designing something "cool" for the chance to gain notoriety and a quick buck.

Funny. At the beginning of this discussion I thought I was for the acceptance of spec work, but I just realized that now more than ever, I'm downright against it and will never compromise my reputation by participating in that activity.

Did I say too much?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Arnold Dela Cruz on April 30, 2009 at 11:06am

Sorry, the link for the comment from Geoff doesn't work. Visit my page and scroll to the bottom to read Geoff's comment.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Karla Contreras on May 4, 2009 at 2:28pm

As a recent graduate student from UNLV, I can say that the best job I've ever worked paid me $9.50 an hour for a managing supervisor position. It is also true that, although I am not trained in business, I have been exposed to business practices through my family, as i used to also work in a family business. Coming from a working class family i am prepared to bend over backwards for a client; including low pay both to build a portfolio and to have some money to pay my loans. I have not yet come into the workforce, but I do expect that perhaps I will never have to do spec work.

Having read this discussion, I am now concerned that my willingness to please a client will demean my work, and worst of all, Design in general.

How do we value the price of our product? In the current economy even Fine Art is demeaning to the artist: Once the Art Market advanced to the stage it is now, an artist became part of production for a market that supports art historians, critics, middlemen, galleries and other art-industry based businesses.

Similarly, design has been devalued not just due to amateur work which wont' disappear. People are finding more and more leisure time to pursue their interests, and practice their hobbies.

Once upon a time, a four year institution could guarantee a better living. Nowadays a recent university graduate has to compete with puppy-mill style school graduates as well as the weekend-warrior style designer. Our talent alone is not enough to compete, so we have to continually do research, as does any designer worth his salt, and keep up or risk getting left behind. This is producing students that are comfortable in a variety of disciplines. There are photographer/designers, illustrator/designers, animator/designers. Most of the people I'm graduating with have three disciplines. Having grown up in a country that devalues art in general, we are frightened of failing.

It really boils down to what we call ourselves: A graphic designer designs graphics. But what about a Visual Engineer? Does the title not emphasize the variety of work we do far better than a stereotypical label?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nate Ludens on April 30, 2009 at 10:21am

100% agreed, Arnold. There are dozens of those on CL - every day!

Rather than whine about it, though, I get excited to see people and groups that want to kick a dent in it, as I like to say. That's why I'm so excited about this site, as well as the organizations (both grassroots and the AIGA, IABC, etc.) who are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and making an effort to change and to educate our industry. Too many watchers in this industry, not enough action. Thanks for the support, Arnold. You know you can count on me to help however I can.

Regarding the gaming groups - it depends on the organization and the leadership inside that company. I know several marketing managers, art directors, etc. inside various casino groups. They will usually be up front and truthful with you about the emphasis they have (if it's not evident from the casino floor or a current LV Weekly) on quality design. Typically, the budgets dictate designer skill & experience. Why hire an outside entity if you can get 3 production interns and a mid-level for $12/hr.? I've been snubbed out of 2 gaming organizations over the last 3 years from one woman whom I affectionately refer to as the "chopper." She will be the first to tell you that she is down with marketing via spreadsheet. The graphics are secondary to the price - always. Luckily, I've been introduced to 3 or 4 new ones in that time span, and I've since watched the creative quality from the "old ones" dwindle to the level of their investment.

The good news: it's cyclical, and there is a lot of turnover in gaming marketing, so it's always moving and evolving. If we can keep the pressure on and the outreach to these groups at a high level, our industry will thrive for a long time in Las Vegas. And if we don't....

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jason Strauss on December 1, 2009 at 5:53pm

This is a fantastic discussion going on here. I would like to put in my two cents and I apologize if some of it overlaps on the brilliant topics that have already been discussed.

I learned to design due to my passion for traditional art. I am one of the few, (like I would assume most people here are) that can actually paint, draw, and sculpt (videography and post production too) I can do all of these things better than I can design a website, I'll be honest, but the website is what pays my bills most months.

I think that with this crowdsourcing "trend" becoming such a big thing lately, it is just like when art prints started to become available and at 1/10th-1/1000th the cost of purchasing an original piece of art. This has had a HUGE impact on traditional artists, and the starving artist aspect is a huge reality among this set of creatives. Us folks who adapted into the digital age in order to make a living out of our passion might actually be partly responsible for this, but I also believe some peoples refusal to adapt and learn digital media are digging their own graves.

So in this perspective... Yeah, there are still people doing really well who excel at their type of art. They generally have good connections, networking, business sense, and personable skills to go along with their talent and land high paying jobs. There could be a selection of twenty others who are just as capable of doing the work, but they are viewed as hobbyists, not professionals due to NOT having the required business oriented skill set.

With that long blurb said, I believe that the crowdsourcing communities (whether good or bad work is being produced) are people that are not aware of the amount of work it takes to market yourself, establish good clientele and networking connections until your eyes bleed. Or perhaps they only excel at using one piece of software, and not the plethora that we might use everyday as professionals. Good clients and professional businesses know the difference, and they are more than happy to pay us appropriately.

I do feel these "crowdsource" places cheapens our career path sometimes, but I also know first hand that it's "trendy and cool" to pirate photoshop, or illustrator, and learn how to do like three things with it and call yourself a digital artist, or download templates and call yourself a web designer. Hell, I feel like a hoax sometimes too as I'm a video guy with a tremendous amount of traditional art education in a design world but I have put in the 14 hour days and still continue to do so in order to excel at what has been allowing me to live comfortably, fluke or not.

The true diamonds will shine through in the crowd though, they always do.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page