Aquent fucked up - Spec work
Aquent raised a shit storm over the past couple of days for putting up a contest to redesign their home page on 99designs with the grand prize being $500.
plenty of designers came charging, and AIGA president was notified (Aquent and AIGA have a relationship).
in the end the contest was pulled, but Matt Grant from Aquent is a real wanker.
Aquent says 'sorry'
Aquent recant what they did
the fallout on QBN & Matt Grant's asinine comments on Facebook.
plenty of designers came charging, and AIGA president was notified (Aquent and AIGA have a relationship).
in the end the contest was pulled, but Matt Grant from Aquent is a real wanker.
Aquent says 'sorry'
Aquent recant what they did
the fallout on QBN & Matt Grant's asinine comments on Facebook.
Comments
I'm not sure I understand the intricacies of this.
here are some of the better responses:
"Good design is, in large part, about communicating a message to its intended audience in a clear manner. It is also about providing a solution to a problem. (of course there are many other things I'm glossing over here but bare with me) Design contests don't allow the designer to fully understand the clients needs, problems, concerns and, therefore, doesn't allow them to provide the client with the best solution possible. How, Matt, am I supposed to know why you guys are redesigning your homepage or what your intended goals are with it if I can't have a full kick-off meeting with you?...if all I have to go on is a few words posted on a site?...you're completely glossing over the fact that there is more to design than just "let's make something look pretty"...YAAYYY....
CLEARLY you, Matt, do not understand the value of good design. It is MUCH more than just making something look new or different or fresh...yes good design (something that is purely aesthetically pleasing) can be achieved through a design contest...there are tons of talented designers that could just make something look good...but, are they really providing you with a total solution??? Do they really understand WHY you want to redesign the homepage??? If the current Aquent homepage is working so well why redesign it? Obviously it is not meeting some business level expectations somewhere and someone raised that concern and felt the need to redesign it....is this contest going to provide Aquent with the business solution it needs or just something that looks pretty??? Or is that all that matters to Aquent...all gloss and no substance."
"you're completely undermining design as a valuable and meaningful profession and, in turn, undermining Aquent. Why would anyone go to Aquent to hire a designer for $60 an hour ($30 for you guys and $30 for the designer) if they can just post a quick 3 bullet brief on some website and pay $200 or $500 and be done with it? Why do they need Aquent at that point? So you're helping to undermine the company you work for...you're helping Aquent lose business...in the long run this little $500 contest has (and will) cost Aquent waaaaay more than sending out an RFP ever would have.
We should be out there educating clients on the value of good design not perpetuating the ignorance. Way to be a solid part of the design community."
"if the "crowd-sourcing" model is here to stay, the question becomes what impact it has on the profession and the value of design.
Right now, I would say that sites like 99designs occupy a fairly low niche in the design food chain. They serve as a place where small businesses can go and quickly and cheaply get a number of designs created for them. The quality of design, while maybe not terrible, is certainly not very good and definitely not representative of the best the industry can produce.
In other words, I don't see them as a threat at the moment, because most of my clients would not use a service like that. They tend to put a premium on good design and wouldn't consider using a site of that kind for their corporate communications, the same way a large company wouldn't hire some kid fresh out of law school to be their lawyer just because he was cheaper!
What is problematic for many of us is when a major company - scratch that, a major DESIGN company(!) - like Aquent steps in and makes use of that service, to redesign their homepage no less. That begins to legitimize the concept for mainstream and professional use, which makes it harder for the rest of us, who occupy that professional space, to sell our services at a decent price. And quite frankly, it reduces the quality of design for the client as well. Basically it leads to a lowering of everyone's standards, including ultimately, the user's.
In the end, it will always be a struggle to convince people of the value of good design because it is such an ephemeral thing. Any kid can crack open Photoshop and slap together a design these days, and he might even do it for $500. However, I strongly believe that good design, which comes from years of study and experience, is an important component of a business's success. In my mind, companies like Aquent, whose livelihood depends on design, should be working to increase recognition of the value of that service, rather than reducing it."
never heard of!
any publicity is good publicity i guess
Whiny bastids.
I don't care if someone has great talent and didn't get a 4 yr degree, but I have a problem with spec work and the "make it pretty for pennies" mindset. I have a problem with the perception that we just push a button and out pops a design. Design is a process, and spec work hurts both parties, but hurts the design side moreso. The service we provide isn't just to make it pretty, it's to build a bridge between company and client and spec works just says I want a bridge and the winner gets $500. So they get a bunch of bridge designs, but none will be the most effective/suitable because they cut out the process of design, of designer and client meeting and having a dialog about where should the bridge go, what is it connecting, how many people need to use, how long should it last, what needs should it meet, etc. Design is more than a pretty picture. Design is art, engineering, craftsmanship, usability, communication. You can't get that from the internet vending machine. But when a company who makes money off of connecting creatives with jobs turns to a contest on 99designs for design work, it's a huge slap in the face. That act communicates design services aren't anything more than pushing a few buttons and slapping something superficial (pretty) together.
I do understand the design as art and function argument. Design is in fact art, engineering, craftsmanship, usability, and communication, but purely by saturation, you can get the job done with enough tries.
It's not a great message for that company to put forth, being what they do and all. I made Marissa's bunny with a template. Sure, I could have consulted one of you guys, but I had an out of the box solution to work with, and it did what I needed, and how I needed it to. Yes, I could have gotten a more elegant solution, but one of the myriad of solutions presented to me worked. Design is tiered. What I need, versus what my neighbor needs, versus what one of my employers needs, versus a Fortune 500 company are entirely different things. Aquent thinks that they can get the tier they want from a design contest. It may have worked, had their core audience not collectively dropped a steaming load in their face.
It's bad to alienate your core audience.
One of my competitors is the internet. Crowdsourced tech support. How many of you got the answer you needed from me and didn't have to call a local guy who'd bill you?
I get the fact that based on their market it was a bad Idea but most of the bitching stems from $$$ and elitist "I'm more edumacated then you" whiny B.S.
Hurray for bandwagon trolling.
Just because you pay more for "the best" doesn't mean you wont end up with better quality at the end of the day. Nor does money equal better design (see below)
Time, money, effort and professional work went into that too.
Maybe they should have offered 5k instead, less of a slap in the face at the end of the day.
though seriously if you offer something for free its not exploitation to use it
i also believe in an open marketplace, and what Biff said about what meets the need resounds with me. function over form for me, and if it costs much more to make it pretty, it ain't gonna be very pretty.
those are 2 different animals. AIGA seems a lot like a union to me, in the way it promotes a cohesive approach to the designer's workplace. that's a good thing.
all of us have a wealth of perspective and experience, and teach each other all the time. <---- more good things.
you know, i always thought that people who are forced to do "art" for a living, and have assignments and commissions, often jump at a chance to do something personal and unusual as spec work. (or pro bono)
....shows ya' what i know.
x
it comes down to the standards in teh code that refer to financial prudity
it happens but noone likes it happening
that said we do a form of spec work at times under contract as a risk or reward form of appontment. in taht a particular scheme may or may not be approved. if it isnt we make do with a lump some - if it does we get the big fat juicy worm of a rate
design is tiered Biff, and yes out of the box solutions can work. templates can work, I've used a mac template for my own blog too. That's also part of knowing the options and what's appropriate for the occasion - do I need a tailored Armani suit to mow the lawn? NO. I need an old pair of jeans.
I do design for friends for free on occasion. Just as you Biff give your tech support advice for free on here.
I disagree that just by having a bunch of entries they will get lucky and get what they need. They make get something that works or is close enough, but given their core audience, that was beyond stupid move on their part. Matt Grant even states they have designers on staff and/or have used agencies before. They've been through the design process, they make their money be connecting creatives with jobs in the industry. That's why it's so bothersome, particularly since they also have a relationship with AIGA. They know better.
I get why places like 99designs and logofarms exist. But for this particular company to pull this kind of stunt it's hard to just say "oops, we didn't know better," which is what they are saying. Bullshit, they DO know better.
Sunk -
I think you might be reading those comments differently than I am. I don't read any of those as "I spent $40k on a degree therefore I'm worth $X just because I say so or think so". It's that design has value, design and designers should be fairly compensated for the service they provide. good design goes beyond the superficial looking pretty part. It's also that contests in general cut out the design process and Spec work also sets the expectation that you will again in the future work for little or nothing. However, yes I agree that you can get crappy design at a high price too with way too many meetings in a design process, that can happen. Aquent had every opportunity to do it right: to do an RFP with the talent they represent.
Design is so intangible/subjective that it makes it hard for people to assign the value to it. And becomes even harder after something like this for the average person, even some people in other creative fields (like film - god that lot has the worst logos and business cards), to see the difference between a contest and a pro job. Therefore when they see a large international company who represents creatives using the $500 contest, they think "ok, $500 contest gets huge company a home page/web site design, i should be able to get a web site for $50-200 then for my small business." It makes it harder to have the public understand why a logo I design costs $1500+ versus $199 or a web site costs $2000 instead of $399. And as a designer I can't just slap something together for $500. My ethics won't allow me to. I will spend the hours finding just the right font or kerning or tweaking stuff to make it the best it can be, the best I can deliver, that is part of my deal with my clients and with myself.
Also there is a difference between Spec Work and pro-bono or work for trade.
"Spec work is work done at no cost with the HOPE of either receiving more work later down the line because you previously worked for free or the chance at non-guaranteed compensation.
Pro-bono work is work done at no cost because you believe in a particular cause or organization that supports a cause. It can be viewed as a donation to charity.
Sure, you can work for more than money. If say for instance you develop a relationship with a client and you want to do a trade out in goods that would be comparable to what they’d pay you in cash, (i.e., $5000 credit with a restaurant for redesigning their menus or something) there’s nothing wrong with that, because here you are working for something of reasonable value.
One of the problems with speculative work, is typically there’s no pre-existing relationship between the designer and the organization requesting the work. It’s crucial to establish a working relationship between designer and client ensure expectations are met and the designer is able to deliver the best possible end product. Communication between designer and client has to exist in order for this to happen."
I'm not saying logofarms and contests shouldn't exist. They exist because there is a market for them - small businesses typically who don't have much $. But for an International company with offices in 72 countries who profit off the backs of creatives to do this, well that's the rub.
nevermind :nausea:
You seriously think that these "people" will see a "contest" and cut into your potential profits?
I dictate prices for me. There's no standard. There's no perceived value. There's no quality control. Timmy down the street charges $40 per hour. I charge $160+ per hour. If Blockbuster video wants Timmy at $40, they can have him.
Sure it sucks when somebody, or a crowd of somebodies screws you on a price. If you as a designer are upset that Timmy is lowering the price, that's tough, that's the reality of the market. Charge less and get the low hanging fruit, or stick to your guns and don't. Realize you'll only get the tougher to get fruit on the top of the tree, though. The reality of the market is that an international company with 72 markets is going to act according to what their pockets dictate. If they think they can get a nobody to design something for them for $500, and they're happy, then so be it.
Market forces make it hard to say you make a quality product, so you get to charge more for it. More so now, as the world's economies go to shit. Design does have value but it's not intrinsic, the value is only tied to what you can get somebody to pay for it. You as a designer has the onus of educating the customer on what design is worth.
Given two designers of equal skill and proficiency, if designer A charges half of designer B, and develops the same quality project, which end project has more worth? Value and worth are two entirely different issues.
I do read some of those comments as high-drama designers saying they're successful, recognize me (but not all of them)! This is some law of the jungle shit going on here. It also wouldn't be as drama laden if it wasn't a drama that started with a company that has ties to the design industry. If market forces change, whether or not you changed them, evolve or die. If the customers get a bad impression from the internet, then re-educate them! The concept is legit, and here to stay. Indian/Filipino tech support. Throngs of internet monkeys designing shit. It's all the same, it's reactionary forces to economic issues.
Here's the key with all this. Don't alienate your core audience. That's the alpha and the omega of this issue.
Biff I'm with you. I don't care about timmy or 99designs and logofarms, they have their place. But it doesn't break down for me just because this a bunch of designers instead of some other group. It does come down to the fact that you don't alienate your core audience. When said international company brokers creative talent and they charge company X $60/hr for a designer the message they are sending is even they don't believe in the talent they are selling at a handsome rate. That's the slap in the face. That they have ties to AIGA who fundamentally opposes spec work and still did this makes it sting a little bit more. it's the specific company in question who did this, not just that SOME company out there launched a design contest online.
The onus on the rest of the designers to educate clients on what design is worth when they see big companies do this DOES makes it much harder; it hurts the whole design community, not just some whiners who think they should be paid more without justifying it. It's a touch ironic too that basically they are shooting themselves in the foot at the same time they are pissing off their core audience by saying 'hey just launch a contest for your design needs like we just did - no need for us to recruit talent for you, even we don't use them!'
For what it's worth, my services as a 3D-animator-drawing-type-person are charged out at $1000 a day. Of course, I don't see anywhere near that much of it, but someone is...moderately happy...to pay it. As it happens, I have a masters degree in fine arts, but the guy who shares my office here trained as a mechanic and as far as the clients are concerned we're interchangeable. Doesn't bother me. My policy outside of work is to do anything that people think to ask of me for free; I just try to make sure that not too many people know about that. :happy:
No. There's no obligation to respect the process. The only thing respecting the process does is not make waves. That's all fine and good, especially in this process where the organization not respecting the process really needed to, but other than that... Yeah, thing is, that's business, isn't it? That's the reality of telling people that you need $X dollars for a project. There's all manners of outside influences on it. The design contests make it hard, and so do the whiny designers.
There's a pecking order here for consultants, and I don't know if it exists everywhere. Graphic designers are grouped in as hipster, non shaving, pot smoking complainy losers who don't have any other marketable skill that what's "now". To be fair, hired gun tech support isn't a lot better. It certainly doesn't apply to everyone, but the ones it does apply to are the people who really make it hard to make the value and worth of a design be equivalent.
hundreds of designers are turned loose with fresh sheepskin in this area every few months.
i wouldn't count on anyone shopping for graphic design product [it's not magic] getting re-educated since from their point of view they're not ignorant, have very particular objectives in mind, as well as constraints. my guess is the process rarely if ever enters their minds, and doesn't have to at all. it may not matter to them much if it did, beyond the cost associated with skilled labor.
the emotional/mental investment in the process, or the product, on the part of the designer does not automatically add value or worth - except, of course, to the designers. the skill required isn't rare - any more so than many, many other skills - designers aren't 'different' in any truly meaningful way to the marketplace. for a 'fine' artist or object maker, allowing the output to become too precious [gollum] can be a real problem, i don't see it being very different for more pratically applied arts.
all the market will bear. sometimes it won't bear much.
Top left corner of the page has a link to downloads; you can have a big pdf of the whole survey.
http://designsalaries.org/
Loosely similiar siuation is unfolding in UK architecture. scenarios like the one linked happen all the time. difference is, this is a tv 'celeb' who has been 'promoting' the use of designers for ages whenever he is on the screen. he now has a company building 'design-led' housing.
while complaining about the lack of design ethic in cheap housing he's now accused of not paying fair rates