How to disrespect designers for fun and profit using CrowdSPRING.com
Following on the unethical roundly-lauded success of Threadless.com, there's a new entrant into the crowd-sourced design market: CrowdSPRING.com. Business owners take note: if you need some design done, it's simple. Create an account, give your vague brief, and set a price for the winner that you pick.
Sounds good? Sure does. Read on.
In their FAQs , crowdSPRING states:
"When working with traditional creatives, the buyer takes all the risk - they pay up front and hope their project turns out well. When working on many other sites, creatives take all the risk - they do the work up front and hope to get paid in the end.
We've tried to find a balance that works for everyone. Here, the buyer pays up front and the creatives get to work right away. We promise buyers that if they don't get at least 25 entries to their project then they can walk with a full refund. In return, we promise creatives that their projects won't go cancelled or abandoned for no good reason."
What these FAQs don't reflect is the utter imbalance in who's assuming risk. The buyer sets a price and waits to pick the one he likes. Off in the cloud, 25+ designers work obediently for only the possibility of reward.
Let's illustrate this with a scenario. Let's pretend I want to spend $250 for a logo. 25 "creatives" jump at the chance and get to work right away. They spend an hour apiece, 'cause that's how long good logos take.
A few days later, I pick one design and the designer gets paid from the crowdSPRING escrow. Not a bad deal: $250/hr to the lucky designer.
Not such a good deal to the other 24 folks. They didn't even get their share of the $250, or $10/hr. And, oh by the way, they just paid an opportunity cost for not doing funded work. In fact, the only value proposition that crowdSPRING
offers them is this: the lucky designer will get paid, since the funds are
held in escrow.
But hey, they got a portfolio piece and some experience out of it, right?
I find this site to be particularly disrespectful, unethical and extortionist. Sure, it's the designer's decision whether to accept work on such glaringly unbalanced terms. But to any designers considering this arrangement, I'd encourage them to read AIGA's position on spec work.
PS. Let's not mention the fact that, if you submit only one design, you have no better than a 4% (or 1 in 25) chance of getting paid. So, make more designs you say? Well, that reduces your hourly rate --it's a fixed price racket, mind you--which makes any reward you receive bittersweet.
All Articles
Ben mentioned to me that it looked as is many of the "designs" were simply names dropped into templates. Which leads me to think: are some of the designers engaging in arbitrage? Buying, for example, a logo factory kit and just cranking them out. That would be incredible.
While we're on that topic, here's a deep cut from the archive: http://www.37signals.com/enormicom/
Right on. Just because someone (or a whole gang of someones) is willing to be exploited doesn't make it right.
Also unfortunately missing is any sense of partnership or collaboration; the creatives participating in these spec logo contests must know they don't stand to earn the client's trust or build a fruitful relationship -- just a quick buck and then you'll part ways. On the site it looks like you can read past feedback about a given buyer or designer, but that's a poor substitute.
That seems to leave no incentive to do your best work as a designer... only what you think they'll likely choose, and whatever you can turn out fastest. And again, because there's no relationship, you're not in any way invested in their success. After all, if they pick something awful and regret it later, who cares? It's not like you'll be seeing them again anyway, and you've got your couple hundred bucks.
It's a shame that this is probably many designers' introduction to the business.
I think John's second alternate scenario is the most appealing: client says what they're looking for, several designers respond with examples of similar work they've already completed, and one is chosen so work can begin.
But that doesn't get anybody free design then, does it?
So what would be fair? Is there a more equitable division of the kitty? What about if the client picks the top 5 (or 10) of 25 designs and the prize money is split between them?
Or how about if the client posts a job and then picks 5 interested people based on their online portfolios? Then all participants are paid at least something for their effort (with more for the winner).
Is there any way that will work here that we think is fair, to both the client and the designer?
P.S. Love the tags: design, extortion, and spec work. Nice.
Post a comment
We look forward to hearing what you have to say. Before joining the conversation, please take a moment to review our comment policy.