Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

I recently picked up a copy of Designing the Moment a new book on Web interface design by Robert Hoekman.  When I flipped through the book for the first time, I found this listed in the acknowledgments:

A portion of my royalties from Designing the Moment will go towards offsetting the carbon footprint of the book's printing process, so you can enjoy the comforts of the printed word without worrying about damage to the environment.

Before even reading the first page of the book's content, I am impressed by the author's attention to detail as evidenced by this message.  I think that Robert Hoekman deserves significant credit for understanding the environmental impact of his book.  Moreover, I think he should be praised for cutting into his own profits to do something about it.

This is is a significant accomplishment for the publishing industry and it sets the bar for other authors and publishers.  Does anybody know of any others who have taken similar steps?

I look forward to reading the book and I'll report back about his thoughts on interface design.

Over the last couple of months, Facebook users were given the option to 'test drive' the new Facebook, with the safety net that a switch back to the old version was just a swift mouse click away.  I took the bait and tried the new version in August, only to switch back to my 'safe place' five minutes later.

Tonight I had the slightly jolting experience of logging onto Facebook and seeing that I was now forced to use the 'new' Facebook, whether I liked it or not.  To make sure I wasn't dreaming, I re-typed www.facebook.com in my browser and was promptly redirected to www.new.facebook.com. Yikes, get a sister a crash helmet.

Apparently, Facebook has been doing some user experience research over the last several months, which I have to applaud.  Looks like this new, clean design layout with tabbed content won out.  As for me?  Maybe it'll grow on me but the verdict's still out on Facebook's new Facelift.

If you haven't yet, check out Girl Talk. This DJ mixes EVERYTHING into a seamless party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLOAcMVmCiU

Read about him here:

http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2008/pl_music_1609

Buy the new music here:

http://www.myspace.com/girltalk

And go to the show at the Cat's Cradle on October 13th.

At Capstrat, we’re one big collection of opinions. Coke versus Pepsi, Nike versus New Balance, Toyota versus Honda and just about everything in between.

Our collective differences make us who we are. We’re opinionated. Just ask. Well, really no need to. We have views on just about everything, but we also like to hear yours too.

So, Curious Capstrat. What’s one thing that you won’t compromise on?

Mine? A toss up between 300-thread count sheets and dating supermodels.

Okay maybe not much of a toss up.

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.