Grab a

Grab a NO!SPEC logo today

 logo today!

Welcome!NO!SPEC

The NO!SPEC campaign: Serves as a vehicle to unite those who support the notion that spec work devalues the potential of design and ultimately does a disservice to the client.

Our mission: To educate the public about speculative, or 'spec' work.

Our target: Those who use creative services, as well as creative professionals (designers, photographers, illustrators, typographers, translators, writers and those in marketing, branding, advertising, and broadcast media).

What you can do: Read NO!SPEC’s Protocols. Place a ‘NO!SPEC logo on your site. Sign the NO!SPEC petition. Distribute the ‘NO!SPEC’ posters.

Requirements: The only requirement for participation is putting the appropriate value on your profession.

iStock + Logos = ?

Worms, lawyers and style-whores

iStock opens can of nasty worms | Logo Design Love: I’ve learned a lot during my years as a designer. One of those things is that a logo in isolation is like lipstick on a pig. It needs to be treated as part of an overall brand identity strategy, not picked off a shelf. This is no different from the “make your own logo” websites out there, or the logo contest spec work sites that harbour an equal amount of “design” nastiness.

Debbie Milman | Twitter: What iStock is doing to designers is deplorable. Truly heinous. $5 for a logo? Why?

istock photo to sell logos | The Logo Factor Design Blog: I predict there will be massive copyright problems as would-be designers, eager for quickly produced logos, scour the internet for material to, ahm, be “inspired” by. And in a little bit of karmic schadenfreude, logo design contests and crowdsourcing sites will be ground zero for a lot of “inspiration” for stock logos to upload. It’s an unfortunate, but predictable, aspect of a design business model where the emphasis (and only profitability for the designer) is to create a large number of logos, in the shortest amount of time possible.

Copying issues notwithstanding, and without the benefit of an accurate crystal ball, I don’t really know what impact this iStock logo deal will have on the industry at large. But I do have a feeling it will make a few copyright and trademark lawyers a lot of dough.

iStockphoto to begin selling stock logos | The Donut Project: When it comes to crowdsourcing, the responsibility falls solely on designers to stand up and say NO. As long as there are thousands of designers submitting to these sites, they will continue to thrive. I personally vow to no longer associate myself with designers who undervalue our industry by allowing themselves to be taken advantage of as style-whores… and I encourage/challenge you to stand up, have a backbone, and do the same.

It’s simple. Crowdsourcing can’t thrive if there’s no crowd to source.

Wait! There’s more…

iStock: Logos come to iStock

HOW Design Forum: iStock…now selling logos!

AIGA: What is AIGA’s position on spec work?

Enjoy…

Comments (8)

Interviewing Debbie Millman: President of the National AIGA

Dear Debbie Millman,

For years, you’ve been an inspiring advocate of the design industry. I know you’ve certainly inspired me. Your opinions on ethics in the design industry jumped out at me when I first came across Speak Up. And I believe it was right about that time when I started listening to your Design Matters broadcasts on Voice of America.

And when you backed the NO!SPEC Campaign, I couldn’t have been prouder: Debbie Millman on NO!SPEC and Debbie Millman: Commentary: Spec This.

Your two books ‘How To Think Like A Great Graphic Designer’ and ‘Essential Principles of Graphic Design’ made me prouder still. And I see that you now have yet another book waiting to go on my bookshelf, ’Look Both Ways, Illustrated Essays on the Intersection of Life and Design’. Nice.

Then, when you became a board member of the National AIGA, I knew in my heart that the AIGA was serious about tackling the issue of spec.

And recently, when the Forbes Snooty business hit the Internet and the AIGA asked you to chair a task force on the issue, there you were again, fighting for designers.

And now, as you take over the office of the president of the National AIGA, even more congratulations are in order.

For me personally, I know of no other person I would rather see steering the AIGA.

So Deb, now that you have assumed the presidency of the AIGA, what are your dreams and aspirations?

There are three goals I have already outlined to the membership and I have just added a forth, and this is the first time I am stating it!

The three original initiatives are Connectivity, Inclusivity and supporting AIGA’s Centennial Mandate. Let me tell you about them all!

First, Connectivity:
Clearly, the way in which we humans connect with each other has changed forever. Just in this country alone, we went from three television channels to over 500 hundred channels, from no web pages to billions. It took 35 years for 150 million people to own televisions. It took only 7 years for 150 million people to own cell phones. And it will likely take only take 3 years for 150 million people to sign up for Twitter. The average teenager sends over 2500 text messages! The structural frameworks of the way we live, communicate and organize ourselves has fundamentally changed and I am committed to charting a new connective structure for AIGA that is authentic, transparent and meaningful. I believe that some of the most exciting things happening within AIGA are in the local chapters. The entire membership should be aware of this great activity and benefit from it. So I am working on instilling new practices in the way the entire 20,000 plus membership is communicating and connecting.

Second, Inclusivity:
Cat, you know more than most people that my initiation and acceptance in AIGA was challenging. Ten years ago, I didn’t feel that AIGA was particularly respectful of brand design, though that has changed now. But in subsequent conversations with members and non-members around the country, I have come to the realize that, for many different reasons, mostly non-intentional, designers of a variety of disciplines haven’t always felt that AIGA is sufficiently committed to their individual interests! As a result: I am bound and determined to foster a spirit of inclusivity within AIGA and beyond. All design disciplines—whether online, offline, in print, on paper, on screen or the Internets, in code or in ink—are encouraged, welcomed and needed to join our efforts! I am fiercely determined to knock down the barriers separating our specialties and work together to design the change the world needs.

Third, advocate the new AIGA Mandate:
Believe it or not, AIGA is nearing its centennial in 2014. The membership, leadership and staff have taken a deep dive into the organization’s activities, positioning and the design profession’s needs, and we have instilled a new course for meeting our mission: to advance designing as a professional craft, strategic tool and vital cultural force. At our June leadership retreat in Portland, Oregon, 250 board members from more than 60 AIGA chapters nationwide met to exchange ideas and success stories, and to review and discuss the results of six months’ worth of research to help chart AIGA’s future. The three-day event culminated with a unanimous endorsement of a new “mandate” for AIGA—in effect, a roadmap for the organization’s progression over the next five years (and beyond) that will support the profession’s aspirations for relevance, leadership and opportunity. This includes the following initiatives:

  • To provide ample opportunities for members to engage in social networking, and for us to provide content and make connections –Shift the traditional conferences to more regional and local events, and to put more resources in the development and distribution of audio and video programming
  • Build a stronger core of programs for professional development
  • Offer DAILY online examples of design excellence and inspiration
  • Find better, easier ways for designers to assume a role in business, social and cultural environments

I just worked with AIGA Executive Director Ric Grefé to help organize the efforts of our amazing and diverse board to help realize these goals.

And lastly, I believe that there is great opportunity for younger members to benefit from the access to more established members for mentorship, job opportunities and training, and I’d like to work on ways to facilitate that.

What are the AIGA’s plans for educating its members on the issues of working spec?

Cat, as you know, I am personally vigorously, passionately and fundamentally AGAINST designers being asked to do work on spec and neither I nor my firm will ever participate in speculative work. I have said it before and I will say it again: Speculative work denigrates both the agencies and the designers that participate. If we give away our work for free, if we give away our talent and our expertise, we give away more than the work. We give away our souls.

Way before I got involved with AIGA, they had a strong stance against speculative work, and that has not changed. Given all of the technological advancements impacting the design world, we believed that is was time to re-examine our position. I was part of this task force prior to becoming AIGA President. When we updated our position, we reiterated and recommitted to our original stance against designers participating in speculative work. This is the introduction to the renewed position:

AIGA, the professional association for design, believes that professional designers should be compensated fairly for the value of their work and should negotiate the ownership or use rights of their intellectual and creative property through an engagement with clients.

AIGA acknowledges that speculative work—that is, work done prior to engagement with a client in anticipation of being paid—occurs among clients and designers. Instead of working speculatively, AIGA strongly encourages designers to enter into projects with full engagement to continue to show the value of their creative endeavor. Designers and clients should be aware of all potential risks before entering into speculative work.

Cat, AIGA is 100% committed to informing designers, students, educators, clients and the general public on the risks of compromising the design process though information, materials and services that can help in forging a healthy working relationship between designers and their clients.

We then outline and answer all of the many, many questions we received from members prior to publishing our position. We have provided clear definitions of what we believe is and isn’t speculative work, as well as address competitions, volunteer work, internships and pro-bono work. We also outline the many risks involved in participating in speculative work (both for clients AND for designers), and provide a history of our restrictions and policy. It is extremely thorough and highly enlightening, IMHO. By the way, it also includes a sample letter for ANY designer to download in response to any spec work request, AIGA member or not.

Looking through a few of your accomplishments – managing partner and president (Sterling Brands), online personality (Voice of America), instructor (School of Visual Arts), board member and national president (AIGA), and author – I have to ask: Has your campaigning for the rights of designers affected your personal life in any way?

Design is my life. Anyone involved in my life in any substantial way knows this and (hopefully) loves me for it. Many people ask me “how do you do it all?” or “do you do anything but work?” and this is what I tell them: I am not married (anymore), I don’t have children and my life partner is a writer who needs a lot of time alone. I don’t work out or go to the gym. I work. But my work is fun! I love everything that I do and feel blessed to have such an incredibly full life. It took me 40+ years to get this kind of life, and I am so grateful for all I have been given!

From the AIGA’s Position of Spec Work ‘…in the 1990s, the Federal Trade Commission declared that AIGA could not make a prohibition of work for free as part of its statement of ethics for it was a restraint of trade (or price fixing)…’

Due to the interference of the Federal Trade Commission, just how far can the AIGA legally go in its stance against spec?

We have to be really, really careful. Back in the 1990s, the Federal Trade Commission determined that AIGA could not forbid or prohibit designers to work for free as part of its statement of ethics. This is a restraint of trade or price fixing. In other words, this would appear to be the profession seeking to determine consistent prices—including nothing—for their work and eliminating freedom of competition. We can only educate and recommend best practices for our members; we are not allowed to enforce financial rules and encompassing regulations. This, however, does not take away from our broad understanding and respect of why spec work is wrong.

The latest AIGA press release focusing on spec work launched with this title: ‘AIGA maintains its position against speculative work while recognizing that the decision is up to individual designers’.

When that press release hit the Internet, all email hell broke loose over here at no-spec.com – not because anyone believes that the AIGA is condoning spec work, but because of the possible misuse of the title. At one end, some could take it as the AIGA’s endorsement of working on spec. On the other, it could be construed that the AIGA is taking a wishy-washy stance against spec work.

To clarify for everyone here: ‘is the AIGA in any way endorsing spec?’

We are against spec work. The reason for the line, “while recognizing that the decision is up to individual designers,” was included was to try and acknowledge how cultural and technological dynamics have changed. We are finding that we are more effective communicating with younger designers when we do not preach. Instead, we are seeking to educate the next generation of designers by clearly outlining the inappropriateness of a spec work. Sadly, the largest group of designers participating in spec work is their peers! Telling them to “just say no,” isn’t going to work. We need to outline WHY and HOW it is detrimental to their practice.

Deb, if you could rewrite that title, what would it be?

Well, that headline already has been rewritten! The new headline is as follows: What is AIGA’s position on spec work? And how are ethical standards determined?

Cat, I am hopeful that the article makes it crystal clear that AIGA has reiterated its longtime position that spec work is not in the interest of either designers or clients and we are now redoubling our efforts to educate, inform and inspire clients and designers alike to work respectfully, intelligently and fairly.

Deb, I realise that you must be totally snowed these days, so a special thanks! goes to you for making the time for this interview.

Catherine (cat) Wentworth
NO!SPEC Campaign

Comments (5)

NO!SPEC Posters: Posters by Matt Clarke

Check out the fun NO!SPEC posters from Matt Clarke of Design Intellect.
Thanks Matt :-)

Do you SPECulate

Bankers SPECulate

Matt’s posters can be downloaded here.

As before, check out posters by Jeremy Yamaguchi, Dagmar Jeffrey, Jerett Patterson, George Gruel, Chad Behnke, Jeff Andrews, Rob Gough and Von Glitschka.

The NO!SPEC posters are 300 dpi, CMYK and/or spot color, PDF printable on A4 and Letter.

If you are interested in contributing a poster design for usage in promoting NO!SPEC just contact us for the logo files. Note: It might take us a little while to get them up, but get them up we will.

Comments off

Logo Design Love: SpecWatch on Design Contests

Do you twitter?

If you don’t have a twitter account, then you are missing out on the latest spec happening in the design industry.

Logo Design Love: It’s interesting to see the recent appearance of Spec Watch, a venture that educates about the very real risks of design contest websites and “their so-called communities”.

Spec Watch has been cataloging unpaid and refunded projects, and those terminated due to copyright violation.

Right now Spec Watch is mainly targeting the design contests at Crowdspring and 99designs, but who knows how their campaign will evolve.

To see what all the fuss is about, follow Spec Watch (SpecWatch) on Twitter.

(Thanks David!)

Comments (8)

NO!SPEC’s Quote of the Century…

Paul Rand paraphrased by Steve Jobs

I will solve your problem for you. And you will pay me. And you don’t have to use the solution. If you want options, go talk to other people. But I’ll solve the problem for you the best way I know how. And you can use it or not – that’s up to you. You are the client. But you pay me.

Nice. Very.

Comments (9)

Crowdsink on Twitter: CrowdSpring, Do What’s Right!

CrowdSpring sinks to even lower lows…

This weekend, while Jay and I were busy updating no-spec.com, twitter continued to be all aflutter over the latest from CrowdSpring: CrowdSpring, Do What’s Right!

Background: Seems a CrowdSpring designer ripped off the work of Mike Erickson of Logo Motive Design (LogomotiveMike on twitter).

And while this is shocking enough – ok, not shocking as rips happen all the time on crowdsourcing sites – what has upset designers is CrowdSpring’s three strikes policy.

That’s right. A CrowdSpring designer gets to submit various ripped designs a total of three times before getting banned.

To follow the event yourself, here are the top searches on twitter:

CrowdSpring: Where have all the cheerleaders gone?

Ross Kimbarovsky: The voice of CrowdSpring on twitter.

Crowdsink: The twitter tag designers are using to publicise the problem.

And of course, make sure to read down through the original article: CrowdSpring, Do What’s Right!

Apparently this has been going on for about three weeks, but the designer in question is still submitting work at CrowdSpring. Amazing.

Btw – if you haven’t noticed, no-spec.com is now on twitter too: nospec.

So if you do twitter, go ahead and give us a shout…

Comments (6)

Translators Against Crowdsourcing

LinkedIn annoys professional translators

Seems designers are not the only ones upset over being asked to work for free.

LinkedIn – the professional networking site with 41 million members where ‘relationships matter‘ – has today managed to mightily annoy professional translators who use the site by asking them if they would like to translate the LinkedIn site in exchange for a LinkedIn badge or ‘because it’s fun’.

Does this sound familiar?

put me in touch with a professional, English and German-speaking painter and decorator with 15 years of experience, who will strip the old wallpaper off all rooms of a house consisting of 20 apartments and offices and will then paint each room, preferably each in a different colour, naturally by tomorrow afternoon, and FOR FREE, I will be pleased, on satisfactory completion of the work, to translate the term “LinkedIn” into a language of my choice.

Translators have responded by not only creating a dedicated group on LinkedIn, Translators against Crowdsourcing by Commercial Businesses, but by flooding twitter too. They have also asked to become a part of the NO!SPEC Campaign.

You can read all about it at MatthewBennett /blog.

Artists say no too: Use Their Work Free? Artists Say No to Google – NYTimes.com

A thank you goes to Tomás Cano Binder and Matthew Bennett for the heads up.

Translators, welcome to the NO!SPEC Campaign!

Comments (4)

YouTube: The Vendor Client Relationship

Are these real world situations? Or what?

Please go to YouTube to see the video (they don’t want it embedded).

The Vendor Client relationship – in real world situations.

A huge thanks goes to Lee Healey from www.freelance-cartoonist.com for sending it by.

Enjoy…

Comments (4)

Comments on Spec Work and Crowdsourcing

From the previous post, CreativePro: Spec Work and Crowdsourcing, I thought I’d grab a few of the opinions from the comments.

Shale Grant said: Thanks for your constant and steadfast guard over working on spec. I’ve done both (have my own design firm and have submitted to Crowdspring and frankly no one’s forcing the designers to submit. Some can handle it – some (apparently) cannot. If you don’t like it, don’t do the work on spec! Simple!

If I were a prospective client, I’d think you’re coming across as a whiner. Under the aegis of “not giving the client the best they can get”, I feel like you haven’t really understood what Crowdspring actually does for the client (they have a chance to answer any questions a designer wishes to ask, not to mention have to fill out a rationale anyway)- only weighing in on how it affects YOU, which makes me think you’re really not in it for the client’s best interest – or for that matter superlative design.

I think you just want to whine in order to justify your client inevitably overpaying for design by you. Face it: it’s the way things are. Either swim or get out of the way.

Several designers posted their opinions to dear Shale Grant, so please take the time to read them.

There is one comment in particular I’d like to share here.

Steve Douglas: Shale, I see spec and design contests as an industry issue – relevant to designers, buyers of design and yes, design firms.

The argument “well, some people do it, and they’re not being forced to” has no bearing on whether anything is good, effective or productive. It’s actually a classic case of the bandwagon or “Argumentum ad populum” logical fallacy – “the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct”. Lots of people smoke, nobody’s forcing them to, but no-one would use that argument as being illustrative that smoking isn’t harmful to the individual or society itself. The numbers of people participating on spec is, to be blunt, irrelevant.

I’m not sure why expressing a view that YOU should get paid for YOUR work is whining, but no mind. When talking to other designers who participate in spec, let me say this – to a person, they’d ALL prefer to be paid for their work. They’d rather get paid for EVERY contest or spec offering they enter. None of them, and I do mean NONE, actually WANT to give their time or talents away for free. They participate for a myriad of reasons, ranging from desperation to not being aware of alternatives, to the honest belief that they will somehow manage to make a decent living with design contest winnings (most find out rather quickly that they won’t). Unless you are the lone ‘professional’ designer who prefers not getting paid for your services, we probably agree on that one basic premise. Accordingly, I’m not sure how my stance could be determined as “whining”.

In terms of Crowdspring, I don’t want to dwell too long on them specifically, but as you brought them to the table – their website is 100% set up for the abuse of designers, many times as the hands of small business people who aren’t even aware they’re taking liberties. I don’t give a tinker’s toss about how much Crowdspring charges – that’s never been an issue of mine – my issue had always been that designers are exploited on sites like Crowdspring (and being exploited voluntarily has no bearing on whether something is exploitative or not), often by clients hoping to get ‘more for less’ while actually running a very high risk of obtaining inferior design work. Or worse. The vast majority of work on Crowdspring is, to be charitable, amateur (shouldn’t be surprising – design by amateurs is one of Crowdspring’s selling points to attract, well, amateur designers). By the way, this isn’t my opinion, but the published opinion of people who’ve reviewed CS services POSITIVELY on their blogs after running contests. The amount of copied art and stock artwork (submitted as logos) is astonishing. Again, don’t take MY word for this. Read Crowdspring’s own forums for complaints by designers who are otherwise quite happy tinkering around on the so-called “community”.

In terms of what Crowdspring does and the client-designer interaction, I must disagree. Pretty strongly too. The ‘buyers’ NEVER listen to the designer’s suggestions, even when told that what they’ve requested isn’t going to work (especially from a technical POV). All communication is FROM the buyer to the designer, never the other way around. Whatever communication from the designers to the client is usually the “yes sir, no sir – I await your next command, sir” variety. When utilizing people who are supposedly knowledgeable in their craft, the buyers never utilize that portion of the designers’ skillset. Their knowledge and/or experience. It’s akin to me taking my car to a mechanic and ignoring them completely when they tell me my wheels are going to fall off. And that, by the way, is if the ‘buyers’ communicate at all. Read the Crowdspring forum and read how designers carp that the lack of communication is a real hindrance to many contests. The management of Crowdspring have even taken to encouraging communication, suggesting that active participation means more entries. There’s lots more issues we could discuss, but rather than turn this into a Crowdspring-bashing thread, let’s leave it for another day.

In terms of my personal motivations, I’ve always been pretty pragmatic when it comes to business, so If I honestly believed that a service like Crowdspring was good for designers, good for clients, good for the industry (and profitable to boot) I’d be busy setting up my own logo design platform rather than blathering on some blog. I run a small design shop (and have so since 1996), staffed by people who have extensive backgrounds in design and online marketing, so converting my custom shop to a so-called design “crowdsourcing” platform would be a relatively easy transition. Accordingly, “if I were only weighing in on how it affects (ME)” and thought spec sites were a step forward, I’d have launched a logo design contest site years ago, and rather than debating with you on a blog, I’d be inviting you to come work on my site, supplying my ‘buyers’ with your artwork, for free. Which, apparently, you’d be quite happy to do.

Alas, I DO believe that spec sites like Crowdspring are exploitative, harmful for designers and a second-rate solution for clients. I also have to live with myself and would never expect you (or any other designer for that matter) to work for me without payment. Old school? Maybe. A Dinosaur? Perhaps. Whiner? Hardly. Continuing on my personal angle, I’d also like to point out that not once have I EVER suggested that people hire my firm rather than employ Crowdspring or another spec solution. Rather, I’ve suggested that spec contests are not terribly effective (my blog contains a myriad of evidence) and that design buyers have a ton of OTHER alternatives, ranging from small design shops to independent freelancers. As there’s nothing in your comment to indicate that I’m incorrect, I’ll stick by that stance.

I notice you close with the old “evolve or die” (or in your case, “swim or get our of the way”) chestnut. Not the first time anyone who’s been online for a while has heard that. Remember spam e-mail? When it first hit the scene back in the mid-nineties, the exact same rationale and arguments were used by the Direct Marketing associations. People complaining about spam were called dinosaurs. The JHD (Just Hit Delete) folks told those of us who hated our e-mail accounts being saturated with porn and pharma junk that we were “whining”, and trying to stand in the way of people getting “great money saving offers”. Spam e-mail was actually defended as being a positive thing for people getting it, as well as the small companies who couldn’t afford traditional advertising, who had started using it to deliver their message. Fast forward 15 years and spam e-mail accounts for over 80% of ALL Internet traffic, costs the world-wide economy billions and is a major headache for anyone trying to do anything online, from sending pics of the grand kids to parents, to running an online shopping business. This idea that all business models made possible by technology are positive is rubbish. Use of technology is what you “can do”. That needs to be tempered by what you “should do”. In terms of your comment “it’s the way things are”, and continuing with our analogy, the same can be said of spam. Are we better off because of it? Hardly.

Shale, thank you for posting your opinion.

And Steve, once again, thank you for taking the time to share your experience and views.

Cat

Comments (9)

CreativePro: Spec Work and Crowdsourcing

Spec Work and Crowdsourcing, when will they ever learn?

Pamela Pfiffner, writer and founding editor of CreativePro.com, recently put together a timely article for designers: Spec Work and Crowdsourcing: Gambles that Don’t Pay Off.

The economy’s in the toilet and you’re hungry for jobs, so you’re working on spec or posting designs to sites like CrowdSpring. It’s understandable. The problem is, spec and crowdsourcing can lower your value and hourly rates so far that minimum wage looks like a fat paycheck. Here’s what to do instead.

Quoted in the article are two eloquent fighters against all things spec: Steve Douglas and Jeff Fisher.

Steve Douglas of The Logo Factory: “According to [CrowdSpring’s] home page, designers have submitted over 219,000 entries” as of this April 2009. “If we average each entry out to an hour’s worth of a designer’s time, and that’s a hugely underrated figure, that equates to 25 years of unpaid designer labor.”

Jeff Fisher of Jeff Fisher LogoMotives: “The only thing worse than a potential client who does not value the efforts of a professional graphic designer is a designer who doesn’t appreciate the value of their own time and work.”

I know you can read the article for yourself (and I hope you do). But the reason I’m placing their quotes here is because of their tireless fight against spec work.

That’s right. Crusades may come and go, but the real heroes are those who fight the long fight.

So THANK YOU Steve, Jeff, Pamela, Terri and everyone else out there who continues to say NO to spec.

Comments (7)

Next Page »