Dear NO!SPEC,

Just wanted to share a recent email exchange I had with a prospective employer who asked candidates to do a test design on a new project. I liberally stole and altered sections from an article posted on your site: “Why Speculation Hurts,” by Robert Wurth. I’ve taken out the name of the company and person I corresponded with.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Dear ###,

I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to complete the design test. This week has been incredibly busy for me and I would have had to turn away paying jobs in order to work on it. In thinking about it, I’ve found that I feel this kind of test is not a good way to choose a designer. In my case, not only would it require me to pay for the privilege of being tested, because I would loose paying work, it also wouldn’t give you the information you’re looking for to make a hiring decision.

Without any briefs, discussions or research with ***, the design would lack the benefit of strategic thinking and would rely on speculative style. Even if you liked the way it looked, and it appeared to be on target, it wouldn’t show a design with the best solution.

When more information about the plan of action and goals of the project can be absorbed, design guesses are replaced with pragmatic insight. That way the designs develop with a context more relevant to ***’s business needs, and that makes for better working design solutions.

A single design doesn’t tell what a long-term relationship with the designer might offer. Also, the idea of working hard on a project unpaid, and one that I give up any rights to ownership of my work, on top of the possibility of being passed over would feel unfair and humiliating.

With that said, I’m sad to walk away from the possibility of working for ***. I really think it’s a brilliant approach to publishing and I would love to be a part of it. I truly wish *** all the best. This note is not meant as a rebuke, but rather an offering of a perspective you may not be aware of.

Sincerely,
Gregg

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Hi Gregg,

Thank you so much for the email. I really appreciate your honesty and insight and I think you have some really valid points. I think you have a great resume and portfolio and would still love to bring you in to meet the team. I hope this is not a deal breaker and you would still be interested in coming in in person.

If so, would it be possible for you to come in early next week, either Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday? I can work with your schedule to find time to meet with our VP of Marketing and some other team members.

I am off to the airport but will have access to email over the next few days so please let me know your thoughts. Again thank your for the email.

Regards,
###

Spec work can damage your business, by David Airey

If you’re a designer, and you receive a request for speculative work, write or call the issuer. There’s a chance they may not even realise this practice is unethical.

… Earlier this year, Shayne Tilley published an article on springwise.com, about ‘crowdsourcing’ in graphic design. The text revolves mainly around SitePoint, a website where people post requests for logo designs / t-shirt designs etc., but don’t pay any money until they receive a design they like, often from the lowest bidder.

It was interesting to read the discussion that followed in the article comments. A lot of designers seemed annoyed at the concept behind SitePoint. I’d be interested to know your opinion.

Thanks David. I’m also interested in reading the comments received.

This letter was forwarded to NO!SPEC.
(Please note: Discussions are open, but inflammatory comments will be deleted)

————————————-

Open Letter to CL Administration
Reply to: gigs-412731766@craigslist.org
Date: 2007-09-03, 8:34AM

[To all creative professionals; please read this, and if you agree, please forward it in an email to Craigslist adminitration by sending them a note at this address; http://www.craigslist.org/cgi-bin/emailForm.cgi ]

Dear Craigslist,

I would like to take this time to bring a problem to your attention that you may not be aware of. It is a problem that is seriously affecting myself, my peers, and our clients… and it needs immediate attention!!!

The problem, in a nutshell, is freeloading.

You see, here on the creative gig boards (and, I’m sure, on many other gig boards, as well.) you will find a plethora of talented, hard-working, highly skilled professionals from many different fields. Designers, Illustrators, Photographers and more. These are not people who are hard-up, or starving. Some of us just seek the occasional extra bit of income to supplement our salaries. Some of us use CL as a primary source of that income. Either way, using CL does not, by any measure, define us as some sort of discount day-labor or bargain-basement boobs who will do anything for a dollar.

We are PROFESSIONALS, first and foremost, and expect to be treated as such.

This is generally not a problem, when dealing with serious, professional clients; True businesspeople who understand the value of hiring someone with specialized skills. They understand that their time is valuable, and so, then, should ours be.

Unfortunately, these clients are being driven out of Craigslist by an avalanche of “freeloaders”.

Every day, the CL gig boards across the nation are being inundated with posts seeking skilled, professional services for “free” or “cheap”. Some offer the “opportunity” to “build your portfolio”. Others offer payment “Once my project is sold” to a publisher, etc. Some are even bold enough to equate compensation with the chance for your work “to be seen” on their website/business card/letterhead/etc.

In short, they are looking for free work.

Now, I am not begrudging anyone’s right to ask for free work. But I am making you aware that, because of the hordes of these posts appearing on CL daily, it is becoming increasingly difficult and frustrating for myself and my peers to find serious gigs.

It is also forcing us to scrutinize what serious gigs we do find, to the point where, I am sure, many serious professionals are no longer willing to post on the CL gig board, for fear of being lumped in with these freeloaders. In short, it is hurting everyone but the freeloaders.

Now, I am not here just to bitch and moan. This is a problem we CAN solve, and I think I have an idea of how to do so… an idea, I pray, you will see merit in.

I ask you to create a separate, “FREE” gig board for these people. This way, they can post to their heart’s content, and be sure to reach their target audience, as only those looking to work for nothing will read this board.

Additionally, to further discourage them posting on the real gig boards, change the “pay” entry field to accept only numeric entries. (And restrict the entries from starting with a zero.) You could possibly also enter a “negotiable” choice, as well for those who do not want to offer a solid dollar amount.) Then, change the gig rules to plainly state that this board is for PAYING gigs ONLY.

This way, when we flag the non-paying ones, there will be no question whether or not we are in the right in doing so.

This is a fairly straightforward and simple solution to a plaguing problem. I urge you to take this action immediately. Myself, and my peers, would be eternally grateful!

* Location: All creative professionals, PLEASE READ!
* it’s NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
* Compensation: FREE the FREE GIGS!!!

Original URL: http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/crg/412731766.html

Folks,

In the music business, ’spec’ has 2 faces.

As a composer, I have seen many situations similar to the graphic design examples as you describe. Most independant film-makers do not think to budget any money for music. At the very low end, they simply use their favorite CD’s, thinking they won’t get caught. Many enlist musician friends or local bands to provide music. There are those who have professional knowledge and, like bar owners, don’t want to pay for music. They know many musicians are willing to do it free and unaware of the legalities.

They offer exposure (as if they can provide it) and often run contests like the ones you describe. Usually, the terms dictate full ownership of the work with no compansation for the artist and perpetual license for the producer. One such film offer, recently posted on CL (craigslist), promised exposure in a movie distributed world-wide. Upon scrutinizing their contract, there was no provision addressing copyright, publishing, performance rights, licensing or performance reporting. I declined to send any music.

As all my musical works are copyrighted, owned by me and licensed through BMI, a ’spec’ film can be profitable if all the proper contracts are signed. If a producer has already secured distribution or air-time, then there will be a performance royalty. If the producer agrees to file broadcast and theatrical performance logs, then it can be worth it for me to waive license fees. Even a full custom score can be worth doing for ‘free’ if the paper work is done right and there is a retail or broadcast revenue stream. Ownership of publishing rights and especially copyright would have to be a separate part of such an agreement.

In the recording studio, ’spec’ means something entirely different.

It means the band wants you to record them for free because they are so good.

“You are undoubtedly rich because you own gear, and being so lucky, you owe the world something back for it, so why not start with our band? We are so amazingly great that you will make millions from recording our album.”

The truth-

The band usually does not get signed, More often than not, they break up within months of the recording, which languishes on the shelf.

If the band gets signed-

Any recording that has not been released AND sold 10,000+ copies is considered a demo and will be re-recorded by the record company with funds LENT TO THE ARTIST FROM FUTURE SALES which are collected first ahead of any payments to the band itself.

There is no royalty structure for engineers. If you mixed it for free, you’re screwed.

The record company will not recognize or honor any ’spec’ commitment made by the band before their involvement. The producer of the original recording will not qualify for any percentage from the label unless his recording is released by them. He will get 3% of the net if it is. Most often, a new producer is assigned by the label and the old recordings are forgotten. Inevitably, both the band and label’s attorneys will insist that the original studio and producer need not be paid and will not have the strength to fight the issue.

Occasionally, a band makes it just like the fairy-tale and the original ‘raw’ rccord is a hit, elevating both band and producer. To say it happens once in every 100,000 such bands would be quite generous. The problem is that these instances are portrayed in promotional materials and media as commonplace, enforcing the belief by millions of young musicians that any ‘producer’ can make them famous.

As a studio owner, ’spec’ means ‘free’, so the band better be really important to you to record them for nothing. Since studio reputations are best spread by word of mouth, it can be advantageous to record a group for free simply to get them hawking your services around town. Know that this is a giveaway and any speculative deal with the artist would have to be honored by them out of their own pocket. The label will not recognize your involvement unless they are buying a succesfully distributed product.

With advent of online distribution, this may change. Nonetheless, a solid understanding of copyright, performance rights and mechanical royalties is crucial for a studio dealing with original artists.

I hope this viewpoint is useful to you. Keep up the good work.

Brian ‘Cousin B’ Ascenzo
Location; Las Vegas

I’m hoping you can let visitors to the NO!SPEC site know that graphic designers are not the only ones being plagued by requests for work on spec. On spec or as it’s come to be known in the photography industry “Custom Stock” is a growing trend.

Companies are trying to legitimize a model which is based on asking multiple photographers to bid on a chance to provide what is in effect a custom assignment but at stock photography rates and royalties. Photographers who are chosen must also finance the shoot out of their own pockets with no guarantee that their images will even be chosen.

These “Custom Stock” shoots are presented to stock photographers as an enhanced “stock” opportunity. At the same time, these are presented to clients that this is an sensible business practice that will allow them to acquire professional quality assignment images, shot to their specifications at no risk to themselves and for stock photography prices.

What “Custom Stock” actually is though is “competitive spec”. Multiple photographers are asked to “bid” on a chance to provide the requested images. Out of those that provide bids, maybe up to five are chosen. From the images provided the client may then choose the image or images they want to license at the previously agreed upon fee. However, the client is under absolutely no obligation to license any of the images. If an images is licensed, the agreed upon fee for the service is then split between the company providing the service and the photographer with the commissions varying by company.

This trend was actually started by OnRequest Images who in fact, coined the term “Custom Stock” but others, including more traditional stock agencies are beginning to follow suit. Index Stock Imagery has also jumped into the pool with its Index Custom Stock service which closely follows the OnRequest model. Other are sure to follow.

The Stock Artists Alliance (SAA), an industry association which represents photographers who produce images for rights-protected license has more information on its web site concerning OnRequest Images and the “Custom Stock” model.

The SAA web site can be found at:
www.stockartistsalliance.org

More information about OnRequest Images can be found at:
www.stockartistsalliance.org/info/news
www.stockartistsalliance.org/info/news/reports

Index Custom Stock service from Index Stock Imagery can be found at:
www.indexstock.com

regards,
Jim Hunter
Assignment - Stock - Fine Art
www.jimhunter.com
jimhunterphotography.blogspot.com

Dear NO!SPEC,

I checked out the NoSpec site and have a quick question on mockups and I would really appreciate it if you could give me some advice. Here’s the scenario. I just got off the phone with a potential client who’s looking for someone to design his logo. This happened a couple of hours before I checked your site. Oops.

He can’t draw so he just needs someone to draw a design based on a rough image he sent me and after he gets the sketch he’ll finish the rest himself on Photoshop. Now, he happened to mention that he’s getting designs and quotes from other illustrators and he’s going to check out everyone’s mockups and choose from there.

So now the question is, did I mess up big time? If so, what do you suggest I do about it? He’s also expressed some interest in buying some of my more expensive art later on, which if he does, will be much more expensive than this logo so I’d like to fix this without ruining the potential business relationship in the long term.

Please let me know what you think. I’d appreciate any advice you can offer.

Hungry Artist