Reading through the NO!SPEC stats, I noticed Veerle comes out with a word or three.

The purpose of creative pitches are to give clients a better understanding of the creative capacity of the selected agencies. To me it is a lame excuse to not browse around in the portfolios and let someone else do the work for free. I wonder what goes on in the mind of the people who write that stuff down, do they expect the freebies in everything else also?

The comments as they are equally well written. Check out her article, Free of charge please! Then scroll down for more.

Designing or photographing “on spec” means to work without guarantee of payment.

Some people think it’s an acceptable way to build a portfolio or snag a client who’ll pay for other jobs down the line. Other people say that accepting spec work is a disservice to yourself and all creative professionals.

Have your say at Creativepro’s Talkback Review

TexasDesign.com reviews the Fossil design contest - “Great exposure or simply spec work?”

• With the case of the Fossil contest you lose all rights to your designs when you enter the contest.
• Submissions will not be returned. Submissions become the property of Sponsor upon submission.
• Additionally, Fossil may use any of the entries in future promotions.

Quoting Jeff Fisher of Fossil Holds Design Contest- Great Exposure or Simply Spec Work?

To decide for yourself, go to Design Fossil’s Design Your Own Tin Contest

So, what say you?

From Mark W. Lewis of Painter Creativity

1 “Do this one cheap (or free) and we’ll make it up on the next one.”

In the end, working commercially, being a terrific artist is about 25% of the task. If that is the only part of the task that you are interested in, do yourself a favor. Don’t turn “pro.”

For the real guts of the article, go to Top 10 Lies told to Naive Artists and Designers

Good one Mark!

Are We There Yet? - Boxes and Arrows: The design behind the design

Back when we decided B&A needed an overhaul, we held a contest for a new design of Boxes and Arrows. Boy, was that a mistake.

Although the designs were terrific—beautiful, clear, and innovative—not one was what we needed.

… for a design to be successful, the designers need to work hand-in-hand with the client so they understand the client’s vision, and so the client understands the choices made by the designer. Collaborative iteration is the secret to getting to the right design solution.

It’s embarrassing that we tripped up this way … We should have realized a contest was the very opposite of good collaboration.

To read the rest, go to: Are We There Yet? - Boxes and Arrows: The design behind the design

Via: Design View : Andy Rutledge

I swear, when I die I want to come back as a Canadian …

Yesterday, Steven Luscher (Group Organizer for the Vancouver Graphic Design Meetup) contacted NO!SPEC about the VANOC 2010 Mascot RFP.

VANOC is the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee.

Steve’s post on the Vancouver Graphic Design Meetup message board:
Congratulations to everyone responsible for giving VANOC the guidance it needed to do the right thing, and congratulations to VANOC for working with and listening to Canadian Designers.

I could hardly restrain myself from jumping up and down over the news. Way to go Canada!

Shortly after, the VANOC 2010 Mascot RFP was posted at GDC’s blog:
This is a shining example of a large organization working closely with the Canadian design industry to create a respectful and appropriate call for candidates and an excellent example of real advocacy by the GDC on it’s members’ behalf.

Peggy Cady FGDC, GDC National Past President:
We are trying to teach businesses and organizations about our best practices, and how we want them to work with us. It is a great victory for the profession when organizations understand where we are coming from and are willing to adjust their proposals.

I’ve long known that Canadian designers and design orgs are way ahead of the game when it comes to the issue of working on spec, but now they’ve got the strong support of a professional organisation such as VANOC.

Kudos to VANOC. Kudos to GDC. Kudos to Canada!

Three Top Creatives Speak Their Mind at ANA Conference

Is this the beginning of the end?

In surprisingly strong comments before a gathering of the nation’s largest advertisers, three ad agency creative chiefs last week criticized the account pitching and compensation models that currently govern their business relationships with advertising clients.

Check out the whole article at Advertising Age, Bitching About Pitching and Agency Compensation

So, what do you do when you’re an internationally recognized, successful band with millions of dollars in CD and concert ticket sales? If you’re the Barenaked Ladies, you slap an industry in the face by running an unethical, exploitive contest, that’s what.

The details of this contest are glaring examples of the problems this trend creates within the design community. The fact that it comes from a representative of the music industry, an industry very vocal in the protection of artist’s rights, makes it all the more disturbing.

To read the rest of Robert’s post, go to Freshly Squeezed Design, Barenaked Exploitation.

March/April of this year saw the launch of the NO!SPEC campaign. Since then I’ve come across a range of confusing posts, some even using open source interchangeably with spec. To clarify the spirit of the campaign I’ve put together a short rundown on what working on spec is, and isn’t. What the NO!SPEC campaign is, and isn’t.

Spec is not:
ProBono
Open Source
Industry Awards Contests

Spec is:
Working on the SPECulation of getting something of value in return.

The NO!SPEC campaign is not about:
Taking the fun away from what we do.

The NO!SPEC campaign is about:
Educating designers so they can make educated choices.

The NO!SPEC campaign is not about:
Coming up with a lot of tight rules to stifle the client / designer relationship.

The NO!SPEC campaign is about:
Educating the public on ethical business practices.

Still confused? Then please stroll through the roundup of the latest blog posts and articles I’ve compilied at NO!SPEC Campaign: Rundown and Roundup.

Creativity Awards closes book on cover “contest” by Jeff Fisher LogoMotives

I’ve always been a huge fan of the design competitions conducted by David E. Carter, resulting in books such as the American Corporate Identity, The Big Book of Logos, and Creativity series.

Last Thursday, I was somewhat stunned when opening an email with the subject line “Design the Creativity Cover” to find that a “contest” was being conducted to select the cover of the upcoming Creativity 36 volume. The email had the headline “Be the first on your block to design Creativity’s cover.”

For me, the distinction between “design competition” and such “contests” is very simple. “Competitions” are conducted to evaluate and select graphic work already completed by a designer. Most so-called “contests” are requests for the creation of new work for possible review and selection - and that is “spec,” or speculative, work. No designer should be asked to work for free as a condition for the chance of being selected as the “winner” or possibly being hired for future work.

Today I was surprised to receive an email from Tim Moran, the Director of Marketing for the Creativity Annual Awards. The subject line read “Creativity Cancels Cover Contest.”

Visit Jeff’s blog for the rest of Creativity Awards closes book on cover “contest”