The democratizing nature of the Internet has redrawn the competitive landscape of everything from music distribution to telephone service to the creative process. Even Joe the Plumber can pick up some nice, decorative swag for his van.
While the creative process stands in stark contrast to music distribution and other industries, we do find online services spreading the playing field, increasing competition, and lowering fees … and in the case of spec, lowering fees to zero with the possibility of compensation. While spec threatens the value of design, I think it is the core *idea* of design that faces greater danger. The rise of DIY and “every man design” are re-imagining what design means in the minds of our clients. No research. No process. Just tweak a Bezier here, push a pixel there. Kern some type? We can only hope.
Not long ago, two events put the design community over the edge. Ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky (CPB), with annual billings exceeding $1 billion, used crowdsourcing site crowdSpring to collect logo ideas for client Brammo. The award? $1,000. And legitimacy for crowdsourcing.
If that wasn’t enough, iStockphoto announced that it was adding logos to its member-generated library. Vector files start at the unbelievably low price of $5 with exclusive rights.
The communal outrage between these two events generated myriad blog posts, even more tweets, and a syndicated backlash on CPB’s home page. Maybe the fervor was due to the fact that designers saw each of these events as a betrayal. iStockphoto and CPB were supposed to be on our side. How could they? Alex Bogusky did post a thoughtful response to his agency’s use of crowdSpring and the lesson of his grandfather. Ideas are, in fact, a dime a dozen.
We have been given the gift of hindsight as the Internet effect on industries resistant to change plays out again and again. Consider the music and telephone industries as examples.
Musician magazine, December 1993
The labels had no less than six years to adapt to the sweeping changes (read: “threats”) that file sharing and digital distribution posed to their businesses. Said then-MCA Records Chairman Al Teller in reference to the labels’ lack of mobilization, “We, as record companies, are already in the distribution business. So why would we empower somebody else to do that? [...] We should own that.”
Distribution, and the piles of cash it generates, makes up the main difference between major labels and the independents. So the record companies were of the belief that it should be their responsibility to develop the next music distribution paradigm, which is to say develop a system that would be the most lucrative for them.
Likewise, the phone companies’ decades-old infrastructure, failure to innovate, and ever-increasing fees and surcharges have driven customers away. Their response? Lower customer service standards. It’s almost as though they held the door as people fled for services offering a VoIP alternative.
In both cases, instead of adapting to the new reality, music and telephone industry executives arguably took only tiny steps forward, if that, while spending a lot of time and money protecting the business models that had made them successful in the first place.
Readily available high‐speed Internet access and affordable software represent the deregulation of design. And a similar sea change is now upon us.
There will always be a market for design thinking and craftsmanship. And there will always be those whose budgets demand decoration. What there won’t be is any sort of sign saying we’ve gone too far. Picking sides will serve us well for a time, but spec is not going anywhere. Some of us like to talk about certification and turning the community into a walled garden for card-carrying professionals. Embracing a hardline for the demise of spec could prove profoundly more negative. The worst possible outcome — and a true disservice — would be creating the perception that professional designers chose digging in our heels, campaigning for the status quo, and insisting that our output is valuable in and of itself.
Instead, we should consider why some opt for that type of solution and appreciate that we were probably never going to work together anyway — spec or no spec. And for those with the wisdom to choose a design solution based on research and thinking, they should be invited into the process. Any opportunity we have to demonstrate to our clients what they are paying for and the inherent value of the way we work is an idea we should embrace.
Great Read! I think you hit the nail on the head with some of the key take-aways.
I also think it is important to remember that “spec” is really differentiated in that it is work with the “promise” of potential payment or future work. So iStock and others who simply sell creative at a low-price are not associated with or even the same as spec — that is just simply supply and demand. If someone is willing to make a logo for $5 and someone else is willing to pay $5, then the logo is worth $5.
Kinkos does printing and Geocities made websites; but the real question is, do we want the business of the person who is comfortable with the quality of work produced by a Kinkos or a Geocities? Do we work together, is there a way to work together?
Fuji sells a $2 disposable camera, essentially allowing anyone the opportunity to take photographs; does that really devalue the photography profession? Does that hurt the idea of photography? In that same spirit, I don’t believe that a person armed with a copy of Photoshop and deskjet printer really harms the idea of design.
We always say that our clients are not paying for the work completed, they are paying for our years of experience; don’t we? So if someone with less experience sells a creative at a lower price, it only makes sense; doesn’t it?
We designed this website for free and you wrote this article for free; I don’t think either of us de-valued design or journalism; or hurt the idea of either.
Are we ourselves hypocrites to some extent? We too have access to high-speed internet, use free software like WordPress and go out and create a “publication”; are we de-valuing journalism? If we can’t do it the level of The Wall Street Journal, do we not do it? Is The Wall Street Journal worried about Fullbleed the way we seem to be worried about the Photoshop amateur in our local coffee shop?
And the biggest question of all, who decides what does and does not devalue the idea of “design”? There are many talented print designers among our own ADCMW who produce some of the worst websites imaginable … and likewise there are many talented web designers among ADCMW who produce some of the worst print pieces imaginable.
The web community fears the designers still referring to Dreamweaver as a CMS and the print community fears the designers still dependent on 300dpi Photoshop files for print pieces. Even the talented among us are the amateur among us; all equally devaluing the idea of design — myself included.
I always say, “it isn’t that I am a particularly good designer, it is that most people are really bad designers”; that is the differentiator. FDR once said, “you can’t know fearlessness without knowing fear” … it is the bad designs that often define the good; and the great transcend it all.
Thanks Martin. Nicely said! I don’t know if I have ever considered *who* decides what does or does not devalue the idea of “design.” Design is not unlike a cottage industry in many ways, which makes the question that much more compelling.
An interesting read, and interesting points by both Trevin and Martin. The conversation is not new, as spec has been around forever, but the variables are shifting.
Just a point of clarification, since I read the long and involved conversation on iStockPhoto.com when the logo hubbub first started: the $5 amount was a “bonus” per logo design accepted and uploaded to the site. It is not what the vector logo files sell for. Also, since their conversation first started, they decided to increase the pricing. I don’t participate in it, but I read the goings-on with interest. I think it’s up to 750-1500 credits for the one-time sale of a logo, of which the designer gets half. The dollar value really depends on the quantity in which someone buys credits, i.e., a credit can cost anywhere between $1.50 and $1.00. And guess what, there are professional designers doing logos for that range.
The idea that these things are betrayals is hypocritical when you consider that the designers who use iStockPhoto.com for photography and illustration are in fact betraying our photographer and illustrator sisters and brothers. We plead “small client budgets,” etc., but it’s the same thing. The photographers and illustrators who adapt, and have value to add to the equation are the ones who survive. So it will be with designers.
There was an article from 1991 in the AIGA national journal wherein Paula Scher said it best. “I have seen the enemy, and he is us.”