Further Thoughts on Chris Brogan’s Dichotomy
Written by Deb Dorchak - May 14, 2010 3 Comments
I was going to post a comment on Chris’ site in response to his post A Perfect Dichotomy, but I realized that once I started I had far too much to say about the subject.
In short, his post was about a site called 99Designs and how this site was frowned upon by the graphics community because the designs are so cheap *ahem* pardon me, inexpensive.
Some designers even go so far as to say this is nothing more than a site that preys upon desperate young artists trying to make a name for themselves by doing free work in hopes of selling it.
At first glance one would think this site operates on spec. What is “on spec”?
A very bad six letter word in the design community.
On Spec is when you do a job on speculation, you work for free and hope that you beat out all the other designers also doing free work in hopes of landing the job.
This is how many fresh faced college students start out. And it’s not just in the design field.
This is also how many fresh faced college students get ripped off.
The spec work is often times disguised as a contest, or as a “let’s try you out and see what you’ve got” because an employer is reluctant to hire someone without experience. This can also happen if an potential employer is too stingy to go the route of hiring a more expensive experienced designer.
And, most importantly, it also happens in honest cases where individuals have an extremely tight budget, or have gotten rooked before by an unscrupulous designer who created the tight budget in the first place, and can’t afford to make another investment mistake.
With the first couple of cases, the contests and the lazy employer, there are even more dubious characters who will gather up as many spec jobs as they can and then run off like bandits with the design. Nobody wins, nobody gets the job, but the company’s designers allegedly use the fresh ideas to spark their own.
Get the picture? Spec = Ripped Off. Or so that’s what the term has come to represent. People see that and think instant scam.
It’s sad, really, this lack of trust.
Spec Work or Consignment?
Reading through 99Designs got me thinking; was this really spec work?
Let’s take a look at a couple of definitions:
con·sign·ment
n.
1. The act of consigning.
2. Something consigned.
Idiom:
on consignment
With the provision that payment is expected only on completed sales and that unsold items may be returned to the one consigning: The retailer accepted the shipment on consignment.
spec Informal
n.
1. specs The specifications, as for a building to be constructed.
2. Speculation.
tr.v. spec’d or specced (spkt), spec’ing or spec·cing (spkng), specs
To write or supply specifications for.
adj.
1. Of or relating to specifications: a manufacturer’s spec sheet.
2. Done, constructed, produced, or purchased as a speculation: a spec job; a spec house.
Idiom:
on spec
On a speculation basis; with no assurance of profit: houses built on spec; writes TV commercials on spec.
If you look at 99Designs and the way it’s set up, it is not on spec. True, your design may or may not sell, BUT there is the potential that it will. Just like in a consignment shop. You bring down the retro leather couch that no longer fits in your decor because your spouse decided to go South West Rustic and it sits in the shop until someone else finds it and decides it’s a treasure they MUST have.
The new owner buys it, you get your money, and everyone is happy. You know that sooner or later IT WILL SELL.
On the other hand, with spec work, you have no such assurance that this couch is going to be chosen to sell at all. The shop owner puts out an all points bulletin for EVERYONE to bring their couches to the Retro Couch Warehouse – and you must bring it in person, in your own truck and do all the heavy lifting yourself – before they even decide whether or not they’ll pick it as the one and only to go out on the showroom floor.
With spec work, you’re nowhere near a chance of selling. Plus, if you’re not chosen as the lucky one you’ve got to haul that couch all the way back home. And that would suck. Big time.
Here’s Where Deb Gets Nasty Emails From Her Designer Colleagues
I’m going to take a stand here and speak as the 1% of designers who say there’s nothing wrong with a site like 99Designs. Like a consignment shop, they make their profits off of a percentage of what you sell, so you’d better believe it’s in their best interest to accept and sell as many good designs as possible.
On spec, the client can’t legally use or profit off your design if they don’t use it and you’re stuck with a tired feeling from all the work you’ve done and a logo you can’t use for anything other than another portfolio piece.
Or, if you wanted to, you could sell it on 99Designs.
Just sayin’.
Read the Comments
3 Outstanding Responses to "Further Thoughts on Chris Brogan’s Dichotomy"
Chris Brogan... on May 14, 2010 at 6:11 pm | Permalink
My thought (and by the way, your site is gorgeous) is that there’s something in the MIDDLE that isn’t yet for sale.
99designs was REALLY EASY as far as a process went. Worth it? Not yet. Incredible design? Not really.
But if I’m someone with a 2K budget for a whole website (craigslist is littered with requests like this), then how much will I spend on a logo? As much as I can, but how much will that net you?
So, there’s got to be a channel for something like this. Maybe it’s not “on spec,” because you’re right that it’s a weird model. But then what’s the OTHER option? Because I see it. Don’t you?
Deb Dorchak on May 14, 2010 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
Chris! Thanks so much for stopping by and thank you for the compliments on the site.
Yes, I do see it. Sort of. It’s a little blurry around the edges yet. While I was writing this I couldn’t put my finger on what it was exactly. It certainly didn’t fit spec, and it’s not really consignment either. There is another option. Definitely.
One thing I thought of while writing this was it was very similar to stock photo sites. iStock for example has several levels of price for one image. You want something small to use over and over? Okay, one or two credits. Need something bigger? Higher resolution? That’ll be more.
Then they have their high end images which start at 20 credits. They also offer vector images going for 10 – 15 credits.
Not all logos/sites are created equal. Logos especially are difficult because they have to capture the essence of the company’s brand in a 3 second glance.
Can this be done right off the rack? Sometimes. It’s hit or miss.
Maybe instead of selling the image, we should be selling the artist?
Am I close or way, way off base?
One Trackback
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Deb Dorchak. Deb Dorchak said: Further thoughts on @chrisbrogan 's dichotomy: http://bit.ly/9fxl6p [...]