We support the NO!SPEC movement against crowdSpring

Read more great stuff about why you should be boycotting crowdSpring at http://www.no-spec.com/

crowdSpring Exec puts head in sand

Rather than open a discussion, discuss concerns or change their unethical behavior crowdSpring executive Mike Samson has decided to put his head in the sand and block us on twitter.

A classy move if you ask us. What's the best way to deal with a growing movement upset with your unethical business practices? Block them, ignore them, continue making poor choices.

You can contact @mike_samson and let him know that blocking concerned stakeholders is not a responsible way to handle customer satisfaction, doesn't help their marketing efforts and helps to fuel the public's concern with crowdSpring.

We believe this is emblematic of the cavalier way they run crowdSpring, mistreat customers and another reason anyone reading this should boycott!

Crowdspring - Raw numbers. Updated.

The company has now published a blog, Crowdspring by the numbers, which offers further insight into the statistics of their service and that we can use the figures to fine-tune our original Crowdspring calculations.

The amount of prize money awarded:

"Since May 2008, we’ve paid nearly $2 million dollars."

The number of "completed" contests on Crowdspring.

crowdSPRING launched in May 2008. Since that time, over 4,700 projects have been completed on crowdSPRING.

As this figure has been now defined as 'completed', we can assume that this tally does not include refunded projects. That means that the average payout at a Crowdspring contest is $425.00

"370,002 entries to date"

A total of 370,002 (as of the time this post is being written) entries have been submitted to projects on crowdSPRING.

That would include logos, website design page concepts, brochure layouts, stationery packages, etc. if every contest has been awarded, and the final design is considered as the one that wins that actually wins, there were approximately 365,302 designs submitted to Crowdspring for which no financial compensation was ever received.

If, on average, each submission took 1 hour (not unreasonable once we average complete time required from reading the contest brief, developing a concept, development and sourcing, creation and uploading to the Crowdspring server) that represents a total of approximately 365,302 hours.

That is the equivalent of over 41 years of unpaid designer time.

if we account for the various differences in artwork type (ie: a website page submission may take several hours or more) that number is substantially higher. If we average out the average hourly wage down to $10 per hour (an unrealistically low figure but simple for calculation) that represents approximately $3,653,020 of unpaid man hours.

That figure is somewhere in the region of 3 and 3/4 quarter million dollars.

If we were adjust to realistic hourly rates, that figure would increase significantly. Even if we assume that every winning designer had submitted an average of 4 preliminary designs before selection, that still that represents 351,202 unpaid concepts and designs submitted to the Crowdspring server and 351,202 design entries for which no financial compensation was ever received. That equates to 351,202 unpaid man hours. At average 1 hour per design at $10 per hour, that still represents over three and a half million dollars worth of unpaid designer time.

When performing our original calculations, the average number of submissions per contest worked out to approximately 77 per 'project', roughly ten less than 99designs' 87 per contest. According to Crowdspring, that number is actually 79.

At the moment, we average 79 entries across all project categories. Some categories (such as packaging and product design average more), while others (such as illustrations) average a bit less.

"32,000 creatives"

"Nearly 32,000 creatives work on crowdSPRING. We know this because when a someone registers on our site, we ask them whether they anticipate being a buyer or creative."

We have no information on how many 'active' designers are actually entering Crowdspring "projects". However, it's highly unlikely there are 32,000 active designers and that figure seems to represent the number of user accounts that have been opened since Crowdspring's launch last year.

At that time, company management predicted a 90% annual turnover rate.

"The company expects a 90% annual turnover rate among contractors."

However, if we take their figures as fact, and If unique designers had won "completed" contests, that would mean that 27,300 designers have submitted work to Crowdspring without financial compensation of any kind. We know that some designers win multiple contests, while others never win any, so it is difficult to extract any real data.

We can, however, play with what we have.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that all winning designers have won an average of three 'projects' each. That works out to a total of 1,566 winning designers.

That would mean that 30,434 designers have spent a collective 38 years worth of design time, submitting351,202 designs and contributing labor that is very conservatively estimated as being worth over three and a half million dollars.

Without ever receiving a penny for those efforts.

Crowdspring compares these statistics to the global crowdsourcing of the Linux operating system.

"The community on crowdSPRING isn’t unlike many other communities where large groups of people, for one reason or another, elect to participate - sometimes without receiving a dime in pay.

For example, it is estimated that it would cost $10.8 billion dollars to develop the Linux distribution Fedora 9 using traditional means. Over 1,000 developers from over 100 different companies contribute to every release of the Linux operating system. Fedora 9 is estimated to have required about 60,000 person-years of development time. That’s an incredible amount of free time contributed by thousands of people."

Fedora is a free operating system that is available for anyone to use, modify and distribute.

"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software. Fedora is always free for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. It is built by people across the globe who work together as a community: the Fedora Project. The Fedora Project is open and anyone is welcome to join. The Fedora Project is out front for you, leading the advancement of free, open software and content."

Fedora was never built for one company as a "work for hire" commercial project, nor did any crowdsourcing company charge Linux a percentage to host a Fedora contest on their website. Crowdspring charges "buyers" a 15% fee based on the "award" posted for their "project".

Crowdspring suggests that designers working on their platform, the vast majority doing so without any payment, is a "free will" issue and something that is "at the heart of a free market economy".

"16. Do you think creatives have the right to decide how they work?

Answer: Yes. We fundamentally support the notion that a person should have the right to decide for themselves how they want to work and what risk they’re prepared to take. This simple concept is at the heart of a free market economy.

Their opinion on anyone that opposes their view of "a free market economy"?

"Efforts that seek to undermine this universal freedom of choice are doomed to fail."

 Originally posted at http://www.specwatch.info/raw-numbers3.html

Raw numbers - Crowdspring

Like most design contest sites, Crowdspring features some basic statistics on their home page - the number of designers (referred to as 'creatives'), current number of open contests, number of overall design submissions and the average number of submissions per 'project'. The one notable difference with most other design contest sites is that Crowdspring does not feature a running tally of 'award money'.

At the SXSW panel debate in March, a Crowdspring founder did offer this insight:

"Crowdspring, in 10 months has escrowed over a million dollars in awards, and has paid out $750,000.00 in awards."

It is impossible to extrapolate that figure up to today's date. However, like their competitor 99designs, we can perform some basic arithmetic and work out some very rudimentary statistics of our own. Figures were accurate at time of notation.

"4,444 projects to date"

Whether this figure includes refunded contests is unknown.

"341,838 entries to date"

That would include logos, website design page concepts, brochure layouts, stationery packages, etc. if every contest has been awarded, and the final design is considered as the one that wins that actually wins, there were approximately 334,394 designs submitted to Crowdspring for which no compensation was ever received.

If, on average, each submission took 1 hour (not unreasonable once we average complete time required from reading the contest brief, developing a concept, development and sourcing, creation and uploading to the Crowdspring server) that represents a total of approximately 334,394 hours.

That is the equivalent of 38 years of unpaid designer time.

if we account for the various differences in artwork type (ie: a website page submission may take several hours or more) that number is substantially higher. If we average out the average hourly wage down to $10 per hour (an unrealistically low figure but simple for calculation) that represents an amount that's close to $3,343,940 of unpaid man hours.

Yes. That figure is somewhere in the region of three million dollars.

If we were adjust to realistic hourly rates, that figure would increase significantly. Even if we assume that every winning design had 4 preliminary designs before selection, that still amounts to 319,618 design entries for which no compensation was ever received and the calculations can be reworked accordingly. Unpaid man hours 319,618. At average 1 hour per design at $10 per hour, that still represents over three million dollars worth of unpaid designer time.

The average number of submissions per contest works out to approximately 77 per 'project', roughly ten less than 99designs' 87 per contest.

"29,689 creatives"

We have no information on how many 'active' designers are actually entering Crowdspring 'projects'. If there are 29,689 active designers, that means an individual would have about a 14.9% chance of winning anything. However, it's highly unlikely there are 29,689 active designers and that figure probably represents the number of user accounts that have been opened since Crowdspring's launch last year.

If every individual designer on Crowdspring had entered and won 1 contest, that would mean that 25,245 designers have submitted work to Crowdspring without any compensation. We know that some designers win multiple contests, while others never win any, so it is difficult to extract any real data.

We can, however, play with what we have.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that all winning designers have won an average of three 'projects' each. That works out to a total of 1,481 winning designers.

That would mean that 28,208 designers have spent a collective 38 years worth of design time, submitting319,618 designs and contributing labor that is very conservatively estimated as being worth three million dollars.

Without ever receiving a penny for those efforts.

While the numbers are significantly lower than 99designs, it's worthwhile to note that Crowdspring launched in May of 2008, while 99designs has been in business for several years longer, having been formed out of Site Point design contests (and possibly conflating those statistics with their own).

Originally posted at http://www.specwatch.info/raw-numbers2.html

Why CrowdSpring Owners Should Be Ashamed of Their Business

Originally posted at http://www.brianyerkes.com/why-crowdspring-owners-should-be-ashamed-of-their-business/

The high-profile business magazine recently published this article: The Creativity of Crowds , which opens with the following subtitle:

“CrowdSpring aims to slash the cost of graphic design work — and democratize a snooty business .”

Now I’m all for competition, and indeed welcome it, but when there’s such a one-sided article about the validity of spec work , it’s appropriate to mention the other side of the story.

For the unaware, CrowdSpring is a design contest website, where people submit (mainly) logo designs in the hope of winning a prize. Prizes are (not always) awarded by the companies who join and host a contest.

You can read David’s full post here . David puts forward excellent thoughts and opinions on the “Design Contest Websites” and due to a huge following, the inevitable debate is often an important read.

Michael Samson, one of the owners and creators of CrowdSpring, is quoted in the article as saying,

The beauty of our site is that it doesn’t matter if you have a degree from the Rhode Island School of Design or if you’re a grandma in Tennessee with a bunch of free time and Adobe Illustrator,” says Samson. “If the client likes the grandma’s work better, then she’s going to get the job.

Dear Mr. Samson,

“A grandma in Tennessee with a bunch of free time and Adobe Illustrator”?! – in the words of the new “Saturday Night Live” feature; Samson…..REALLY?!

A grandma in Tennessee should not be designing a company’s identity, logo, website, print advertising or anything if she doesn’t have design experience, skill, knowledge, etc. Anyone can get their hands on a copy of Adobe Illustrator and call themselves a designer. I am actually quite shocked that you didn’t use “MS Paint” in place of Adobe Illustrator with your apparent knowledge of the graphic design industry.

Hey, I have a hammer and some wood, anyone need a house built? I have never built a house before but how hard can it be. I’m sure I could put something together that SOMEONE will think looks good. And if they think it looks good, then guess what, I guess I am a builder! Sweet! (just don’t come complaining to me when your house collapses after the first bit of wind.)

Mr Samson, or can I call you Michael? Ok, Michael it is, I feel like we have built up a relationship now that I can call you Michael…..or maybe Mike? Mikey….No? Ok, Michael it is.

Michael, your comment highlights everything that is wrong in the graphic design industry.

Some clients do not know what looks good and what will be successful for them

Of course the grandma in Tennessee can scribble a few things together, and someone out there may love it, but that does not mean for one second that it will be successful for that client, or that it comes anywhere close to meeting their real needs as an integral piece of their company’s identity.

As an experienced designer, clients often ask me to “do this” or “do that”, and often what they want is not what they need . They need skilled designers and marketers to help them to see what they need. Designers and marketers research their clients’ audience, and come up with an educated solution. Some clients love an animated gif of a leopard running in place to be on their website, but you and I know (well, maybe not YOU…) that this is not a good addition to their website. The client is not to blame for this, that’s why they hired the professional .

And that is where your website comes in. If you don’t want to hire a professional who values their work, does not research your company, your market, your clients’ needs, and simply knows how to draw pretty things that are meaningless, then head on over to Michael and his website.

An excellent comment on the Forbes article comes from Eric Hillerns explaining this perfectly.

A CAD program does not make me an architect and a copy of QuickBooks does not make me an accountant… And the Forbes writer? You know, the one who penned this article’s ludicrously silly subhead, was likely this year’s lucky winner of Mrs. Winters’ sixth grade journalism competition. Because why would we pay an experienced writer when anyone with Microsoft Word and e-mail can submit a story?

Congratulations, Forbes. You got exactly what you paid for. Sludge. But then again, maybe that was your point.
Eric Hillerns

Mr. Swanson, there is something extremely odd about the article that was written by this Christopher guy. I’m no journalist, but I do understand some aspects of journalism and integrity. When one writes an article about a subject matter that obviously has a strong opposition to it, to merely throw in one single quote from the contrasting side is not only displaying a gross lack of judgment, but also shows that you are an extremely amateur writer, and quite possibly Mrs. Winters’ best student in her 6th grade class. Forbes must have had to lay off the highly paid journo’s and in their place, Westbrook Catholic School got their chance.

I wonder what got rejected…….

Originally posted at http://iambrianjung.com/rant/2009/08/05/crowdspring-blows-donkey-balls/

CrowdSpring Blows Donkey Balls

Today i’m going to rant about the horrible idea that is, (wait for it) yes, CROWDSPRING.  This so called “amazing, and innovative” site basically puts what all the rest Freelancer.com, Guru, etc, do but in a prettier Web 2.0′ish shell.  There have been many others that have voiced their dissent much better than me (i’d just stomp around angry, punching holes in plaster walls with my Kung Fu skills, and cussing at the top of my lungs) like Brian Yikes, and Andrew Hyde.  And AIGA seems to have a solid stance against “spec” work.

The response from Mike Samson, Co-Founder of CrowdSpring, and one of his few pre-canned responses (most definitely part of a bullet point list he and his partners created prior to launch to counter the guaranteed backlash from the creative community) is that they’re encouraging and pushing creativity by giving access to creatives who normally wouldn’t have the opportunity. This is complete bullshit because there are a lot of great active creative communities out there where creatives share ideas, work, and inspiration every day without any money changing hands.  At those places it really is about creativity, not MONEY which is ultimately the bottom line for CS.  They wanted to find a way to get a cut off of desperate creatives and penny pinching, greedy corporations.  It’s about devaluing creativity and creating a precedent for clients that it is OK to pay $200 for a logo or $500 for a website. He makes the comparison to iStock and Threadless which have absolutely no bearing on CS.  First of all the production of a website has two major production cycles:  creative and development.  It takes 1 second to snap a photo, there is relatively little production cycle (color correction, photo correction) either way does not take 3-6 months to do unlike a website.  This is not to mention that the overall quality of photos on iStock is low compared to something like Getty.  If i could pump out a full functional web site in 10 seconds like it would a photo posted to iStock than the comparison would have merit.  Since that’s not the case, Mike here is full of shit, which makes sense since he’s a business entrepreneur looking to make easy money rather than a creative with years of experience.

Sadly Forbes.com puts out a CS cock stroking article about the wonders of the company, leading with:

CrowdSpring aims to slash the cost of graphic design work–and democratize a snooty business.

Unfortunately Forbes has no fucking clue what they’re talking about.  The “snooty business” they’re referring to are the large gi-normous holding company ad agencies on Madison Avenue.  Of which CS poses absolutely no danger to.  It’s the small, medium, and freelancer crowd that will get hurt the most by them.  Another point i should make is all these places are not necessarily always looking for flawless execution, they are rather trying to farm and buy creative IDEAS for the cheapest they can.  If they can take a great creative idea someone else has made for $200, spin it, add some changes and resell it to their client they can make a huge profit off of that.  Additionally i like to use the comparison about going to the doctor for a needed surgery.  Would you really want to trust this to someone who promises quality for $200?  It’s a bit extreme of an example but for a lot of people their freelance businesses are their life.

See i work at one of those “larger” ad agencies and i really have no danger to my work or my agency’s.  However, i’ve worked as a freelancer for many years so i understand the fury of the community and i actively support speaking out against Spec Work.  Additionally it’s easy to paint a wide swath on greedy corporations but in most cases it’s not so.  The large brands understand the value of paying the money to a professional to “do it right”.  After all the mantra of “you get what you pay for” still has merit in this industry and i’d like to think that big brands understand this.  Certainly there is something to be said for competition and having a thriving competitive community, but that needs to be fed by creatives and agencies themselves, not by a site posting $500 for a website.

I looked at the projects on CrowdSpring and honestly if you got $2500 per web site design (the most listed currently is $2300) for the small-mid no-name companies and start ups that post these jobs on there, it wouldn’t be half bad actually.  However, if you read the CrowdSpring contract it talks about “Work-For-Hire”, meaning you have to hand over all the source files, PSD, AI, etc, to the company.  So to give up all rights and source for your work for $2500 is anal rape.  I mean in almost every other industry Rights Managed involves significantly more compensation – it just seems when it comes to graphic/web design that get’s all lumped together and people get all indignant when you tell them that if they want your source code or layered PSD files, they need to pony up more cash.

To me as stated before, CrowdSpring feeds the line of bullshit about furthering creativity and all that but ultimately the bottom line is that they realized a potential money maker in creating a web site that caters to desperate creatives, and equally desperate clients.  For me the issue is not the above two groups, but rather the danger of creating a standard precedent of this type of pricing model that may eventually trickle up to larger brands.  This industry has already had to fight off marginalization in the past, supporting spec work and lowballers would inevitably deal a big blow to this industry.

Spec Work Is Evil / Why I Hate CrowdSpring

Originally posted at http://andrewhy.de/spec-work-is-evil-why-i-hate-crowdspring/

Update* I get now almost daily emails describing serious ethical issues from past clients and designers from CrowdSpring, ranging from stolen work to child labor.  Stay far, far, far away!  It is not just me, you can see CrowdSpring by the numbers or Why Crowdspring Should be Ashamed of Their Business.   *Update*

Speculative work (asking someone to complete a job as an application is a loose promise to pay them if you want to) is evil. No way around it.  Check out No!Spec if you are unfamiliar with the subject.  Here is my take:

If you are a company that needs a phenomenal designer / writer / developer / marketer, there are plenty out there. Take a look at their portfolio, if you like what they produce hire them.  Speculative work especially asked of designers, and some early stage designers fall for it, resulting in low quality work and experience for everyone involved.

If you need a great designer for a project, I know 20 designers that kick ass, email me.

Enter CrowdSpring

CrowdSpring is a site that attracts people with small budgets for projects ($250 for a company logo) and designers to come up with the designs, including revisions, for clients, with the chance of getting paid.  It is speculative work, almost at its worst.

Why is this such a big deal?

Design, unlike other industries is unique in that the intellectual property is put into your deliverable, and when the client asks for you everything you have to put into the project to think about purchasing.  I am a designer and this is by far the easiest way to end a friendship with me (asking me or someone else).

It is a major ethical flaw of both parties.

Let me say that again, a major ethical flaw. Some designers I have talked to have escalated this lack of ethics to be on par with some very serious crimes, while other see it as dumping oil down a rain drain.  A lot of people don’t take this lightly at all.

The AIGA puts it this way:

AIGA believes that doing speculative work seriously compromises the quality of work that clients are entitled to and also violates a tacit, long-standing ethical standard in the communication design profession worldwide. AIGA strongly discourages the practice of requesting that design work be produced and submitted on a speculative basis in order to be considered for acceptance on a project.

Rafe Needleman calls this process weasel economics.

Don’t Support It

If you see spec work happening, put an end to it, it is not the ethical thing to do. It is that simple.  Don’t be a weasel.  If someone views your ethics being this bad, they will start to actively not promote your company.  “Did you hear that CrowdSpring sucks?” etc.  Saving $2000 on your logo could cost your company a whole lot more.

But, Hey, They Can’t Be That Bad, Right?

I am fully in support of smart teams bringing disruptive practices to new markets.

Here is a response I got on twitter from the team at CrowdSpring:

Not understanding the difference between custom speculative work and selling art backs up my first thought that there is a major ethical vacuum and lack of understanding around design at CrowdSpring.

Going head to head and undermining/ underbidding an entire profession is not something to be done unless you can carry the torch for the industry in the name of good (INGdirect comes to mind).

Is There a Grey Area?

Yes, but very few. Volunteering. I do a lot of volunteer jobs that can be viewed as spec work. As a general rule I only volunteer for non profits that don’t have the energy/ time to look for a designer for a project.  I also see some grey when it comes to community contests where a professional designer is hired to take the winner and develop it to the final.

Early on in the discussion on twitter, this question was posed.

Bandwagon fallacies don’t work for a lot of things, including this.   If you are talking aboutThreadLess, they have done a very good job a) paying their designers fair market value b) involving a community in the beauty of design that traditionally would have been left out and c) making clear that the designs are done for the love of design, not for a 3rd party to profit off of.

What Is the End Game

This is a question I often ask, in 10 years, if this becomes the industry standard, what will you have.  The answer is not more happy designers, or clients.  Design as a whole will be lesser if this model is used, and that will be a real shame.

Closure

In the end this is a classic example of a problem out there with someone solving it in the wrong way.  If the problem is clients having a hard time connecting with designers (who may be just beginning and need to build portfolios), then make a site where designers can build their portfolios working on volunteer projects and showcasing their work to quality companies looking for great design.

From my short interaction with the team, I would put in a vote of no confidence that they will do the right thing.