As much as the internet has fueled innovation through the free exchange of ideas and collaboration with anyone across the globe, are we also remaking a market economy that only benefits those on top who control the mass lines of distribution? Wired considers the pitfalls of crowdsourcing – a phenomenon once heralded for its ability to disrupt the traditional model of business by leveling the playing field for experts and amateurs alike – as more and more companies leverage its potential to their advantage which turns out, might not be beneficial for everyone involved.
Witness the upheaval afflicting the design industry, sparked by the rise of so-called “spec design” sites likecrowdSpring and 99designs. Customers post creative briefs directly to the community, which then competes to create a design that best fits the clients’ needs. A typical “assignment” will draw dozens of submissions. The winner receives a nominal fee (as little as $200), and the client receives a logo or website design at a fraction of what a professional agency might charge. The losers get zip, which goes a long way to explaining why working on spec (”on speculation,” or without guarantee of payment) has always been considered the work of last resort for writers, designers and other creative professionals.
Of course, this methodology doesn’t come without its risks – results are not always immediate and quality is variable – but as the economy continues to falter, companies can afford to be more patient and accepting of the realities that come with doing “more with less.” Despite a backlash from the larger community – going so far as to create the website No!Spec to explain to colleagues and clients why this rationale behind this model is flawed – the hired gun mentality will thrive so long as there are individuals who fail to pick a side.
If crowdsourcing isn’t going anywhere, how do we live within its parameters while still acknowledging the fact that everyone needs to eat? Recognizing the inherent value in the work we do and setting reasonable limits on what we’re willing to accept for it is probably a good place to start. And utilizing the web’s connectivity – the very thing that got us here in the first place – to discuss these same issues with people of every stripe to reach something that approaches common ground wouldn’t hurt either.
As always, we’d appreciate feedback from our readers. What do you think?
[image via onedegree]
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
I totally understand the reason why spec work hurts the industry, the talent involved, and the actual company, but at the same token I believe crowdsourcing became popular for a number of reasons: 1) agencies have been screwing and over charging clients for way too long, 2) the accessibility of media tools to the public allowing for artists to emerge, 3) ad/design schools charge too much and people are wising up and taking the DIY route while saving tens of thousands of dollars for a portfolio. I for one have spent thousands on a portfolio and find myself unemployed with a book going stale, so I keep cranking out the spec work in hopes of keeping my book fresh, the prospect of future work, and who knows, I might get something published like I have from current.tv. Either way, I find it somewhat humorous that No-spec is doing exactly what it advocates against. Getting people to create spec work for them.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Yesenia. Well said. There are a number of ad agencies which should be hung out to dry on the sorts of costs they put forward to clients. We now have started being asked what we think of costs put forward by agencies and feel in alot of cases they cannot be justified. However, I do agree with the sentiment of the crowdsourcing piece. Its always been about the fact that there will always be one shining piece of work that comes through which clients can then pay no money for. However, if they don’t want to pay decent money (not astronomical, but a good honest level) then they are not going to get decent products/ideas at the end of it.
I believe crowdsourcing certainly has a really strong place in culture and could get even stronger, but clients should use it as an option rather than relying heavily on it. Of course in some cases such as Dell Ideastorm and Starbucks, its been a reasonable success.
I hadn’t heard of No-Spec but also find it quite amusing too.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Hi Scott and thanks for the thoughtful post. The specwork debate rages on, and proponents from both sides of the argument make their points, but at the end of the day the Internet-enabled disintermediation of industries will continue. New models like crowdSPRING will join the traditional models and buyers and providers of services will choose to work in the model that they are comfortable with, that provides them the opportunity they seek, and that allows them to extract the value that is of importance to them.
At crowdSPRING, we recognize that, quite simply, we are not the solution for every buyer of creative services, nor for every provider of creative services. But, we have built a community of over 17,000 creatives in a short 10 months and we will continue to advocate for their right to learn, to compete, and to work in the manner that they choose.
We firmly believe that we will never replace the traditional agency/creative shop model, but rather that we enhance it by bringing buyers to the market whose choices (and budgets) were limited. A buyer who can only afford $400 for their logo, or $1,000 for their web design has never been particularly well-served in the creative industry and companies like ours offer options that did not exist before.
So, thanks again for the post and if you will be at SXSWi please stop by our panel where we will be debating the issue with some wonderful participants: “Is Spec Work Evil? The Online Creative Community Speaks” http://sxsw.com/interactive/talks/panels?action=show&id=IAP0900690
Best regards,
Mike Samson
co-Founder
http://www.crowdspring.com/
March 12th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I think crowdsourcing is here for now, but will be replaced with something a bit more “fair trade”. I use it to find great talent, then engage with the designer personally on subsequent projects for a good wage (ok, a win-fall in their countries).
I detailed one experience specing work at http://www.emarketingmatador.com/design-well-fast-cheap, showing small business how they can do it right too.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Hey Scott,
Interesting post…and the debate rages on! Its going to be very interesting to see how much longer it takes for crowdsourcing platforms to really take off – crowdSPRING and others are just the beginning I think – and although I understand and sympathize to a certain extent with the no-spec movement I really do believe they are fighting a loosing battle and would be better serving themselves by thinking of ways to run with the times and carve themselves a new space. Like Mike Samson pointed out above crowdsourcing will never replace the traditional agency model, it might change it slightly but it wont replace it.
The way I see it two of the biggest problems that crowdsourcing presents is (A) putting in work for something you might not get paid for and (B) risking loosing your intellectual property. I represent http://www.ideabounty.com where we dont ask for finished work but merely the idea. We have had global brands (BMW, Levis and currently Red Bull) hosting briefs on the platform. These briefs ask for an idea alone, not a finished logo, site or bit of design. This takes away problem (A) – just to give you an example, the $3000 bounty paid out for the best answer to the Levis brief (the brands themselves choose the idea they like most) was awarded to a girl who spent a total of 1 hour on her submission – that is hardly putting allot of work into something that you might not get paid for. Then in an effort to tackle problem (B) Idea Bounty has worked very hard at providing a platform that registers your ideas as your personal intellectual property as soon as you submit and idea, this means that even if you dont have your idea selected by the brand, legally the idea remains yours.
I fear iv rambled on for a but too long but in short I believe crowdsourcing is here to stay in its many different forms, and ultimately I believe it has more pros than cons. Thanks again for the post, and if anyone would like more info on Idea Bounty please shout!
Dan
Idea Bounty
March 20th, 2009 at 6:32 am
I think crowdsourcing may offer some advantages to small businesses, but it is definitely a losing proposition for designers wanting to make a living. Consider: if a design contest offers 200 bucks for a logo, and receives 200 entries (not uncommon, from what I’ve seen), the designer’s odds of actually being compensated for his work is 1 in 200. That means he has to do 200 spec jobs to be assured of getting paid 200 bucks. Even if each logo only takes an hour (a very modest estimate), he is not exactly getting rich the fast way. He’d be better off pushing a broom.
The business owner makes out ok…provided that the winning design was not pilfered from another designer or stock agency (not unheard of, sadly). But I think in the long run the contests will only attract amateurs, since experienced pros are likely to seek more rewarding work. Like janitorial service.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pm