Join 3,553 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Crudsourcing
February 4, 2009 4:16 PM   Subscribe

Forbes magazine runs an article promoting Crowdspring, the "design crowdsourcing" website, and calls professional design "snooty". Professional designers go absolutely crazy.
posted by WPW (109 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite

 
"Now that I bought Adobe Suite, I'm a graphic designer!"

"Now that I bought this scalpel set, I'm a surgeon!"
posted by cthuljew at 4:28 PM on February 4, 2009 [5 favorites]


Previous spec work discussion on MeFi.
posted by pineapple at 4:30 PM on February 4, 2009


"LOOK I HAVE BUSINESS CARDS AND A WEBSITE. IT TOOK ME THREE DAYS TO MAKE THIS WORDPRESS THEME, FORBES"
posted by boo_radley at 4:31 PM on February 4, 2009


Pretty much going to be this conversation all over again, isn't it?
posted by nanojath at 4:31 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Those are some pretty good designs, surprisingly.
posted by empath at 4:31 PM on February 4, 2009


Pretty much going to be pineapples comment all over again...
posted by nanojath at 4:31 PM on February 4, 2009


NB don't miss the comments on the Forbes story.
posted by WPW at 4:31 PM on February 4, 2009


There are already sites that do this and 99% of the work is utter shit, so fuck 'em, I hope they enjoy it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:33 PM on February 4, 2009


CHICKENS ARE NOT VEGETARIANS. A professional designer would know that. Also, chickens are delicious.
posted by fleetmouse at 4:37 PM on February 4, 2009 [6 favorites]


> Those are some pretty good designs, surprisingly.

If you're going to make a profit designing websites for $100/pop, you're not going to come up with those designs yourself, are you?
posted by ardgedee at 4:37 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Ironically, the No!Spec website is fucking hideous.
posted by empath at 4:37 PM on February 4, 2009 [4 favorites]


Low barrier to entry + highly trained professionals = bitching

This is like the design equivalent of photographers who complain about companies getting images from the unwashed masses with Flickr accounts. If your business is threatened by a bunch of amateurs who are willing to work for free/nothing then either your work or your client base sucks.
posted by bradbane at 4:37 PM on February 4, 2009 [16 favorites]


A friend of mine actually sold an image from Flickr to a nature magazine without even trying, they just asked him out of the blue. He didn't get paid much, but he got a 2 page spread out of it. I'm curious what that's doing to 'real' freelancers.
posted by empath at 4:40 PM on February 4, 2009


lmao jesus christ

this is worth 200 dollars if they are zimbabwean dollars

welp i got a square and some franklin gothic or some shit better call it a day

the next guy who puts a roof silhouette in his housing company spec logo gets cockpunched i swear to god
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:43 PM on February 4, 2009 [7 favorites]


I mentioned that my frozen dinner was actually pretty tasty. Professional chefs went absolutely crazy.
posted by jonmc at 4:44 PM on February 4, 2009 [3 favorites]


ok this is the funniest one on the site; i think i just had a stroke
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:49 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


I wonder how the "reporter" would feel about the same concept targeted toward writers and journalists. (from the "designers" link)

She hasn't really been paying attention has she? Writer's have been feeling that bite for years already.

My feeling is that this doesn't really change anything. Large companies aren't going to buy a $100 logo for their new product and small mom and pop companies aren't going to spend $10,000 for an ad they're going to run in the local paper. Customers who want quality and experience will pay for it.
posted by doctor_negative at 4:50 PM on February 4, 2009 [3 favorites]


This post is the last time I request absolute craze on spec. I feel cheated.
posted by butterstick at 4:51 PM on February 4, 2009


This is actually a fantastic idea. Now we can Crowdspring our lives: put out open calls to doctors, lawyers, auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, housekeepers, psychotherapists, and gardeners to do "spec work" and, after profound comparison of the performed services, choose what we like best and pay the winners about 1/5th of their regular billings.
posted by terranova at 4:53 PM on February 4, 2009 [3 favorites]


Interesting what happens when people will do your work for free, demand falls with greater supply. True the quality of work really falls off a cliff, and a bad logo could steer away clients. But on the other hand I would argue the quality of a product (take VW) will embed an average logo with some mystic. And a great logo cannot hide a crappy product.
posted by uni verse at 4:53 PM on February 4, 2009


It seems to me that, as I'm sure is true of any industry, there is a range of jobs, and a range of people who can do those jobs.

If you've got a limited number of people where hopefully the best rise to the top, you'll be paying over the odds for simple jobs, but probably under the odds for the really finicky jobs.

If instead you've got a large number of people with a wide range of abilities, you'll get a fantastic price for the simple jobs, but the high-end jobs will become much more expensive as the super-experts lose work.


I like the idea that untapped potential is being given a stage by sites like this, but on the other hand they also produce a huge amount of wasted effort. It seems like a great idea on the surface, but then that's true of a great many bad ideas.

I'd have to learn more before I could honestly hold an opinion on this.
posted by lucidium at 4:56 PM on February 4, 2009


I can see why professional designers might be offended by Forbes' comment. Then again I assume that their magazine's design is handled by professionals*, so take it with a grain of salt. Then again, I can also understand why somebody starting a business with limited funds, might think, 'hey, maybe I'll give this crowdspring thing a try.'

*Then again, it is Forbes. They have enough money to engineer designing bacteria.
posted by jonmc at 4:56 PM on February 4, 2009


Expertise is inherently undemocratic. It chafes two certain sorts of people.

For the first sort, the death of the expert is a belief which is the natural outgrowth of decades of children who have been taught that they can do anything, that they get an A for effort, and that they're special, unique snowflakes. For the second sort, they would like everyone else to believe in the death of the expert, and so thoroughly that they'll muddle through the submissions of the first, and not have to pay squat to other people, that is, those with actual training and talent.
posted by adipocere at 4:58 PM on February 4, 2009 [4 favorites]


This is actually a fantastic idea. Now we can Crowdspring our lives: put out open calls to doctors, lawyers, auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, housekeepers, psychotherapists, and gardeners to do "spec work" and, after profound comparison of the performed services, choose what we like best and pay the winners about 1/5th of their regular billings.

Ok first --- Doctor's, lawyers, really?

Second -- if you don't like it, don't do it.

But for the prices they're offering, those are surprisingly good designs. My ex-gf is a really talented graphic designer, going to a prestige art school now, and the best of those designs are roughly as good as the kinds of things she was doing when she was first getting started, and not able to find work AT ALL. I mean, she living off of ramen and doing rave flyers for $50 a pop and spending HOURS on them. Getting paid $300 for knocking out a design like that would have been a godsend for her.

I mean, obviously, don't launch a multimillion dollar product without a real design team, but for a mom-and-pop joint that just needs something to put on an ad? I could think of worse uses for $300.
posted by empath at 5:00 PM on February 4, 2009 [2 favorites]


Professional designers should form a collective online of at least 25 people and then en masse submit at least 25 shitty images to every contract. Then when the buyer is forced to pay due to the number of entries., take the award and split it among the members of the collective.

Work per designer? 10 minutes or less.
Reward per designer? $10 or so, on average.

Reward to the forced buyer? A lesson: spec work gets you shitty results.
posted by barnacles at 5:00 PM on February 4, 2009 [4 favorites]


i think the line between amateur and professional design isn't that important to the majority of people and small businesses who commission it, especially when it's work in digital media where the tools can be had for free and a lot of knowledge can be gained by training 'out in the wild'. you only have to look at the design services on offer by businesses like kinkos to realise that people will settle for reshuffled clipart. snootiness in this sense is the inability to recognise that crud will do.

i'm not saying that there isn't a lot of know how and painstakingly gained knowledge about technicalities, composition and just plain effective meaningfulness/awesomeness, only that the first chunk of knowledge is likely to be worth the most, with each succesive chunk being harder and harder to explicitly quantify and sell.

crowdsourcing only accelerates what seems to be an inevitability - the levelling off of amateur creativity at the upper limit of mass indifference.
posted by doobiedoo at 5:01 PM on February 4, 2009 [4 favorites]


Shouldn't the work stand on it's own merits? Not on the reputation or experience of the designer.
posted by vapidave at 5:04 PM on February 4, 2009


Reward to the forced buyer? A lesson: spec work gets you shitty results.

Would that be the lesson? The lesson I'd learn is that professional graphic designers are assholes.
posted by empath at 5:06 PM on February 4, 2009 [11 favorites]


put another way, i bet a lot of people who pay reasonably for good designers will also be satisfied with paying less for ok - sub-ok design.
posted by doobiedoo at 5:09 PM on February 4, 2009


Welcome to the 21st century.

American automotive manufacturers get laid off because the price/quality ratio on cars made in Seoul and Shenzhen is better than Detroit.

Travel agencies get wiped out because it's easy to click "Book this Reservation" on a website.

Terrestrial radio is relegated to talking head idiocy because I have a week's worth of music in my phone.

Newspapers dry up because of Craigslist, Youtube, Flickr, Twitter, and Movable Type.

Noncompliant HTML creators get relegated to accounts payable-esque levels of competence because of Dreamweaver.

For every person who thinks, "Lucent paid how much for that?" there are going to be ten thousand businesses who pay $100 for their logo. Raise your level of service, provide personal attention to your client, and carve out your niche. Welcome to the 21st century.
posted by mark242 at 5:10 PM on February 4, 2009 [4 favorites]


This is fantastic for serious designers, every time a crap client comes along who wants a complete identity package plus ecommerce website for under $500, they can be sent right there.

Wheat from chaff, baby.
posted by device55 at 5:11 PM on February 4, 2009 [6 favorites]


That was some of the most mellow form of "absolutely crazy" I've ever read. Maybe they're annoyed, peeved, or ticked off, but there were no calls for boycotting Forbes, protesting in the streets, or even cockpunching.

You bring the story, we'll bring the outrage.

I'll agree with empath - it could be great for some, and maybe some companies will be happy with the discount work they get. But as most of the linked blogs point out, when you hire a design company, you should get what you need, which may not be what you thought you wanted.

And how the deuce does paying an amateur / beginner designer for a logo like hiring a doctor from a line-up? In the end, design is fluffy stuff. Sure, good design will sell a product, engage the viewer, etc., but there is no comparison to creating a logo and creating a stable house. Art is subjective, the laws of gravity (and local building codes) are not.
posted by filthy light thief at 5:13 PM on February 4, 2009


Next up, Realtors bitch about FSBO. Thanks, By Owner!
posted by fixedgear at 5:13 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Most people who BUY content have NO FUCKING CLUE about quality. In fact, let's expand that to a much broader statement—Most people have NO FUCKING CLUE about quality outside of their narrow niches.

Like, for example, I had some buddies who wanted me to build them a website and then write for it. The writing part, sure, yeah, no problem. The design? Uh, I fucking cobbled together a handful of wordpress bullshit, spent WAY too long making a vector logo in Illustrator (seriously, what took me five days worth of hard work should have taken a real designer half a day, maybe longer if he was truly baked out of his gourd). It's mostly plain, white, etc. They still use it, and paid me $200. As a website, it's barely functional and has all sorts of retarded cruft that, were I still close enough to be involved daily, I'd work hard on removing. But basically, they didn't pay a professional and they didn't get a professional job. Even after I told them they'd be better off with a professional, and hey, I know a bunch of guys who can knock this shit out quickly and easily. But the quotes were too high for their start-up, even though, once everything was figured, they ended up paying me about the same amount (maybe a little less) for something that took longer and looked worse. But they thought that they were saving money.

I see this all the fucking time in Craigslist, where people want spec writing and then accept shit because they don't know any better. I just applied for a job where the ad stressed that these folks all knew their grammar so I better come correct as an editor, and they'd misused "too" three times in the ad.

Look, design (like writing) is ubiquitous, and most of it is terrible. Photography too. But a large part of why I can recognize terrible journalism is because I'm a trained journalist. I know just enough about design to pick out really rank shit, and enjoy really great shit, but I simply do not have the level of training required to understand how to turn mediocre stuff into great stuff. It takes work and study to do that. But it's rare to find folks who have worked hard and studied and who are also the ones doing the buying. And without that, there's no reward for the work and study beyond the edification of knowing you're doing a good job.
posted by klangklangston at 5:16 PM on February 4, 2009 [13 favorites]


Nope, not snooty at all.
posted by grobstein at 5:31 PM on February 4, 2009


I wish designers wouldn't get so uppity about this. Most medium to large companies, or companies with certain culture, will never use these sites not because of the quality of work, but because their competition could sniff them out. If you're Motorola, you gonna put up a creative brief about your new Nokia-killing phone? Those contracts are generally where the money is.

When a company is launching a new brand, the agency rule of thumb is that you SAY NOTHING outside the agency walls. Confidentiality is some serious shiznit. You can't get away with that using these sites. You get the best work from detailed briefs that offer a lot of information about the goals and weaknesses of what you're planning to sell with the design work as well as full info on the product vs the competition.

I can see where after years of study, servitude as a junior and facing layoffs in one's industry, a designer could fly off the handle when someone shoves a "ALL YOUR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION IS WORTH NOTHING TO ME" type of bid in their face, it must really sting.
posted by Salmonberry at 5:37 PM on February 4, 2009


I wonder how the "reporter" would feel about the same concept targeted toward writers and journalists.

As technological advancements increasingly blur the differences between amateurs and professionals, many occupations will feel this same pain. Average Joe and Jane are now photographers, designers, editors, and writers. Are professionals in these disciplines losing work? Absolutely. Are fees in freefall? That, too.

Years ago, $1/word was pretty average for freelance magazine pay; a 1000 word article for Medium-Size Mag would earn the writer a grand. Print magazines are in their death throes now and the online market pays abysmally or not at all. Visit eLance to find writers bidding $50 to write 1000 words of content. Eventually, there may be "contests" for articles. Maybe even at Crowdspring.

It's all scary imaginings. But there's strong evidence this is the direction we're heading.
posted by terranova at 5:40 PM on February 4, 2009 [2 favorites]


People get what they pay for, generally. I think the end result will be that far more small companies hire cheap designers through sites like this, lots of people get more experience than they would have otherwise, and the design industry as a whole will grow a lot.

You can see the same thing in the translation industry, which hit this same kind of thing about eight years ago. Coincidentally, about six years ago is when I switched industries from software to translation -- I have education in translation, OK, but before it all went digital it just didn't work out. Now, it works great. This kind of site (well, not exactly, but a bidding site for translation work) made it possible for me to build a business that paid me $150K last year, from scratch, with a total investment of about, oh, $1000 over that time, for specialized software.

Design will go the same route. Heck, job-shop programming is going that route now (I've been getting back into it lately). Eventually everything will.
posted by Michael Roberts at 5:52 PM on February 4, 2009


Can we just agree that horrible amateurish graphic design, and terrified "professionals" freaking out in comment form are equally hilarious?
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 6:10 PM on February 4, 2009 [7 favorites]


posted by Salmonberry I can see where after years of study, servitude as a junior and facing layoffs in one's industry, a designer could fly off the handle when someone shoves a "ALL YOUR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION IS WORTH NOTHING TO ME" type of bid in their face, it must really sting.

Initially, it did. But then I realized the people who approached me with competitive bids from Crowdsourcing weren't interested in my experience and education; they just wanted to art-direct someone who knew how to use Adobe Illustrator, and they hoped I'd lower my prices so they could also get the benefits of the branding and identity experience I was offering as part of my bid. The people who think Crowdsourcing is a viable option either don't understand, don't value, or don't care about the ways in which marketing, identity, and branding can affect their business, and after almost two decades in this business, I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate them or change their minds. I've worked with enough of them to know they're going to be pain-in-the-ass clients, so if they want to use Crowdsourcing, well, good riddance.
posted by mattdidthat at 6:11 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


One problem is that 99% of clients are completely uncapable of judging what's a good logo and what's a crap one. Or a good design for a website, &c.
Design shares much in common with being a preschool teacher, and sometimes you just have to tell Timmy what's good for him, whether he wants it or not.
So I picture a lot of crap logos winning here.
posted by signal at 6:13 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Hmm -- I think I'd be worried about trademark infringement / theft / etc from submitters. I mean, sure that can happen with your employees or with a contracted firm, but in those cases the submitter is more likely to be held accountable. In something like this it seems way too easy for someone to submit something they don't own, and then you use it in your product / site / etc without realizing and get sued.
posted by wildcrdj at 6:20 PM on February 4, 2009


posted by signal I picture a lot of crap logos winning here.

And ultimately, that's going to be good for everyone. The crappy logos and designers will just make the good ones look better.
posted by mattdidthat at 6:24 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wow, did you all miss this from the comments on the article? Crowdspring got its logo from a spec contest at 99designs — which had the same business model in 2006! Assholes!
posted by nicwolff at 6:24 PM on February 4, 2009 [2 favorites]


My ex-gf is a really talented graphic designer, going to a prestige art school now, and the best of those designs are roughly as good as the kinds of things she was doing when she was first getting started, and not able to find work AT ALL. I mean, she living off of ramen and doing rave flyers for $50 a pop and spending HOURS on them. Getting paid $300 for knocking out a design like that would have been a godsend for her.

Best wishes to your ex-girlfriend. But you assume in your premise that she'd win the $300 "prize" from amongst a competitive pool of possibly 100 applicants. That's a 1-in-100 chance. And she'd still spend HOURS [sic] creating her design.

These competitions are a step below spec work, where one is personally invited to submit a contribution, and a step above a lottery.
posted by terranova at 6:33 PM on February 4, 2009 [2 favorites]


....Most people have NO FUCKING CLUE about quality...

So why pay more for what most people have no fucking clue about?

Also still waiting for an answer to my question above.
posted by vapidave at 6:49 PM on February 4, 2009


What ever it is you do for a living? Well. You charge to much for it.

Empath you really think your ex-girl friend is ever gonna establish a career in design if it's a constant race to the bottom where everybody charges less and less? You really think that is gonna give her a career that she can, you know buy a house, have a retirement, afford health care? Places like Crowdsourcing is the career refuge of the desperate and unskilled precisely because people do not value labor.

I tell you what is happening. People scramble and compete to get shit jobs as junior designers and the second they get expensive and need things like health care they are fired in favor of other cheaper junior designers. That is what spec work will do the industry. The five year long career. Crowdsourcing is not sustainable alternative.

I know. I co-own a design firm. I see other design firms and businesses falling all around us. I get hundreds of resumes a month. I'm pretty sure the solution isn't gonna be everybody begging to do spec work.

We deal with mom and pop shops. They are a substantial bulk of our business. We do trade out to meet budget where we can. But a $300 website? You get what you pay for.

Maybe if business can't afford the services of a particular industry that they require services of maybe it's that business that should examine their own pricing structure and business model.

This fucking kills me how stupid people are. People bitch and bitch about how low wages have become. People bitch about how god-damned Wal-mart is putting independent businesses under, or how big book-sellers are killing the independents. One after the other we see the decline of craftsmanship. And the ironic commonality in all of this is this race to the bottom. But when it comes time for them to actually pay for something of value? WAAAAAH! WAAAAAH!

WE don't want to pay for anything. But WE want to be paid. What a moronic value structure.

Somebody in another thread bemoaned the decline of the west and used $300 dollar MP3 players as an example of rampant consumerism. Which is completely backwards. An mp3 player should be $600. The problem is prices do not reflect the true value or real costs of goods and services anymore.

The next time somebody who will only pay spec or use shit like Crowdsourcing for design goes out of business or has their job off-shored... I'm gonna laugh in their face.
posted by tkchrist at 6:51 PM on February 4, 2009 [11 favorites]


So why pay more for what most people have no fucking clue about?

Also still waiting for an answer to my question above.


So. Build me house. If I like it I'll pay for it.
posted by tkchrist at 6:53 PM on February 4, 2009 [2 favorites]


I have used 99designs to get a (good IMO) logo designed.

I'm a sole techie on a budget. I'd love to support local talent, but I don't have the cash to do that. The winner of my competition was a graphic designer who lives in Bali. Based on what I can gather, the value of the prize was worth two week's rent in his part of the world, so the potential value to him was high. The quality of his work was great too, so we both "won." Yes, the variation in the quality of the submissions was large.

I'm somewhat conflicted about using a competition to get that result, but the likelihood that I'd find this guy through other means is low.
posted by lowlife at 6:55 PM on February 4, 2009


I'm a sole techie on a budget.

Yeah. Normally I'd hire a sole techie. But I can go to Bali for that too.
posted by tkchrist at 6:58 PM on February 4, 2009


But I can go to Bali for that too.

Absolutely, and I wouldn't begrudge you for it. If you can get the skills you require from there, why not?

Per my last paragraph, if I could have found this designer easily through other means, I would have. The argument against crowdsourcing and offshoring has more to do with disparity between standards (and costs) of living than much else.
posted by lowlife at 7:03 PM on February 4, 2009


Absolutely, and I wouldn't begrudge you for it. If you can get the skills you require from there, why not?

Because it's promotes a race to the bottom from which there is no end.

I am a business owner. Give me a way to not pay you health care. I'll take it. Give me a way to make you work longer hours for less, I'll take it. Give me a way to pay women less than men, I'll take it. Give me a way to not pay you at ALL, I'll take it. Make it okay to have my work environment less safe? I'll take it if it's cheaper.

This bullshit is exactly what we have been struggling AGAINST for the last 50 years.

That guy in Bali? He deserves health care and decent working and living conditions. The reason you can pay him less is becuase he doesn't have any of that. And becuase he lives in poor country with more people than jobs. And the second he raises his price? FUCK HIM. We hire somebody even cheaper in even WORSE conditions.

Look. I get you are strapped. But you are strapped for cash precisely for the same reasons as you are hireing cheaper labor. Because somebody somewhere doesn't value YOUR labor.

Where does it end?

I ain't harping on you individually, understand. I get your frustration. But this topic comes up all the time here and people need a reality check.

Oh. I know the wonderful powers of the Market. Well. We have all seen how awesome and humane the market is lately, huh. And that ain't nothing. It's gonna get much worse. And trust me the solution isn't to go running to Bali or Crowdsourcing for spec labor.
posted by tkchrist at 7:15 PM on February 4, 2009 [15 favorites]


So why pay more for what most people have no fucking clue about?

Also still waiting for an answer to my question above.

So. Build me house. If I like it I'll pay for it.
posted by tkchrist at 8:53 PM on February 4 [1 favorite +] [!]


Oddly enough, that is what I do for a living. Pepsi Blue house anyone?
posted by vapidave at 7:31 PM on February 4, 2009


Oddly enough, that is what I do for a living. Pepsi Blue house anyone?

I know. And thus your question was answered.
posted by tkchrist at 7:44 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


I suspect the way out of the dilemma tkchrist is describing is to improve standards globally. Although that will probably also mean some decline in current western standards.
Otherwise, you're implicitly stating that a first world worker is worth more than a third world worker, even if they are producing the same work.
I've potentially as much to lose from offshoring as anyone, but I can't see any solution that will work except attempting to raise the bar in the developing world.
posted by bystander at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2009 [2 favorites]


My first reaction as a designer was anger, but then I know the kind of clients who buy this stuff. They're cheap and are near impossible to educate about the value of design. Its about communication with their customers, but the process of getting good design is communication with the client.

Those idiots wasting their time on doing work on spec, and the penny-pinching people who buy that stuff deserve each other. I'm actually happy this site exists, it keep the crappy clients from wasting my time.

I doubt most of the people seeking this stuff will even pay the money, they're more likely to right-click their way to a logo.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 8:08 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Remind me to get a job that requires both intelligence and skilled manual labor.
posted by jellywerker at 8:16 PM on February 4, 2009


Where does it end?

Doesn't it end when everybody in the world has roughly similar standards of living? Which, as somebody said here recently, is probably going to be lower than current Western standards and higher than current $poor_country standards.
posted by jacalata at 8:22 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm for designers and not for this crowd sourcing site thing. It looks like they only give you your money back if you get less than 25 submissions. And most of those submissions look like crap to me. From my experience working with designers, the conversation that one has with a client about look and feel, marketing campaigns, demographics, etc is crucial to turning in a good design. And while I love and am well versed in Illustrator, nothing beats an actual drawing. Pen. Ink. Old School. For someone to simply push around vector shapes and show off their (probably) stolen font collection... it's just absurd.

This site clearly wastes more time than all the CAPTCHAs on the internet. 25 designs must be submitted, which means at least 24 losers for each project.

And it appears that the reporter for Forbes did NOT return many calls before denouncing a lot of talented people as 'Snooty'. Fuck Forbes for that.

Something relevant here I saw on the Journalista comics blog, which quoted Stephen Worth:

“The worst thing you can do is to tell old fashioned, hackneyed stories using the reduced skill levels and slack techniques of today. It’s much better to use the powerful techniques of the past to recapture a classic level of skill, and use that skill to tell honest stories that are relevant to modern audiences.”

I think you are all smart enough to understand my point here. Crowdsourcing does not encourage a classic level of skill. It simply screws over 24 out of 25 (at minimum) desperate wanna be designers.
posted by Catblack at 8:33 PM on February 4, 2009


Oh, and FUCK SPEC WORK!
posted by Catblack at 8:33 PM on February 4, 2009 [2 favorites]


Which, as somebody said here recently, is probably going to be lower than current Western standards and higher than current $poor_country standards.

Given how wealth is concentrated, not much higher.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:11 PM on February 4, 2009


I have a question: when does speculative work become offensive? Is it when you offer cash incentives to the winner?

Because if we're just arguing about soliciting unpaid labor, doesn't that make open source artwork equally outrageous?

Also, why does it seem like all graphic designers do is Logo design?
posted by pwnguin at 9:20 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Been there, done that (on both sides of the issue). I agree that a majority of professional designers/design is snotty. And before I forget: FUCK SPEC WORK.

When I was living in Mexico, I was working a day job and freelancing as a "professional" designer, with an informal team of very talented designers, illustrators, typographers and technical people. Many times we would be approached by a potential client, then rejected when they saw the cost of a nice "corporate image" package or website. They would go to any of these cheap websites and get their stuff done for a tiny fraction of what we were charging. I hated these cheap "designers". My rent for a 2 bedroom apartment, plus utilities and cable internet, was about $400 USD, and some onths I could not pay it.

I ended up doing a bunch of $100 and $200 business cards, logos and flash animations, through websites similar to the one on this post. They would take me about 2 hours each. Get your rent taken care of before Monday's lunch? Why not?

I am not proud of any of the cheap work, except a logo that was basically a rehash of a 40 hour logo that a client had rejected, resold for $150. I think many of the "professional" designers would be surprised if they tried to make a $100 logo. It is fun and not easy at all.

I think these unprofessional designers end up helping the design community. As I mentioned elsewhere, we would call the people who had rejected us 3 to 6 months down the line and ask "How is your website/logo/billboard/cd-rom working out?". "It is a fucking piece of shit" is a representative answer. We would offer our services again, and we got hired often enough that we were always busy.

As I see it, when these people had first approached us, they had no taste, no idea of what design is or is meant to be, no idea of what a good design can do for your business and how a bad design can fuck you up. They saw design as an expense and not as an investment. They lacked a design education. For $100, they got one.

It is always a pleasure to work for a client that KNOWS bad design, it is easier to show them what good design is.
posted by dirty lies at 9:22 PM on February 4, 2009 [4 favorites]


Where does it end?

When we all get jobs as hairdressers.
posted by Ritchie at 9:26 PM on February 4, 2009


Also, why does it seem like all graphic designers do is Logo design?
posted by pwnguin at 9:20 PM on February 4


It's just the most visible, obvious part of design work. I've probably designed thirty logos for paying clients over the last five years, and about a billion pieces of promotional material. The designers who only do logos basically don't actually exist.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:37 PM on February 4, 2009


I'm pretty much with dirty lies on this one.

I've been a (mostly web, but some print) designer for 13 years now. I started in high school, simply out of technical know-how, basically "oooh.. yeah, you forgot to put border=0 on that image there...." and the like.

Back at that age, and at that time, I cut my teeth on doing shit work for shit clients. People who had next to no money, cared very little about quality, and just "wanted the damn thing done!". Sure, I was also lucky in that back in 1996, there wasn't a whole lot of design in web design (seen Apple's website at that time?).

Fast forward to now, as a freelancer in his early 30s, over 90% of my work is redesigns. Clients come to me with a broken website. Often, it starts with "well... there's this weird issue on just this one page...." and once I take a look, I realize the whole site is a house of cards, and while I could just fix that one problem and be done with it, I let them know in great detail just what kind of trouble they're in for in the future, if I changed nothing else.

After doing the small job, usually very quickly - that their AWOL or clueless "web designer" was hounded about for 8+ months and never got around to / didn't know how to fix - they'll come back to me a few months down the line. Another "tiny little thing". They see that I was right about the house of cards. They're ready to fix it. I sit down, and layout a plan for fixing their site, redesigning it, finally adding all those features they wanted, etc. At that point, they're ready to pay Big Designer prices, often with a retainer fee for monthly tech support / updates / minor fixes / minor additions.

From there, it snowballs into their colleagues coming to me as a referral and... bla bla on down the line.

The fact of the matter is that the people doing the spec work CAN'T charge more than the "prize money" they get if their work gets accepted. They're just not at that skill level. And, frankly, I welcome sites like these because they just create more informed future clients. You're only gonna trust a crowd of half-wits (technically speaking) for so long before you realize the adage about "flingin' enough shit, something's bound to stick!" is pretty much what you're getting.

In the meantime, these crowdsourced designers will go one of three routes :

1. They'll continue to pump out shitty work for pennies on the dollar.
2. They'll learn, and grow, and someday figure out enough about the trade to land REAL clients and produce quality work.
3. They'll get frustrated and realize they don't have the chops to make it, and just move on to their next mediocrity.

Yeah, go and get the guy in Bali to make you a logo. But, does he have a phone you're not paying international rates to call? Does he speak English well enough for you to communicate that you need that logo in EPS, AI, PNG, JPG, GIF and TIF format? That you need the logo to fit a specific color space for an upcoming brochure? Will he even know to tell you which of the graphic formats should be used when putting that logo to use? Or, will he help you explain to another barely-proficient designer how to always get that logo crisp and clean at any size in Photoshop? (*free bonus tip* : smart objects. Learn 'em. Love 'em).

Mediocrity doesn't scare me. If I can't compete with that? Psh. Time to give up.
posted by revmitcz at 9:59 PM on February 4, 2009 [7 favorites]


"Now that I bought Adobe Suite, I'm a graphic designer!"

"Now that I bought this scalpel set, I'm a surgeon!"
Huh? First of all any self-respecting hack would pirate Creative Suite. Secondly you can't accidentally kill someone with an ugly website.
Ironically, the No!Spec website is fucking hideous.
Hah!
Most people who BUY content have NO FUCKING CLUE about quality.
Exactly. They don't give a fuck, why should they pay for it? Would you complain about a deaf person who drove a car with a shitty sound system? Would you complain about a blind person who still doesn't have an HDTV?
Wow, did you all miss this from the comments on the article? Crowdspring got its logo from a spec contest at 99designs — which had the same business model in 2006! Assholes!
So they practice what they preach? How does that make them assholes?
Yeah, go and get the guy in Bali to make you a logo…

Mediocrity doesn't scare me. If I can't compete with that? Psh. Time to give up.
Uh, living in another country doesn't make you stupid (or unable to use skype)
posted by delmoi at 10:34 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Uh, living in another country doesn't make you stupid (or unable to use skype)

Heh. I never said anything about intelligence or stupidity. Hell, the guy could be a fuckin' genius for all I know. I don't discount that possibility.

The chances of him having a professional skill level, 13+ years working knowledge of the field in question, advanced English comprehension/communication skills and being able to output QUALITY work for a mere fraction of what I would charge? Pretty much nihil. If that weren't the case, he'd be charging more - because he could.
posted by revmitcz at 10:44 PM on February 4, 2009


So, nearly 70 comments in, is it the same conversation as this one? Cuz I didn't read the other one.
posted by spicynuts at 10:48 PM on February 4, 2009


What nano said - same convo as last time.

I have a camera - I'm a photographer!
I have an iron pan - I'm a chef!
I have a ruler - I'm an engineer!
I have a software design program - I'm a designer!

Frack off. Learn your craft. Yes, technology has lowered the barrier to entry on the surface, but look at this shite. It's not just some secret society of snootiness that abhors this. There are concepts, there are theories, there are foundations; and like was said upthread, design in a way feels like pre-school. Sometimes you have to tell them why it's bad for them and why they need to do X.

It's really not that different from many other occupations. This one is just more digitally transmittable. The fact that the crowdspring logo came from another spec website is a laugh however.
posted by cavalier at 11:03 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Secondly you can't accidentally kill someone with an ugly website.

Ohhhhhh yes you can...
posted by cavalier at 11:05 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Dang, missed a point:

FUCK SPEC WORK.
posted by cavalier at 11:05 PM on February 4, 2009


Since you cowards don't have the guts to say it, here it goes:

FUCK SPEC WORK.
posted by dirty lies at 11:30 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Software developers were all scared of the programmer in India after all of our jobs, but pretty soon we realized something: about the only ones capable of communicating with a developer across the world and getting good work out of him was to be an experienced software developer yourself. One who has a big package of work to do, and knows how to architect a product so that boilerplate parts can be done by contracted developers.

Hell if you are working on any major development team these days chances are you are already versed at communicating with people who's first language isn't English. Offshore developers are a godsend to other developers, since there's always more work than hours in the day, and a nightmare for clients who try and use them directly.

Designers may not be able to take similar advantage since all their work is on the surface, but if they can it can really change how they get their work done and what they can do for their own clients.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:44 PM on February 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


Secondly you can't accidentally kill someone with an ugly website.

Ohhhhhh yes you can...


I once worked on a startup airline's internal website. Developers almost walked because of the way they wanted to handle the flight data loading report, which traditionally the tossers mark on paper and hand to the pilot, telling the pilot how much weight is estimated to be onboard. No one wanted to be called in front of the FAA if a plane went down due to the web server being hacked... or poor, unclear design. (In the end we got them to do it the old fashioned way and enter the data after the plane had taken off.)

and again
FUCK SPEC WORK
posted by Catblack at 11:47 PM on February 4, 2009


^^ I should add to my above comment "a nightmare for clients who want to use offshoring directly." Wasn't clear.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:52 PM on February 4, 2009


Wikipedia has no entry for spec work. Perhaps one of you angry designers can write one?
posted by ryanrs at 12:20 AM on February 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think this thread has lost focus of its true intent:

linking

to

terrible

designs
posted by shii at 12:28 AM on February 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


As a designer who spends the bulk of his day doing production work, I'm grinning when I read this. You know why? Because I've seen this kind of work before. I see it every day when I process ads that are sent to us from clients.

Maybe it's the ad that was built completely in Photoshop, which is fine because we all know that Photoshop is a fine page layout program, isn't it? Oh, wait, it's not, and your black type is going to convert to 4-color black. Maybe your excellent design is RGB. (And these guys often have the nerve to gripe that "hey, the color changed - this isn't the way I sent it!" when their file has to be converted to CMYK so that it can, you know, print.) Or it's the slick logo that was built in Illustrator, except the guy forgot to convert his type to outlines and didn't include his fonts. Better yet, maybe it's the beautiful piece of artwork that gets sent to us as a JPEG, completely the wrong size and with six point type that knocks out over all four colors, which will just reproduce oh-so-nicely on a web press with 30+% dot gain. It could be the PDF that's been sent that has six spot color plates, including a black spot color plate that all the type happens to be on. Or the ad that's supposed to run as a black+spot, but again, the thing has been built in Photoshop, it's RGB, and there's no telling what the spot color is supposed to be. (Do you have any idea how many different spot reds there are?!?) Then there's the classic Illustrator artwork, with half of the art built with registration black. And of course everyone who builds artwork for a press knows how to color correct a photo so that the dot gain doesn't obliterate it, right?

It doesn't matter if you get the work from a professional designer or a grandma with a bunch of free time and a copy of Adobe Illustrator. Well, actually, it does. If you got that design from a professional designer, I can get your work onto the press so that it prints the way you intended with minimal to no fuss. Otherwise I'm going to be doing what I can to just get it on the press, period. And it's most likely not going to print very well at all. Think the guy who did your stuff on Crowdspring can get you that file revised and sent to us to be processed before my deadline hits? Good luck with that.
posted by azpenguin at 12:50 AM on February 5, 2009 [6 favorites]


azpenguin:

Do you get yelled at a lot? One of the very last projects I did before I called it quits, a store owner DEMANDED that I use a 450x200px JPG of his logo for a 2x.75m banner. He KNEW it would only take TWO OR THREE MOUSE CLICKS, ANYONE CAN DO THAT.

I hated that job.

Another one of our clients had his cheap designer make medicine labels, the kind with lines and lines of 6 point text. He got 70,000 labels in the mail with all his lovely text in 4-color black. The cost of the wasted labels was 2 times the price difference between us (the expensive designers) and the kid he hired.

As I said before, I thank these crowdsourcing dudes for educating our clients and keeping our printing industry busy.
posted by dirty lies at 1:56 AM on February 5, 2009


an earlier poster said it, and i couldn't agree more. this is just a wheat-from-the-chaff issue. your business keeps hiring people on spec, your brand remains inconsistent and confusing, you fail. your business hires someone or an agency with a long-term plan for your visual interaction with the consumer/audience, you have a much better chance for success. fuck spec work, yeah, but let the clowns who think it's the right choice learn the hard way. there are plenty of successful home contractors and plenty of guys who hang out in the home depot parking lot, and that won't change anytime soon either.

so by the way, what do you guys think of this kickass logo? yeah i think it's pretty sweet how she's wearing that illustrative ornament on her head. my wife does that and it looks hot. anyone have $200 they could lend me?
posted by Señor Pantalones at 2:23 AM on February 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


actually...

it would be fun to make a mefi project day of flooding this site with absolutely batshit work and sharing our entries at the end
posted by Señor Pantalones at 2:25 AM on February 5, 2009


This reminds me of the race-to-the-bottom that's currently happening among sex workers as more people these days find themselves without a job, and turn to prostitution to pay the rent.

SPEC FUCK WORK.
posted by explosion at 4:34 AM on February 5, 2009 [2 favorites]


When I see these sites, I initially think "Well, if things get really bad, I suppose I could fill the time and maybe make a couple of quid", but then I see something like this:

"work harder for your $200 dollars you idiot!"

Who would put themselves through this? I'd rather clean toilets or scavenge scrap metal from a landfill site. It would be better paid and less demeaning.
posted by bokeh at 5:11 AM on February 5, 2009


I am loving the nasty submission examples people are digging up. I know very little about design but even I'm laughing at what's being produced.


Photoshop is for suckers, MS Paint comin at ya!
The buyer's comments are priceless.

Oh the green is all right, I'm just suprised you were able to get MS Word to do that.


You have to wonder if some of the contestants are actually taking the piss.

Keep them coming please!
posted by like_neon at 5:33 AM on February 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Forbes magazine runs an article

That's not really an article. More like a small blurb. Which explains the part where the Forbes writer was given the names of lots of designers to talk with but failed to call any of them. He wasn't interested in including their point of view; it's a brief puff piece. Too bad about stringing the designers along, though.
posted by mediareport at 6:13 AM on February 5, 2009


The Tribune Tower competition reference in the article is kind of hilarious. I have no idea if 'architect' was a protected/legal title back then, but you still have hundreds of people working hundreds of hours to produce something that's scrapped, all for the possibility of a fee. And architecture has a long and noble history of unpaid internships (and even interns paying for internships), plus office time being taken up with competitions, putting their overheads and salaries on paid projects taking up less than 100% of office time. Spec work begets more spec work, as well as costing the remaining non-spec clients, and encouraging professions to exploit trainees/interns and limit the members to those who can afford to go through a period of working for free or as good as free.

I guess with graphic design, it's currently worse because there's nothing to stop anyone from calling themselves a graphic designer, no national/international standard to provide a guarantee for the client. Those standards and the training they require put the professional out of the budget of most people and become a luxury rather than an essential service, and it's possibly to the benefit of graphic design that the inherently subjective notion of Good Design isn't imposed and allows for outsider designers to hold a place in it too - people who trained up on gig flyers or graffiti or zines or whatever.

Most people probably won't ever pay for a designer, and a lot of the crowdspring projects look like they're costing nobody business. Small businesses have made their own shitty (and awesome) handwritten notices, catalogue-bought lettering signs, default-type logotypes or print bureau template business cards for years and are more or less doing the same thing here, except it's done by people with aspirations towards/affiliations to professional design. There's bigger companies obviously replacing the professionals, and I am on the No Spec! train there, but I'm also kind of sad that the greengrocer's apple's sign's might dwindle in numbers as a result of this.
posted by carbide at 6:24 AM on February 5, 2009


you know i like graphic design and all but it is at the end of the day a piece of persuasion. you can talk and talk about how important it is to have an identifiable brand, consistent values, expressed in blah blah blah but the appearance of the product or service is a separate matter from the thing itself and i don't think it would be a good world where every product or service no matter how good or bad it is has kick ass graphic design, because wouldn't that be basically a perpetual hallucination or a lie? wouldn't this make graphic designers, as koolhaas says, the ultimate turncoats?

i really don't think graphic design and visual identity etc. etc. works in the same way for mom and pop stores as it does for gigantic multinationals, the two are simply competing in different leagues and appealing through different channels. working out how to project consistent lifestyle image might be paramount to sony because it plays into a world of hyper mediated consumerism that mom and pop have no part of, whether they want to is a separate issue. i have no evidence, but my instinct is that the majority of people are asking graphic design for a passing sense of credibility not an existential alibi.
posted by doobiedoo at 6:28 AM on February 5, 2009 [3 favorites]


i really beg to disagree about architectural spec work. if you complain about wasted time doing a website, visual identity or logo wait till you've wasted time forming an entirely coherent, responsive and practical answer to the client's brief whilst batting away your residual anxiety about cultural commitments, drafted several plans sections perspective axonometrics diagrams etc. etc., made a model, made another model, made a film, printed, burned, couriered etc. etc. for nada.

then you might start wondering if you're in the right business.
posted by doobiedoo at 6:35 AM on February 5, 2009


With all the exposure these sites are getting this week, there's bound to be some fresh out-of-work designers lingering around at rock-bottom... might be a good time to spec your small business identity and website. *wink*
posted by greensweater at 6:38 AM on February 5, 2009


doobiedoo: Was that directed at me? 'Cause I agree with you (however garbled my own comment was) and am approaching it from the same perspective - working in a small office, the cost of a competition or even an awards submission becomes extremely evident.
posted by carbide at 6:53 AM on February 5, 2009


the majority of people are asking graphic design for a passing sense of credibility not an existential alibi

Well said. Despite my vocal opposition to spec work, it's not really a big deal to me. Yes, it demeans the occupation, but any potential client who asks for spec work simply gets told that I don't do that, and I point them toward the fly-by-nightiest 99DOLLARLOGOS.RU I can think of off the top of my head.

That said, I recently transitioned out of doing straight design; perhaps I'm being unfair to the super-talented tablet jockeys out there by just giving up.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:14 AM on February 5, 2009


I'm enjoying a good chuckle over the briefs, too.

I also read that even once you've won the award, you still don't necessarily get paid - it's considered a 'draft' and you should tweak' the design until the client accepts it.

Bloody hell.
posted by spandex at 7:33 AM on February 5, 2009


My mom loves to giggle and undermine my confidence by saying stuff like "so and so had their son do the website for their business, I don't see how you can make any money doing something a high school kid can do" and then inevitably the site being referred to looks like it was designed for free by a high school student.
posted by autodidact at 10:36 AM on February 5, 2009


mediareport, I meant article in the technical sense of "standalone piece of short-form journalism", as opposed to a news story or feature. This is technically an article, even if it is meretricious.
posted by WPW at 10:42 AM on February 5, 2009


Design shares much in common with being a preschool teacher, and sometimes you just have to tell Timmy what's good for him, whether he wants it or not.

I have no idea where some people could get the idea that designers are snobs.
posted by MrBobaFett at 10:51 AM on February 5, 2009


" You have to wonder if some of the contestants are actually taking the piss."

That one was the hands-down best. "Y'know, Florida already looks like a wang, so why don't I add a couple balls…"

There are two other things worth mentioning here—first off is that, like most advertising, good design is a luxury. In fact, much as I'm loathe to admit it, when I'm scouting out ethnic restaurants, I tend to be wary of the ones with clear design principles. Their food is rarely as good as the guys who barely have menus yet manage to use 15 fonts. Terrible design can cost a business money, sure, but great design rarely rewards the type of investment it requires for small businesses.

Second, it's not like top-level designers don't also churn out some rank bullshit. I mean, take a look at the new Pepsi campaign. The regular can is OK, but not great, the nubbly bottles look like uncut cocks, and the logos for Max and Zero are both too clever and fundamentally unattractive. How much did Pepsi spend for that? Likely millions, and it got ass.
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 AM on February 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


Also it seems to me that the word designer has been used rather loosely in this thread. A graphic designer isn't a web designer isn't a scenic designer isn't and interior designer. From the look of it the sight in question does strictly stand alone graphic design, right?
posted by MrBobaFett at 11:51 AM on February 5, 2009


From the look of it the sight in question does strictly stand alone graphic design, right?

All the sound designers in the house say "Nooooo shiiiiiit."



"NOOOOO SHIIIITTTT!!!!"
posted by 5imian at 12:36 PM on February 5, 2009


Noooo shiiiiit?
posted by MrBobaFett at 12:45 PM on February 5, 2009


I'm currently working with an illustrator to design a logo for my own company. The estimate was $800, but it might go over $1000. I'd rather hire him as an experienced commercial graphic designer than to hire a hobbyist for 1/10 the price. The difference is very obvious even by looking through portfolios.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:51 PM on February 5, 2009


So, why is there outrage in the design community over things like spec work, yet sites like TopCoder, GetACoder.com, and Rent A Coder are generally accepted by the engineering community?

In both cases, you generally get a ton of crap submitted, but obviously both the submitters and the clients are getting some value for it, or they wouldn't keep returning.

Coming from a engineering/programming perspective, we've got the same issues as in the design community. Some clients don't understand the difficulty of good engineering, there's a perceived race to the bottom, etc.

But the thing is, clients and companies who want quality work still hire talented superstar programmers. And companies who want cheap work? Well, let them hire cheap programmers. The bad programmers get some money for rent, the companies get some cheap code. If the code is really that atrocious, they'll got out of business. Smart companies can monitor the spec work sites and grab designers/programmers who rise to the top. I've heard Google looks highly upon candidates who have placed highly on TopCoder.
posted by formless at 1:11 PM on February 5, 2009


Noooo shiiiiit?

As in , you're completely right.
posted by 5imian at 1:26 PM on February 5, 2009


So, why is there outrage in the design community over things like spec work, yet sites like TopCoder, GetACoder.com, and Rent A Coder are generally accepted by the engineering community?
Programming work is generally binary. From a client's perspective, the thing needing to be coded either works, or it doesn't. There's not a lot of grey area. There's no opinions involved. "When I press this button, does it save the form?".

That isn't to say that a GREAT programmer is no better than a decent programmer - and, like many other skills, you definitely get what you pay for. Does a client care if the code is 40 lines vs. 340 lines? Not likely. They only care if it works.

Now, a really good programmer will do it faster, more secure, with less code, and produce fewer (if any) errors (or they'll put in some actual error checking). A GREAT programmer will do all of that plus write the code to be extensible and make it execute as fast as possible.

To draw a parellel with the design world, there's a number of services that will convert your PSD/mockup to valid XHTML for a nominal fee. Sure, that fee is about 1/20th what any web designer would charge to make a website, but I've never heard a designer bitch about these services, nor would I, because they're providing a service with a solid "it works or it doesn't" output.
posted by revmitcz at 1:54 PM on February 5, 2009


So, why is there outrage in the design community over things like spec work, yet sites like TopCoder, GetACoder.com, and Rent A Coder are generally accepted by the engineering community?

A professor once told me "Engineering is design with constraints." I imagine they're coming from the world of architecture, where architects and architectural engineers conflict over aesthetics and gravity.

Topcoder has the advantage of objective metrics. You write a program that meets their testing regime in order to win contests. Rent-a-coder works on a bidding process, while spec work has no contracts. But still, rent-a-coder does garnish some malaise, surprisingly directed not at companies, but the people who bid. People post requests to solve the Turing Problem for 200 dollars just to laugh at the people who offer their services.
posted by pwnguin at 1:57 PM on February 5, 2009


pwnguin: A professor once told me "Engineering is design with constraints."

That's interesting. At the moment the porosity of the boundary between art and (furniture and product) design is a matter of some debate, and one of the most commonly accepted distinctions is "design has constraints, art does not". Functionality is also used as a boundary marker.
posted by WPW at 2:43 PM on February 5, 2009


I hope the designer in Bali laid down $1,500 USD for Adobe Creative Suite like I did... If they are using freeware, more power to them but I have seen enough pirated Adobe products around the world to know that many offshore 'designers' aren't paying for their tools.
posted by Bunglegirl at 4:18 PM on February 5, 2009


5imian: "Noooo shiiiiit?

As in , you're completely right.
"

I'm a sound designer, so I was just doing what you said. ;)
posted by MrBobaFett at 4:20 PM on February 5, 2009



5imian: "Noooo shiiiiit?

As in , you're completely right."

I'm a sound designer, so I was just doing what you said. ;)


lol, no shit!
posted by 5imian at 5:31 PM on February 5, 2009


« Older Digital Research Tools (DiRT) is a wiki created by...  |  Police do it to the British p... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments