Hacker News Reader

To be fair to the music labels, they at least have copyright law on their side. This is more like how professional journalists whine about bloggers.

Arg! Much better example.

I don't agree. I think it's probably more similar to a professional journalist complaining about another professional journalist.

Or are you suggesting gap crowdsourced their identity requirements .. ?

The original post is a rebuttal to this:

http://www.idsgn.org/posts/gap-turns-to-crowdsourcing/

Ah, sorry - I didn't realise.

Well, I suppose this is a reasonable strategy.

CP+B have done similar things, and tried to explore how crowdsourcing can create buzz (e.g. with Brammo) .. I think at one stage they even decided to ebay the services of their designers to create a sense of the agency's openness to 'new'.

It does seem that aesthetics aren't the main driver behind branding decisions any more. It's impossible to stand out by having the nicest looking identity.

Taking an approach like this makes sense on lots of levels, especially when marketing budgets have been reduced; create a couple of reasonably strong memes, which last long enough to seep into the public consciousness before they die .. and gain phenomenal exposure without spending too much. Gap get to create the hallowed 'relationship' with the customer by involving them their own brand 'journey'.

I did make myself slightly sick after reading back over that last sentence, but to an extent I think it's true. We all build up relationships with brands over time, and the course these relationships take can be manipulated.

or professional photographers whining about microstock.

Crowdsourcing involves getting many people to work for you for nothing; after which, you only pay one person.

I don't think it's surprising that many people dislike the idea.

Alternately, crowdsourcing involves many people getting the chance to try their hand at something that, normally, only one person would do.

I don't think it's surprising that that one person dislikes the idea.

The argument that the designers (/entrants) benefit isn't anything other than disingenuous posturing.

Crowdsourcing doesn't give many people an 'opportunity' to try something new - it provides the client with cheap design.

There's a very clear motivation behind providing design in this way, and the designer is always going to lose out.

The "designer" gets a little bit of scratch and exposure they never would have gotten otherwise. The "client" gets a design that meets their budget, and which is likely to be much better than what a professional designer would do for the same price. Who's losing out here?

Exposure where?

The rhetoric involved is an extension of the line "I can't pay you for this, but you could use it in your portfolio".

The whole process reeks of exploitation. It's bullshit, imo.

Crowd sourcing doesn't mean "no pay", you should probably check some quality crowd sourcing sites, like TopCoder.

The winner gets paid, sure, but the "losers" get nothing for their time.

Which is exactly what would've happened if the "winner" was hired in the first place without crowdsourcing. What's your point?

No it isn't.

You have 99 people enter a crowdsourcing 'contest'. One design gets picked - and that person is paid.

98 people have worked on the project for nothing; which wouldn't be the case if the winner was hired in the first place.

So, are you pleading for the designers' "fear" of this crowdsourcing trend, a fear based on their time being wasted because designs from other people may be better (for any subjective definition of the term)? Are you honestly saying with a straight face that designers should be awarded for any and all their efforts regardless of the quality of their work?

I'm sorry, but they should just suck it up and change. Like the world around them is.

PS: I don't remember the last time that people rewarded me or anybody else just for trying. Perhaps kindergarten, but I have no clear recollections of the daily scrums in there.

No. I'm not suggesting that all participants should be paid.

I'm suggesting that the model put forth by crowdsourcing is ill-thought out and unfair.

"[..] they should just suck it up and change. Like the world around them is."

I completely disagree. People who exploit others for their own personal gain should always be challenged.

Since you're not referring to economic fairness, did you mean moral? I don't understand how crowdsourcing is immoral in that sense, or how does that constitute exploitation.

If someone works for the chance to earn money, how can that be fair in _any_ sense?

Wow. You just invalidated startups (among other things) in a single sentence. Nice.

Investing in your own idea is very different to working for someone else.

It can be fair, if he chooses to do it, no?

I understand one person gets paid. This doesn't make the system any better.

The problem is, so many people are still put in a situation where they end up with no payment.

I'd still like to know where the remaining participants will gain exposure.

At Topcoder:

* Top2 get paid directly

* Top5 get points to be ranked in a monthly leaderboard, they'll eventually get paid depending on their ranking in that leaderboard.

* Winning/ranking good will help you get a position in a review board to review other submissions and then get paid.

* You still can participate in bugraces, which generally doesn't take too much time (hours or even minutes) and get paid accordingly.

This is just a small portion of how you can make money. Granted, it is not easy, but if you're good, well, you are good.

Gain exposure? Working with big clients, AOL, ferguson, lendingTree, and a lot more - Plus, If you have a job interview, you still can get a recommendation from TopCoder with a list of your winnings/projects (it's visible in your profile anyway)

I'm speaking from experience here, It's so wrong on many levels to put all crowd sourcing websites in the same basket.

> and which is likely to be much better than what a professional designer would do for the same price

Why would you think a novice on the web with Photoshop will automatically do better than a professional with experience and who is looking beyond making a cool design?

Logos aren't just pieces of art — they also brand a company. Crowdsourcing will never match a professional brand designer.

And why would you think that a novice on the web with Photoshop _couldn't_ do better than a 'professional' with blah blah blah, especially when this new logo is amateur hour at best and utter crap at worst.

I sincerely hope that the entire Internet is being trolled by The Gap on this one, given that the alternative is entirely depressing.

Either that or this logo is legit, meant to last, will work on consumers, and in turn will reduce designer's hourly rates around the world. :)

Is there any doubt that they were trolling with this new logo? It looked like a placeholder from the first moment I saw it, and I know nothing about design (see historious).

You're committing a fallacy in assuming that they have no choice. Even if there are a million novices with Photoshop and two professional designers, they'll still get a better deal than having chosen one professional designer. They'll pay the same money and get two professional designs they can choose from, instead of just one.

Depends. If the professional designers don't enter the competition, things may change.

Sure, but the Gap didn't commit to choosing one, as far as I know, so they still only stand to gain from this.

If you are a good designer, this will work.

I bought a design on 99designs. Had a great experience with the designer, who I recommended to my friends, and now she is getting loads of work.

I'd say that's truly meritocratic <- a good thing.

.. or developers who complain about work being outsourced to cheaper economies.

To be fair to designers, it's often pretty clear the stark difference in quality between a carefully designed logo/brand and a crowdsourced one. (Gap's new one is a great example).

I think music and journalists (designers being grouped with journalists) are vastly different situations because of copyright law, yes. The law allowed a huge industry to grow around information asymmetry, hype, and price inflation. Journalism and graphic design seek (and work) very hard to produce things of value far greater than bloggers/crowdsource usually aspire to.

That said, blogging/crowdsource have and will continue to put a great deal of pressure on those performing at the highest levels in those fields. It's simply my hope that the top performers there will justify themselves while producing perhaps a new era of relevant work. Increased competition doesn't always involve complete steamrolling, just evolution.

(In fact, one evolution I could see happening is a design firm outsourcing some percentage of their own mock work to crowdsource sites. Prototypes are about instantiating the field of possibilities so you can learn about them and talk about them. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't hurt them too much to not personally generate each and every one. The real value thus becomes their professional finishing touches, the market research, etc.)

Just like the proliferation of cheap musical instruments diluted the value of the "pro" rock'n'roll bands. Nowadays any random dude with a cracked version of Illustrator can call himself a designer. And, they will be able to generate designs as good as 90% of the designers from back in the day. (See Sturgeon's Law). Only ability with scissors and glue and an expensive drawing table are no longer a requirement.

For a comparison, check out this post from an old/ex-pro cover band rocker. Title of the thread was "Who is responsible for bands making peanuts?"

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showpost.php?p=40701817&...

It's not true. It's a common misconception that anyone with a cracked version of Illustrator / Photoshop can design.

Crowdsourcing isn't democratising design - it's reducing the importance of good design .. in much the same way that bad acting increases our tolerance for poor quality soap operas.

Good design is clear thinking, made visual. Good design solves problems and it follows conventions which take time to understand.

Having a cracked version of Illustrator has nothing to do with producing good design. Similarly, just because you can code doesn't mean you can write good software. Good design is a lot like clear thinking made visual, we live in a visual world and a design/logo often becomes the face of companies.

The problem with gap is they went away from who they are and they're trying to sell an untrue story. Using a minimalist font like American Apparel as an attempt to be "hip" is clearly bullshit to everyone. But again it has nothing to do with the tool, rather its about the concept and thought behind the graphic and that is where Gap has slipped.

hey ryan,

i've got a venture-backed business opportunity. we're looking for a strong application developer, and have heard good things about you, but not sure you can take on this task. we'll send along the technical and functional requirements, and it looks pretty easy. it shouldn't take more than a week of your time. after you sign our nda, we'll take a look at the application you built. if it's good, we'll pay you around a thousand dollars, maybe up to $10k.

unfortunately, we're not looking for any more founders, and don't need any support beyond the first production release. this will be a one time engagement, and we'll part ways after.

sound fair?

(read: how spec work would translate to the developer world. to me, it doesn't seem fair or reasonable -- especially if you're looking for a professional deliverable.)

You missed off "we've got a few different developers but we'll probably end up paying one of you"

"While it's in the design industry's collective best interest to never work on spec like this, it might be in an individual designer's best interest to design Gap's logo for free."

People play the lottery - but I wouldn't argue it's in their best interests to do so.

Yeah, and people invest dozens or hundreds of sales hours to land a million dollar contract. It's all about the ratio of risk to reward. For many/most designers, the ability to say, "I designed the Gap logo" is a big enough reward to justify the risk. And, unlike the lottery (but more like my sales example), it's at least somewhat based on merit and effort.

Came here to comment exactly this. Furthermore, the logo is just one part of their re-branded design, and just because Gap crowd sources their logo does not mean that they do not understand the value of paid professional designers to their business and brand overall. Gap has not downsized the design department based on this "newly discovered" brand-strategy.

And, as far as I can tell, the purpose of a logo is to provide a unique and memorable identity to the business/brand. Gap's PR/Social strategy here has reinforced their identity in ways that a professional re-redesign never could.

Gap's brand was tired, and quickly becoming forgotten after its late 90s peak... Suddenly people are talking about Gap again. You might view their response as innovative, manipulative, or your run-of-the-mill corporate spin, but there's no denying that it is a gracious response. And grand acts of public graciousness tend to reinforce rather positive feelings for a brand.

The reason is the world does not need so many mediocre designers.

With internet and social media, companies can interact with designers much more effectively and fewer designers are needed to do the same amount of work.

So the supply side from designers is high, while the demand side is low. So the consumers can pay arbitrarily low rates. Once the not so good designers and designers who do other things just as well (high opportunity cost) move to other streams. The supply side would start having a higher say.