Hacker News Reader

There is no "bait and switch" here as the author claims.

Nowhere on Fivver's website do they claim you are getting a unique one-of-a-kind hand-designed logo -- you are paying $5 for someone else to tell you what a sensible logo should be and provide a few decent choices for starting out with... and that can be valuable (I know because as an engineer, the creative side of things often escape me).

I see no issue here. For my side project websites and companies, these sorts of logos (and at this price point) is exactly what I would look for.

If you're paying for someone to design you a logo, it's definitely deception to link an existing clipart. Did you miss the part* about the second contender actively lying?

You make it sound like hand-crafting is hard. I can pump out custom bespoke geometric shapes in seconds!

*edit, this part was only in the linked longer version of the first part of the article

  Nowhere on Fivver's website do they claim you are getting a unique one-of-a-kind hand-designed logo

On the other hand, http://www.fiverr.com/search/gigs?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_in=e...

I think the larger issue is that some of these come from stock photo sites which place restrictions on using them as logos. I'd be more than a little annoyed if I built a brand around a $5 logo and then hit legal trouble because of it.

>>Nowhere on Fivver's website do they claim you are getting a unique one-of-a-kind hand-designed logo

I'm sorry, but if someone says in their profile headline, "I will design amazing logos for $5" then I expect it to be more than just clipart or color-shaded text.

But this is entirely down to your interpretation of their word "Design"

No, it is based on the common understanding of the word "amazing."

Well, honestly, most company logo's are not much more than clipart. Apple's logo, an apple... Microsoft's logo, 4 squares, IBM's logo, their name, etc etc.

I think you can't expect to buy a Ferrari at the Hyundai price point. If you want more, you're going to have to pay more.

I think there's crossed wires here. The term clipart was being used to refer to the literal nature of the icons origin - it came from a stock library of pre produced graphics.

And when you say 'most company logo's are not much more than clipart' - you're refering the the simple construction and form of the icon used in a logo. Apple, Microsoft, and IBM obviously didn't pull their logos from a stock library.

Although it's interesting to hear such logo's be described with such flippant regard for their conception.

It's not disruption. It's how the design industry works. Professional designers have long competed against free, whether it's printers who throw in a logo with letterhead printing or the boss' nephew who knows a bit of Photoshop.

The market is big enough for all of this. A smallish company that just wants something to put on a business card is not going to be up for a full branding and identity exercise (though they probably should be) and will be happy with a stock logo. A startup or company with more ambition would look stupid with the same.

It's the job of a designer or agency to educate the client as to why they are worth the fees they charge.

     > And one day this will come to the software industry. Someone 
     > will make a service that enables businesses to build
     > applications for $5.

I think that happened already with open-source, offshore, and sites like elance.

You have a good, well-intentioned point but the article emphasizes that these designers are trying to sell something that's not theirs. That's not disruption.

> Someone will make a service that enables businesses to build applications for $5

Sure, happens all the time. Look at SquareSpace for example. That kind of product you used to need a team of people for. There's examples all over the place. Not sure how you get from there to logo design though. So far computers seem to be at their best when we can clearly describe the rules for them to follow, and design doesn't seem to fall into that category.

I think you can disrupt the design industry without setting up a structure that condones plagiarism.

So I would argue that http://studio.envato.com/ or even http://www.squarespace.com/logo/ are better examples of your point.

> plagiarism

Did I miss something in the article? I thought these designers were using royalty-free designs. That's not plagiarism, is it?

It is plagiarism. Plagiarism is using the content of others without appropriate attribution. Copyright infringement is using the content of others without the rights to it. Copying can be either, neither, or both.

Whether attribution is needed is situational but in a 'design' context it's important.

I would seriously doubt actual plagiarism is going on here.

Places like istockphoto and 123rf sell royalty free logos - which you can purchase the upgraded license terms which allow you to resell works with that deseign/image.[1]

[1] http://www.123rf.com/license_summary.php

We don't know whether these people are paying for each image, but at $5 for a "custom" logo, I doubt they can afford to purchase the rights for each image. Yes, if all of their logos were clouds it would work, but that's not very likely.

Automatically assuming plagiarism due to a low price-point is pretty dumb. This is a legitimate website, and plagiarism would be a massive risk for business. If they sell 100 logos a day -- that more than pays for the extended licenses. (They could even be getting bulk deals, going directly to the original creator, special licensing agreements to move more stock, etc).

If we're to accuse someone of plagiarism, we have to present the evidence. Onus is on the accuser. OP has done a disservice to his cause by not providing any evidence.

Last line in the license summary link you provided says:

4. Please be aware that all usage of vector icons as company logo is prohibited.

> Designers think they need to charge for those things. They are wrong. Lots of customers are quite happy taking what they're given if the price is low enough.

In my experience this is not the case. The projects I've done which have dragged on for longest and been the most trouble are the ones I've done for free or less than the usual amount.

Charge a low price and the client will assume your time and skills are worthless.

I don't see it as a disruption, because it's not a replacement as much as an alternative. People and companies that need unique logos and original designs will continue to seek out the services offered by the author of this article, while fiverr will attract everyone else who wants a logo.

Sorry, but saying, that fraud is entrepreneurial market disruption, is hogwash.

Note that Fiverr (who are the people I was saying are being disruptive) are not committing fraud. Some of the designers who sell through their platform might be, but that's not really any different to people who sell stolen things through eBay, or install pirated Wordpress plugins through eLance. It's definitely wrong for those people to be doing that, but focusing on the plagiarism aspect is a red herring. That's just some small (or large) number of users, not the platform itself. If you could eliminate all the fraud Fiverr would still be a disruptive platform.

You should not be calling something that's based around cheap labour disruptive nonetheless. Or rather, if you were to call Fiverr disruptive, it would not be for the "cheap" aspect but for the fact that their service provides a long list of fast-to-access freelancers (designers or other).

A disruptive business is usually defined to be at least better OR faster than what exists that then capitalizes on market share. It can be cheaper only as an added bonus. If the single business advantage is being cheaper, the business is not disruptive, as it adds nothing that's novel or unique, and can simply be either undercut by some or bettered by other competitors.

I don't understand, how they would be able to offer competitive priced service, if they didn't rely on people either underselling or plagiarising.

I'd understand, if there were some economies of scale that actually enabled the cost reduction, but in this case the nature of the product is always unique: you can seldom sell the same design to several clients, hence the only way to reduce the cost is to lower your margins. And hence it's a race to the bottom.

I can't say I agree with the parallels you draw here on disruption. This isn't disruption comparable to Uber or AirBnB, it isn't disruption at all. The examples you give are all companies which have come along and provided an offering on par with or exceeding what is currently being offered by archaic slow moving industries, often both in price and experience.

Uber works because the service you receive is a commodity service - transport. Uber fixes the price across all car tier's so it doesn't matter wether you get Larry or Jim, you're paying the same, their job is to get you from point A to point B. There's essentially no qualitative differentiation. What they offer isn't cheaper than a cab but the experience they offer is arguably superior and more convenient. This works and is disruptive. What AirBnB offer is a platform to connect people with spare beds, with people who want a place to stay. The qualitative offering differs from host to host, and as a result, AirBnB allow Hosts to set their own price per night, so essentially making AirBnB a platform conecting people, but allowing a free market to operate upon it. The end experience is unique, and mostly cheaper than the equivalent experience at a hotel. This works, this is disruptive.

What Fiverr are doing is offering a highly inferior service at a much lower price. They are taking a service which is not a commodity good, one with a huge spectrum of qualitative differentiation, and fixing it at a very low price. When you do that you just get a bad product bought cheap. That is not new, let alone disruptive.

The differentiator between Fiverr design product and a good quality professional designer, isn't that they don't offer the 'bells and whistles'. A 'professional', reputable designer isn't trying to upsell you on the scotch guard for your sofa to make an extra buck or two - pantone references and vector artwork aren't line items on an invoice in design, that's not what you're paying for. The gap is the quality of the final product. This isn't people offering high quality design and somehow making it a leaner, more compelling offering than traditional channels using some kind of an innovative model - this is just poor quality work pedalled on a platform.

Not everyone is prepared to pay for 'good' design. Some people just want 'something'. And there will always be those people. That both want just something, and those that produce it. That pool of people, and the rest, which need, and understand the value of good design aren't in conflict. They're totally separate groups, and they've co existed for years, and will continue to.

I can confidently say that Fiverr will not make me, or any designers I know 'think about the way we sell our services' in the manner you suggest.