There are numerous sites out there for crowdsourcing graphic design, including SitePoint, which we featured last year. A new entrant into the space, however, is adding a slightly different twist by having bidding designers submit completed concepts rather than just proposals in the competitive process.
Launched earlier this year, Chicago-based crowdSPRING is an online marketplace for buyers and sellers of all creative services. Buyers that need a new logo, website, marketing materials or other creative content post what they need, when they need it and how much they'd like to pay. They also deposit their payment up front into an escrow account with crowdSPRING, where it will remain until an artist is chosen. Designers, illustrators, writers or photographers around the world can then work on the project and submit their creations for review. Buyers can sort, rate and give feedback on the designs they like until they find the right one. Once that happens, rights to the work are transferred, crowdSPRING takes a 15 percent fee and payment is made. crowdSPRING offers a money-back guarantee so that if buyers don't get at least 25 entries, they can walk away with a full refund; creatives, meanwhile, are assured that their projects won't get cancelled or abandoned for no good reason. Every transaction is protected by a free, customized legal contract with digital watermarking, as well as being automatically filed away in an intellectual property vault with IP Registry at no extra cost. Community tools available on the site include public profiles with feedback, ratings and stats; private messaging; portfolios; and creative community forums.
Some designers may balk at the idea of creating a full-fledged work before having a guaranteed buyer. On the other hand, by allowing both established creative professionals and talented newcomers to compete based solely on their creativity and the quality of their ideas—rather than bids, proposals or portfolios—crowdSPRING could also level the competitive playing field for creative people worldwide. To wit: when the site launched into beta in March, it posted just a stark website and asked the crowd to redesign it for a winning prize of USD 5,000. A few weeks later, a student in the Netherlands beat out 80 creatives and 337 other entries with a winning design. Lesson: never underestimate the power of the crowds!
Website: www.crowdspring.com
Contact: www.crowdspring.com/help/contact_us
Spotted by: Pete Burgeson
Email to friendPrevious: eBay feeder business for 'pickup only' items «
Next: Parties help guests sell their gold »
I don't agree that crowdspring adds a different twist to "crowdsourced graphic design". It's the same concept as many of the other solutions out there. http://99designs.com is the clear market leader in this space with thousands of customers and 12,000 active designers.
Actually, crowdSPRING (http://crowdspring.com) adds some new and critically different features to the model. Legal contracts for buyer and creative, an escrow requirement for buyers, guaranteed payments and payment processing for creatives, project wrapup tools including file upload and download capability for final deliverables, rating tools for buyers and creatives. These and other features set crowdspring apart from other graphic design sites.
I agree with JC that this is just spec-work and potentially damaging to the graphic design industry. The type of clients who use systems like these do so because they don't want to pay full price for good quality work.
Try to imagine this happening in some other industry (automobile, health care) and it's ridiculous. It would never happen.
@Chantel - plenty of industries, including the examples you give, actually support what crowdspring is doing. Car manufacturers build cars on spec. Lots of cars. These cars sit on lots and people find the one they want, and buy. Many doctors offer free consultations - sure, they won't operate on people - but they give up time before someone pays them. Lawyers do this too. As do writers - they write books on spec. Painters paint paintings on spec. Photographers take photos on spec (istockphoto.com). Food companies make food on spec. Levis makes jeans on spec, as does every manufacturer in the world.
What's special about graphic design? Sure - the industry requires great skills - and being a professional sometimes means you have such skills. But as is very evident today, lots of non-professionals are very good. Carrie Underwood, the amateur singer who won American Idol a few years ago has more Grammy's and record sales than most professionals.
The graphic design industry changed years ago. The internet will change it even further. Sure, people will always resist, but those who have great skills can compete on crowdspring or other sites with anyone. The others? The no spec movement won't save them. It certainly did not save the professional photographers who clung to Getty Images for such a long time until leaving in droves when Getty abandoned its model and realized the times had changed.
Becky your point is complete and utter b.s. Doctors don't give free consultations. Lawyers don't give free consultations. Painters do not paint on spec. Although I can see how you would assume this to be so. Man, I really want the dope some of these people have access to. It would make my business life a lot more fun. Imagine the negotiation process. I'd laugh a lot more!
What seems like spec or free isn't. They pad it into the back end of their billing. Check your loan documents sometime. Or your laywer's billing sometime. It's there. Speaking of which, my mortgage company doesn't let me chose when I want to pay or how much I want to pay each month. To do so would have me living in a cardboard condo. And when I go to the grocery or the gas station I don't get the freaking luxury or option to chose the price I FEEL like paying for the service or the product. I pay FAIR MARKET VALUE for the product or the service.
Yes indeed times may be changing, but the fact remains that the cost of living is increasing, not decreasing. And that skill and talent in design, along with experience and knowledge and business acumen all hold... what's that word... oh yes.. VALUE.
You pay the doctor the fee you pay him/her because you VALUE the service provided. You do the same for the attorney, the gas you pump in your SUV or trendy little hybrid, and the whole grain bread you eat. It's about VALUE.
Sites like these chip away at the VALUE of creative services. They commodify creativity in a WalMart sense and to support such a model isn't always smart economics. It certainly doesn't pay a mortgage.
"You can negotiate the price of a product. But never ever negotiate the price of a service. The service you get for 5 dollars is never the same service you get for 25 dollars." Roy H. Williams, the Wizard of Ads.
Cloven hit it right. Nothing is FREE. And, Becky, there is a huge difference between retail and professional services.
Crowdsourcing does nothing but damage an industry casually dismissed by *academic* business types. There is a tremendous difference between the stock photography emergence and graphic design.
Crowdsourcing does get the design cheap and fast, but where is the value in the design? How much time does a crowdsourced designer spend with the client? How much effort or thought goes into a design, a concept or developing a relationship with the client? And if so, how long will that client stay around?
So many of these "crowdsourced" designs are templates with all elements crammed into them. Whether it is a automobile dealership or a Tool & Die maker, is there a difference in their design? Likely not.
Let's break it down by casual numbers... Let's say you need a logo and only want to spend $99 on it. I have yet to work on a logo that takes less than 20 hours to develop (most of the time it is significantly more). That puts it at roughly $5 per hour or less if it takes longer - to say nothing of revisions. This is also not including the time and effort to communicate with the client, to plan or event to brainstorm.
I am willing to bet that you frown on any industry that grossly underpays their workers. What's the difference between minimizing their work and the work of a competent designer?
Will no-spec survive? Likely not, but crowdsourcing shouldn't be flaunted as a "hugely innovate" business model for all services. Let's follow up with some of these customers in a year to see how their bargain-logo help up...
Seems like a huge waste. The work that went into the non-winning 336 entries for the website redesign was all for naught as there can be only one winner. (And the work is custom.) The only reason this level of inefficiency is tolerated is that the designers are paying for the waste, not the client. How clever! And how depressing.
Wow - I didn't think my little post would prompt such strong responses. A friend told me to take a look and I am glad I did.
@Cloven – Wow, you and I must be reading different ads. Many doctors and lawyers offer "Free Consultations". If your doctor and lawyer pad their bills – maybe you should look for a new doctor and lawyer. There are plenty of honest ones around. But this is really off point anyway. And you are right – painters don't paint on spec, but I am not sure how that point is relevant. And yes –you go not get to pick how much or when to pay your mortgage. Also not relevant.
I do agree with you that the times are changing. And there absolutely is value in experience, knowledge, skill and talent. However, there is also value in something else – design. Good design is good design – and there are plenty of professionals who could learn a thing or two about good design. Sure – there are many more non-professionals who need the same lesson. But that merely begs the question – fair market value to whom? To the tens of thousands of professional and non-professional photographers on iStockphoto making a living selling photographs? I remember analogous "no-spec" arguments made by the professional photographers when iStockphoto launched. Where are those professionals now?
Selling on iStockphoto. The hundreds of thousands of creatives around the world who love to create and post to sites like Threadless and iStockphoto are surely not complaining about "no-spec". And you know what – they are finding clients and being paid for their work. And they are learning. They are getting better. They are getting experience. They are becoming more knowledgeable. They are gaining skills. And they are quickly becoming a threat to the establishment. It's no wonder that major companies are looking to non-professionals more and more for product design, solutions to complex problems (innocentive.com is a great example), and even advertising.
@Signalfire – you say there is a tremendous difference between stock photography and graphic design. But you don't explain why. Are photographers not creative? Do they not take the time with their art? Is their art less valuable?
You are right – there are many designs that are templates. And that's not a great thing. But I've seen many professionals use templates – and frankly, isn't every site online starting to look like every other site. Where is the originality – and I am talking about the "professionally designed" sites. You are also right that $5 per hour might be low for graphics design (maybe not in some countries). But if the alternative is zero dollars per hour and no opportunity to learn, become better, and obtain clients, what's wrong with $5? I was reading about the student on crowdspring's site who won their site design contest. $5,000. That's real money. And it looks like there are a number of high paying projects there too – so there is good variety for all. At the end – it's all about how you want to work – everyone can decide for themselves whether to participate or not. If the compensation is too low – don't do it. If you don't like the project, don't do it. If you don't like the client, don't do it. But – Threadless, iStockphoto, Innocentive and others prove time and time again that for every "competent designer" who turns their noses at such services, there are 100 other "competent designers" that are quite happy to participate. That's the crowdsourcing model. That's real competition. And yes – that's innovation.
@cloven - I do like your quote from Roy H. Williams – there are clear differences sometimes in what you get based on what you spend. There is no question about that. But there is also this from Buckminster Fuller: "There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it's going to be a butterfly." I for one, am looking forward to seeing all the new butterflies.
I have gotten a free consultation from a lawyer before.. but he did not go to trial without compensation! If all we had to do as designers was to talk to someone about our concepts.. then boy wouldn't this be easy! No.. clients want to see, touch and taste the concept.. this means practically completing the job for the "pitch". This would be equivalent to the lawyer going to trial and then you paying him if they did a good job. I also want to know where you are getting free doctor advice.. I have to pay for my visits!
The thing clients are willing to bargain on is the very thing that turns their company into a success... the value perception that designers help them build into their brand be it purely strategic thinking or graphical. We have resolved to the fact that we will never be compensated for as many ideas that we have given our clients over the years.. but we are starting to question the value of being in this valueless industry at all.
I disagree with Becky when comparing the graphic design industry to others. When a doctor gives a free consultation, a painting or car is made on spec and so-on, the price is not established by the buyer. You wouldn't tell a doctor that you think their "top of the line" services are worth let's say 3 bucks an hour?
The graphic design pandora's box has been opened just like the music industry. A whole generation thinks creativity is not worth paying $'s for it and that is a shame. I believe that the industry is done as we know it. If only those who use sites like crowdspring and guru could see beyond the quick $100 for a logo for cash in their pocket, then the design industry may have a chance.
Don't be foolish. It's not about weeding out those that are not creative, it's weeding out very talented and dedicated designers that believe that creativity has a value. Giving graphic design away is as bad as telling your enemy your plans. It will come back to bite you.
If you spend a few minutes looking at the entries on the site, you'll see that most of them are crap, maybe 1 in 10 is decent.
The clients are mostly small startups that don't want to spend a ton on design fees. The designers are mostly students, amateurs, and hobbyists. So basically you get what you paid for--you can't expect to get a stellar logo for $99.
As the "crowd" matures, I believe they'll leave after realizing that this model is simply not sustainable for them.
I don't know if they are all crap - a lot of the clients know what they are paying for. I've been competing on studio.topcoder.com for the past year and noticed that they tend to have better clients then crowdspring (and more then just design)- plus I'm vying for a trip to Vegas
my 2 cents
I don't know if they are all crap - a lot of the clients know what they are paying for. I've been competing on studio.topcoder.com for the past year and noticed that they tend to have better clients then crowdspring (and more then just design)- plus I'm vying for a trip to Vegas
my 2 cents
Where is the business case for this silly company - CrowdSpring? First, it is not hard at all to find a quality graphic designer at a low price, see Craiglist. Second, online marketplaces that actually DON'T have a million substitutes have gone out of business. Third, the company's Craigslist ad reads like something from the dot-com days; a) it lists silly benefits like "Unlimited ping pong + Rock Band" to portray the place as a nice employer for nerd-hipster wannabees, b) it states that it is "private equity funded," but that is meaningless and most likely misleading if the goal there is to suggest there are major backers, c) the company's Web site lists a a job duty "posting dirty jokes" on on a blog - something the EEOC would like to know about - and particularly ignorant considering the company's Web site says one of their founders has a background in "law" (what "law," was he a paralegal?).
Many designers would definitely balk at the idea of doing spec-based work - which is what this is. It dilutes the value of graphic design.
This kind of site can be beneficial to a client - and maybe even the designer - but it can potentially damage the graphic design industry if this trend continues.
There's even a website dedicated against spec work.
http://www.no-spec.com/about/
JC | May 20, 2008 1:05 AM