Is Crowdsourcing Disrupting the Design Industry?
"This is an issue that I simply cannot wrap my head around. Spec work appears in the design field infinitely more times than any other industry. It absolutely floors me that people think that it is even remotely ethical to build their businesses by tearing down ours."
- Mark Hemmis' comment on AIGA policy statement on spec work
by Hutch Carpenter
The past couple years have seen an increase in the use of crowdsourcing by companies to procure design assets. It works like this:
These design requests are often for logos, but for a number of other types of initiatives as well. For example, 99designs' list of requests (to the right) gives some sense of the types of projects.
So far, so good, right? Well, a lot of designers think not. As Mark Hemmis' comment above shows, these open spec work contests have been raising the ire of the designer community.
Is crowdsourcing ripping their industry asunder?
Designers' Beefs with Crowdsourcing
Three aspects of crowdsourcing design raise concern for many in the design industry:
Compensation: To be competitive, individuals will need to invest some time in designing a submission for a company. With a good number of entries, this equates to a decent number of hours invested. According to Pamela Pfiffner:
"The problem is, spec and crowdsourcing can lower your value and hourly rates so far that minimum wage looks like a fat paycheck."
Her statement takes things to a logical extreme - someone would have to do nothing but spend their time entering contests. But she does a good job framing the issue.
Diminishing the profession: The issue with crowdsourcing is that it says, "this stuff is easy!" A commenter on this post, How NOT to Design a Logo, baldly gives this concern legitimacy:
"Logo design contests are great, its the only way I go. I get my pick of 5-10 designs for less then $20. Designers these days are a dime a dozen, be happy you get the work."
The design industry has characteristics of being craftsman, as well as strategists. At least the higher end firms do. Sentiments like that are grating.
Not sustainable: The concern here is that over the long term, the economics of crowdsourcing will cause existing designers to exit the industry, and potential designers will opt for different careers. According to Jacob Cass:
"Design contest sites are not the future of graphic design... nor do I see a time when it ever will be, however, in the long term I believe spec work is going to be detrimental to the design industry... both devaluing design and designers as a whole."
The argument here is that rather than expand the pool of talent for design, crowdsourcing will ultimately reduce the industry.
So designers themselves are lining up against these types of crowdsourcing design contests. Which begs the question...
Why Are Crowdsourcing Design Contests Growing?
Jason Aiken has this to say:
"Truth is - 99designs is growing by leaps and bounds. We have record numbers of projects being launched and have needed to hire new staff to help us keep up with the growth.
The motivation of organizations seeking design work seem clear enough - tap a large network of creativity, manage expenses within budget. But what are those designers doing there?
It seems that not all designers are of the same mind about these crowdsourcing design contests. Some actually embrace them. Why?
Build your portfolio: Not all designers in the world have 10 years experience and a roster of paying clients. For those starting out in the business, the competitions provide great fuel for creating designs. If you want prospective clients to see what you're capable of, the design competitions seem to offer a chance to create that portfolio.
Benefits include:
Personal interest: Some projects just pique the interest of a person. Maybe there's a day job with a paying company, and then a chance at night to do things "your way" on a project of interest. The project taps some areas you want to pursue, or maybe allows you to try something out without concern as to whether the client will ultimately want the design.
Extra business: Everyone is hustling in a weak economy. If your design business has some slack in demand, why not apply the available creative resources toward an occasional crowdsourcing project? If you're a professional shop, presumably your odds are better than most.
Access to high-end ad agencies: This was the case when Porter Crispin + Bogusky solicited logo designs for their start-up client Brammo, maker of electric motorcycles. They ran the contest through crowdSPRING. The contest sparked plenty of debate, but also saw 700 entries. One reason was that young up-n-coming designers wanted the chance to impress a firm of the caliber of PC+B, who can send many paying clients their way.
That's the designer participation set of motivations. I guess the best way to think about companies' motivation is this - Do they get results?
Since the number of requests from companies is growing, design crowdsourcing sites are working at some level. If they weren't, word would spread pretty quickly and companies would stop using them. This comment from designer Morgan Stone on Alex Bogusky's blog post about PC+B's use of crowdSPRING is illuminating:
"As a designer... crowdsourcing scares me. I think it has to do with the harsh reality that sometimes it doesn't take experience or a big title to design something truly amazing."
What's the staying power of the crowdsourced design contest approach? And will it disrupt the industry, in the Clayton Christensen sense?
Sustainability and Reach of Crowdsourcing Design Contests
Altimeter Group's Jeremiah Owyang wrote last year, "Without a doubt, Specwork (like crowdspring or 99 designers) is here to stay - economics will drive this forward." For the buyers, yes. But the supply side of the equation - the designers - is that here to stay?
I believe it is. The numbers say it is. Here's what I mean:
In a 2009 article, Forbes noted that there are 80,000 free lance designers in the U.S. alone. Add in the talent from around the world, and you can see that there is a large of pool of creativity. Maybe 200,000 designers globally? 99designs claims to have roughly 54,000 designers on its site.
Designers have some motivation to participate in crowdsourcing design contests, as noted for the reasons above. It's not like every designer will submit regularly. But every project reaches some new set of designers, and occasionally gets a repeat one as well.
All it takes is for a business seeking design work is maybe 30, 40, 50 submissions? As a percent of the global number of designers, that's not much.
40 / 200,000 = 0.02%
Here's what designer David Airey said about getting clients from crowdsourcing sites:
"I've had direct clients and also have been one of those in the crowd. Surprisingly, some of my best clients are the ones that followed me from these crowd sourcing sites. That's probably because they've already been through a working process with me, and they like what they've experienced, so there's no mismatch of expectations like a new client."
I do see the sustainability of the business. It's complex, but there are enough people who do see advantages to participating. Even if only for certain periods of their lives or only on occasion. I don't see entering crowdsourcing design contests as a full-time pursuit for someone.
Next question: how much can crowdsourcing chip away at the traditional areas of the design industry? Is there a gap that crowdsourcing addresses? (Erica's post, Bokardo's post):
Many designers in the debate note the importance of establishing a rapport with clients, and understanding their clients more deeply than a set of colors and fonts. A firm such as Nocturnal Graphic Design Studio appears to deliver value through deeper relationships and more strategic approaches with its clients.
But Erica's point above is well-taken. Sometimes, you're not in the market for that level of involvement. Small and mid-sized businesses do not need the full horsepower of high-end design firms. As one designer (snootily) commented on the PC+B blog post about using crowdSPRING:
"99 designs and their nefarious brethren have a client roster whose market recognition for the most part is similar to that of Joe's Morgue & Jerky Outlet."
Of course, this may not be contained to SMBs.
The Disruptive Potential
Have you checked out what Mountain Dew is doing with crowdsourcing (aka "DEWmocracy")? As Wired notes in a January article:
"Mountain Dew is asking consumers to choose three new sodas, from selecting the flavors to naming them, designing the cans and choosing the ad agency to promoting the product."
Not all of this is crowdsourcing design, but it is an edgy experiment in leaving the professional firms behind.
Right now, as Steve Douglas of the Logo Factory notes, the biggest chunk of business is for logos. Which you can see at the start of this post in the 99designs project list.
The U.S. Census Bureau had the graphic design industry generating $2.8 billion in revenue in 2002. It is a large, diverse, complex industry. My expectation is that design contest crowdsourcing will encroach more into large enterprises for tactical projects, as the smaller businesses continue to use them and get good results. Large companies' efforts, such Mountain Dew's DEWmocracy, Unilever's crowdsourcing contest for a TV campaign for its Peperami snack food, and Doritos' crowdsourced Super Bowl ads, add fuel to this.
Two things are needed for the crowdsourcing model to encroach further into the design industry:
Leaderboards let prospective buyers know who the best are. We see them on Topcoder for programming contests. It's a way to establish visibility and credibility far beyond the recommendations you maintain on your own site. It will take some changes by the crowdsourcing sites, enabling recognition for designers who do well in contests, even if they are not picked. It also would need to have different bases for identifying top designers.
The other wrinkle is to allow a form of smartsourcing. Once the top designers are identified, they are invited for larger companies' design projects. This is pretty similar to the current state of things, except the basis for access changes somewhat. It's not just business relationships a designer/firm has established with the big ad/marketing/brand agencies. It's based on performance.
With these two elements, I can see how crowdsourcing becomes more important, more disruptive, in the world of business design.
Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b9256069-7f27-46bd-9e19-58e3e9790b72)
Hutch Carpenter is the Vice President of Product at Spigit. Spigit integrates social collaboration tools into a SaaS enterprise idea management platform used by global Fortune 2000 firms to drive innovation.
- Mark Hemmis' comment on AIGA policy statement on spec work
by Hutch Carpenter
The past couple years have seen an increase in the use of crowdsourcing by companies to procure design assets. It works like this:- Requesting organization posts a request for submissions to a design crowdsourcing site (e.g. 99designs, crowdSPRING, MycroBurst, etc.)
- Interested designers review the request, and create their entry
- They submit their entry to the site
- Requesting organization selects its favorite, pays the winning designer the announced fee
These design requests are often for logos, but for a number of other types of initiatives as well. For example, 99designs' list of requests (to the right) gives some sense of the types of projects.
So far, so good, right? Well, a lot of designers think not. As Mark Hemmis' comment above shows, these open spec work contests have been raising the ire of the designer community.
Is crowdsourcing ripping their industry asunder?
Designers' Beefs with Crowdsourcing
Three aspects of crowdsourcing design raise concern for many in the design industry:
- Lack of compensation for designers whose entries are not selected
- Diminishes the design profession
- Not sustainable in the long term
Compensation: To be competitive, individuals will need to invest some time in designing a submission for a company. With a good number of entries, this equates to a decent number of hours invested. According to Pamela Pfiffner:
"The problem is, spec and crowdsourcing can lower your value and hourly rates so far that minimum wage looks like a fat paycheck."
Her statement takes things to a logical extreme - someone would have to do nothing but spend their time entering contests. But she does a good job framing the issue.
Diminishing the profession: The issue with crowdsourcing is that it says, "this stuff is easy!" A commenter on this post, How NOT to Design a Logo, baldly gives this concern legitimacy:
"Logo design contests are great, its the only way I go. I get my pick of 5-10 designs for less then $20. Designers these days are a dime a dozen, be happy you get the work."
The design industry has characteristics of being craftsman, as well as strategists. At least the higher end firms do. Sentiments like that are grating.
Not sustainable: The concern here is that over the long term, the economics of crowdsourcing will cause existing designers to exit the industry, and potential designers will opt for different careers. According to Jacob Cass:
"Design contest sites are not the future of graphic design... nor do I see a time when it ever will be, however, in the long term I believe spec work is going to be detrimental to the design industry... both devaluing design and designers as a whole."
The argument here is that rather than expand the pool of talent for design, crowdsourcing will ultimately reduce the industry.
So designers themselves are lining up against these types of crowdsourcing design contests. Which begs the question...
Why Are Crowdsourcing Design Contests Growing?
Jason Aiken has this to say:
"Truth is - 99designs is growing by leaps and bounds. We have record numbers of projects being launched and have needed to hire new staff to help us keep up with the growth.
The motivation of organizations seeking design work seem clear enough - tap a large network of creativity, manage expenses within budget. But what are those designers doing there?
It seems that not all designers are of the same mind about these crowdsourcing design contests. Some actually embrace them. Why?
Build your portfolio: Not all designers in the world have 10 years experience and a roster of paying clients. For those starting out in the business, the competitions provide great fuel for creating designs. If you want prospective clients to see what you're capable of, the design competitions seem to offer a chance to create that portfolio.
Benefits include:
- You need to think not abstractly about design principles, but concretely about how a design project relates to a business
- Competitions are great for elevating one's focus and creativity
- You can benchmark yourself against other submissions, including those selected if yours is not
Personal interest: Some projects just pique the interest of a person. Maybe there's a day job with a paying company, and then a chance at night to do things "your way" on a project of interest. The project taps some areas you want to pursue, or maybe allows you to try something out without concern as to whether the client will ultimately want the design.
Extra business: Everyone is hustling in a weak economy. If your design business has some slack in demand, why not apply the available creative resources toward an occasional crowdsourcing project? If you're a professional shop, presumably your odds are better than most.
Access to high-end ad agencies: This was the case when Porter Crispin + Bogusky solicited logo designs for their start-up client Brammo, maker of electric motorcycles. They ran the contest through crowdSPRING. The contest sparked plenty of debate, but also saw 700 entries. One reason was that young up-n-coming designers wanted the chance to impress a firm of the caliber of PC+B, who can send many paying clients their way.
That's the designer participation set of motivations. I guess the best way to think about companies' motivation is this - Do they get results?
Since the number of requests from companies is growing, design crowdsourcing sites are working at some level. If they weren't, word would spread pretty quickly and companies would stop using them. This comment from designer Morgan Stone on Alex Bogusky's blog post about PC+B's use of crowdSPRING is illuminating:
"As a designer... crowdsourcing scares me. I think it has to do with the harsh reality that sometimes it doesn't take experience or a big title to design something truly amazing."
What's the staying power of the crowdsourced design contest approach? And will it disrupt the industry, in the Clayton Christensen sense?
Sustainability and Reach of Crowdsourcing Design Contests
Altimeter Group's Jeremiah Owyang wrote last year, "Without a doubt, Specwork (like crowdspring or 99 designers) is here to stay - economics will drive this forward." For the buyers, yes. But the supply side of the equation - the designers - is that here to stay?
I believe it is. The numbers say it is. Here's what I mean:
In a 2009 article, Forbes noted that there are 80,000 free lance designers in the U.S. alone. Add in the talent from around the world, and you can see that there is a large of pool of creativity. Maybe 200,000 designers globally? 99designs claims to have roughly 54,000 designers on its site.
Designers have some motivation to participate in crowdsourcing design contests, as noted for the reasons above. It's not like every designer will submit regularly. But every project reaches some new set of designers, and occasionally gets a repeat one as well.
All it takes is for a business seeking design work is maybe 30, 40, 50 submissions? As a percent of the global number of designers, that's not much.
40 / 200,000 = 0.02%
Here's what designer David Airey said about getting clients from crowdsourcing sites:
"I've had direct clients and also have been one of those in the crowd. Surprisingly, some of my best clients are the ones that followed me from these crowd sourcing sites. That's probably because they've already been through a working process with me, and they like what they've experienced, so there's no mismatch of expectations like a new client."
I do see the sustainability of the business. It's complex, but there are enough people who do see advantages to participating. Even if only for certain periods of their lives or only on occasion. I don't see entering crowdsourcing design contests as a full-time pursuit for someone.
Next question: how much can crowdsourcing chip away at the traditional areas of the design industry? Is there a gap that crowdsourcing addresses? (Erica's post, Bokardo's post):
Many designers in the debate note the importance of establishing a rapport with clients, and understanding their clients more deeply than a set of colors and fonts. A firm such as Nocturnal Graphic Design Studio appears to deliver value through deeper relationships and more strategic approaches with its clients.
But Erica's point above is well-taken. Sometimes, you're not in the market for that level of involvement. Small and mid-sized businesses do not need the full horsepower of high-end design firms. As one designer (snootily) commented on the PC+B blog post about using crowdSPRING:
"99 designs and their nefarious brethren have a client roster whose market recognition for the most part is similar to that of Joe's Morgue & Jerky Outlet."
Of course, this may not be contained to SMBs.
The Disruptive Potential
Have you checked out what Mountain Dew is doing with crowdsourcing (aka "DEWmocracy")? As Wired notes in a January article:
"Mountain Dew is asking consumers to choose three new sodas, from selecting the flavors to naming them, designing the cans and choosing the ad agency to promoting the product."
Not all of this is crowdsourcing design, but it is an edgy experiment in leaving the professional firms behind.
Right now, as Steve Douglas of the Logo Factory notes, the biggest chunk of business is for logos. Which you can see at the start of this post in the 99designs project list.
The U.S. Census Bureau had the graphic design industry generating $2.8 billion in revenue in 2002. It is a large, diverse, complex industry. My expectation is that design contest crowdsourcing will encroach more into large enterprises for tactical projects, as the smaller businesses continue to use them and get good results. Large companies' efforts, such Mountain Dew's DEWmocracy, Unilever's crowdsourcing contest for a TV campaign for its Peperami snack food, and Doritos' crowdsourced Super Bowl ads, add fuel to this.
Two things are needed for the crowdsourcing model to encroach further into the design industry:
- Leaderboards/reputation
- Smartsourcing
Leaderboards let prospective buyers know who the best are. We see them on Topcoder for programming contests. It's a way to establish visibility and credibility far beyond the recommendations you maintain on your own site. It will take some changes by the crowdsourcing sites, enabling recognition for designers who do well in contests, even if they are not picked. It also would need to have different bases for identifying top designers.
The other wrinkle is to allow a form of smartsourcing. Once the top designers are identified, they are invited for larger companies' design projects. This is pretty similar to the current state of things, except the basis for access changes somewhat. It's not just business relationships a designer/firm has established with the big ad/marketing/brand agencies. It's based on performance.
With these two elements, I can see how crowdsourcing becomes more important, more disruptive, in the world of business design.
Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!
Hutch Carpenter is the Vice President of Product at Spigit. Spigit integrates social collaboration tools into a SaaS enterprise idea management platform used by global Fortune 2000 firms to drive innovation.Labels: Advertising, Branding, Design, Hutch Carpenter, marketing
posted by Blogging Innovation at 12:05 AM
1 comments
I am a professional name developer, and I like to gather opinions about product names. Earlier this year I posted a Twitter Poll to gather opinions on ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6fd7a5f2-2164-4cfe-ac82-ad8bbde89e72)
Clockwise: Jumble Room, The Randy Pike, Augill Castle, Little Town Farm as seen on 'Secretly Famous'![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=72ff359b-ec25-47ab-8980-b554e916bc50)
A few years back I sat next to Jean Paul Gaultier on a flight from Paris to Athens. Coincidentally we were en route to the same hotel... he invited me to a party he was holding that night and I found my favourite male fragrance... Le Male. Last year Jean Paul created a ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=295e32ff-3c08-472e-99fb-ab017ec8f4b2)
The big news this week in Medialand is NBC's decision to cancel The Jay Leno Show and move the eponymous comedian back to a late-night time slot. About the short-lived experiment, Jeff Gaspin, NBC Universal's Chairman of Television Entertainment, said, "I don't think it's wrong to take chances... Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't."
The title topic came up recently on Twitter, as it had at a B2B social media roundtable late last year: Who should be doing social media strategy and implementation for a brand - organizationally and individually?
We make assumptions that it is the management team responsibility to extend or prolong the life of any companies even they have fewer reasons to exist. Management is different from practicing medicine, although sometimes I am called the strategy doctor. Instead of wasting resources and energy to save a company or a brand, should we just take whatever assets and redeploy them? In life, the cycle of life is the natural order of things. 
Idris Mootee is the CEO of 
In my December BusinessWeek.com column, I highlighted the vital need for internal branding, calling it the missing link between perception and reality, promise and delivery, effective marketing and positive outcomes. 
Earlier this year I commented on a decision by Panasonic to rein in R&D investment in flat-panel televisions and instead expand its reach into the entry-level market (see "
What do you with a hotel brand that's become outdated, irrelevant, and in some ways a signal to stay away from the properties to which it's attached? If you're InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), owner of the Holiday Inn franchise, you take a zero-tolerance approach to revitalization.
Thanks to a tweet from Richard Dedor, Chris Reaburn and I were last minute attendees at a Kansas City PRSA lunch session by Dan Schawbel based on his book "
I've kept my eye on Sara Lee for several years now, originally because the company was a poster child of the Loss of Focus principle. But in 2005 new CEO Brenda Barnes introduced a plan to streamline Sara Lee, which analysts would have described as a conglomerate but could more accurately have been characterized a beast.
That's when Barnes launched (according to internal company documents) "a bold and ambitious multi-year plan to transform Sara Lee" by divesting brands comprising 40 percent of its revenues and focusing R&D efforts on food. By 2007 Sara Lee was increasing market share faster than any of its major competitors, and last month Barnes announced that she was selling Sara Lee's deodorant and skin care brands to Unilever. When asked about the rationale behind this recent move, Barnes - no doubt for the umpteenth time over the past four years - said, "Our intent is to build a great business in food and beverage." (It was a "multi-year plan," remember?)
What should innovation leaders and intrapreneurs know about innovation projects and new ventures? I have had the pleasure of working with such people for many years and I begin to see a pattern that I have summarized into 10 lessons for innovation leaders and intrapreneurs:
Visiting Panera Bread recently, I noticed employees' name tags now include the question, "What's Your Passion?" and the employee's personal answer.
Laneve's fibre integrity is woven in its farming practices, animal welfare, sustainability, traceability, and environmental standards; issues that are right up the brand street of high-end American consumers. By setting a critical supply standard and tracking the wool only from accredited growers through scouring and spinning right to the finished product at point of sale, the commodity trap gets sprung.
