Say it ain't so, Bernie! How could you!? You've tainted my mad love for you. So, what could Bernie possibly do to infuriate me so much?
Run a "graphic design contest," that's what. Allow me to explain. To start, let's look at the contest terms...
TERMS & CONDITIONS: By submitting this form, I certify that I own all rights to any photos, images, designs or materials used in this work. By submitting this work, I agree to transfer all rights in this work to Bernie 2016 for the campaign to officially reproduce, in whole or in part, and to incorporate into other works. In adherence with campaign finance laws, I made this work on my own time, personally and not through use of any corporation’s materials or a limited liability corporation or partnership donating in any way. Additionally, I have not incurred any expenses related to the production of this work and I have not paid anyone else to assist me with creation of this work.
Here's a screen grab (added for public record, because contest now ended.)
That last line? It's not even humanly possible!! How exactly does one create ANYTHING visual without using any materials whatsoever? Even the internet connection to upload the design costs money.
What the heck do they think graphic designers do, exactly? Just crap out brilliant logos? Need something edgier? Hang on, I'll have beets and Indian food for dinner.
It's incredibly unethical to demand all rights (intellectual and creative property rights) to artwork under the guise of a contest. It's just another way to get people to work for free and it's exploitative, disrespectful, and completely devalues my entire profession, and I'm sick of it.
Why?
I'm a graphic designer, and I used to be a commercial studio photographer. People ask me nearly every freaking week to work for free. I'm not talking about my neighbor or teenage nephew, I'm talking about real businesses, big and small. Super rich people do it, corporations, organizations literally built to support the arts, frakking whole national governments.
The Association of Registered Graphic Designers (RGD) has launched a campaign to boycott the Canadian Heritage ministry's competition to find a logo for Canada's upcoming 150th birthday in 2017.
Anchored with the hashtag #MyTimeHasValue, the campaign seeks to highlight how design competitions have become a means for companies and governments to obtain free work from designers, particularly when they're young.
While the creator of the winning logo will receive $5,000, RGD president Stüssy Tschudin says that doesn't even begin to be fair.
"Imagine 500 students enter the contest. Each student spends 10 hours on a design, which totals 5,000 hours of work. At minimum wage in Ontario ($11), this amounts to $55,000 worth of free labour," said Tschudin in an email. "The fact that one of those students will receive a prize doesn’t negate all of that other free labour."
Tschudin also questions why the government is spending money promoting the contest on social media instead of developing a "fair process to identify a select number of deserving candidates to design the logo."'
It's "normal" and "acceptable" to ask creatives to work for free. That needs to stop, once and for all. As if we were born with Adobe Creative Suite embedded in our brains and we're desperate to spew out artwork like a bad clam?
My design education and experience? Not a parasite alien. I worked my ass off to learn my craft and become this good at it. It would be nice to at least get the same respect as the kid on my block that shovels walkways for ten bucks. Nobody asks him to shovel for free, and he didn't even pay for his shovel.
Showtime's unethical contest for a Floyd/Merryweather poster created a hero out of the fantastic graphic designer Dan Cassaro.
In response, a spokesperson for Showtime told BuzzFeed:
Showtime is a strong supporter of artists around the world. This contest, like many others, is entirely optional. Under the contest guidelines, those who choose to submit their art are eligible for a grand prize of a Las Vegas trip, in addition to invaluable national exposure across multiple platforms.
However, Cassaro is unimpressed.
He told BuzzFeed: “The whole thing is just unethical. You would never cold call a bunch of licensed electricians and ask them to do the lighting for an event like this for free. You certainly wouldn’t ask them to hashtag their ‘submission’ on Twitter to drive traffic to your website.”
Hey, love your lava photo. Can we use it for free?
After all, all you did was press a button.
-Dan Selakovich
Contests, crowdsourcing, (Mark Cuban learned about The arrogance of crowdsourcing the hard way) and spec work undermines the design industry in a huge way. Let's see how the AIGA, the American Institute of Graphic Arts, responded to the Obama campaign in 2011 when they had the nerve to run a design contest for an American Jobs poster. Oh, the irony!
AIGA, the most established and largest professional association for communication design in the world, urges the Obama campaign to immediately:
Cancel the Art Works poster contest that trivializes the value of design by failing to compensate for it and assuming ownership of intellectual property rights, against standard professional principles, and
Consider the role of design in creating social and economic capital as well as innovation and growth, treating it as an economic driver instead of a creative indulgence, and involve the design community in integrating design into an economic strategy for strengthening U.S. competitiveness.
The recent “Art Works: A Poster Contest to Support American Jobs” demonstrates a lack of respect for the design profession, violates global principles and standards for professional design practice, contradicts the intent of creating jobs for American workers and asks designers to give up intellectual and creative property rights.
[-snip-]
The Art Works poster contest asks designers to work speculatively, creating designs without compensation for an activity that has value to a potential client, against established global principles in communication design. We are quite certain that public relations consultants, political consultants, networks, telecommunication providers and advertising media are not asked to donate their services and turn their ideas, research and work over to a campaign that is poised to raise $1 billion without compensation.
This demonstrated lack of respect for the value of creative endeavors is exacerbated by the stipulation that ownership of all the creative property submitted, whether or not selected, is transferred to the campaign. And it is particularly contemptuous to ask the creative community to donate their services in support of a jobs program for other American workers.
How is this different from volunteering for the campaign?
Good question.
Sure, many professionals write a contest off as a publicity stunt, but most people (outside creative professions) see contests as legitimate. Contests create a perception that graphic design is a simple task that can be done equally well by any schmoe for free. You know, it's worthless - but fun! No need to ever pay for creative "work" right?
How Magazine
With Obama’s recent art works campaign [design of a poster in exchange for 1 signed copy of the limited edition print], common reactions to designer criticisms said
“But this is volunteer work—just like the folks going door-to-door!”
I’m sorry to say, but just because entry is voluntary doesn’t make it volunteer work. Volunteers should have a connection to the effects of the work they do—that’s the rewarding feeling they’re working for. Contests like this ask thousands of people to do work that no one will ever see, rewarding only 3 finalists—and not by using their art in the campaign, but merely selling prints in their store. They’re missing a bigger opportunity to show more of the work and celebrate being inclusive rather that just getting people thinking and talking.
"The difference between this and speculative work is that our volunteer designers are never required to do work up front for free before a contract or project begins. Each designer knows explicitly beforehand the terms we are able to offer, which is meant as our demonstration that every designer’s work has significant value, knowing that there are both monetary and non-monetary considerations in any project. Designers typically send us a portfolio of their past work, then have the opportunity to review a design brief and accept or decline the project. At that time, a contract is executed with a commitment to an honorarium, after which work on the project begins.”
Lastly, design contests and crowdsourcing may seem like "a great deal" because hey - free labor! But in the end, not only are the submissions overwhelmingly bad because professionals refuse to participate, it turns out an abundance of submissions is not a good idea. At all.
Crowdsourcing the Tyranny of Choice
In his book, Paradox of Choice (affiliate link), author Barry Schwartz talks about the pitfalls of too much choice. (You can also watch his TED talk on the same subject.)
“All of this choice has two effects on people. It produces paralysis rather than liberation. The second effect is that even if we manage to overcome paralysis and make a choice, we end up less satisfied with the result of the choice than we would be if we’d had fewer options to choose from.”
In the case of a crowdsourced logo, many organizations lured by almost free and hundreds of choices don’t take into account the massive cost of staff time to adequately evaluate the choices. The money they imagine they are saving will get spent on staff time probably better spent another way. Factor in the time lost on confusion and second guessing, and the cost is even higher. Now, instead of evaluating a few very solid solutions based on a really useful brief, you’re navigating through too many wrong solutions that make choosing harder.
Read More
