As a design firm, we've been interested in the debate surrounding crowdSPRING, the "crowd-sourcing" site focused on providing cut-rate graphic design for low-budget projects. The idea has been around for quite some time and as crowdSPRING co-founder Ross Kimbarovsky is quick to point out, his company is not the only concern offering these services. The topic bubbled up again last week when Forbes magazine published an article calling out a "snooty" design community and leveraging the fears of old (and the hope of new) in a thinly veiled advertorial for Kimbarovsky's company. The "conversation" swept the design blogs and diverse positions were posted from all angles. We jumped in and somehow wound up smack dab in the middle of David Airey's little mosh pit. We admit to liking it a bit.
Yesterday, Fast Company threw their hats into the ring. Well, maybe not the publication itself, but Aaron Perry-Zucker, a regular Fast Company contributor, RISD student and the lead behind Design For Obama, a project for which we hold great respect. Perry-Zucker is a smart young man and we respect him, but we had little respect for his lethargic position on this post, titled "Democratizing Design?"
[Perry-Zucker writes] "Since it launched last May, the crowd-sourcing design website CrowdSpring.com has been causing a stir in the design community. Advocates praise the site’s ability to put businesses looking for creative help in touch with talent they might not otherwise find. It is, they argue, a great leap forward in the democratization of design, a big trend in the creative community these days. The site’s critics, mostly professional designers, generally seize on one major issue: They argue that designers shouldn't 'work in advance of getting paid' with an ironically irrelevant metaphor: 'You can't go to the new restaurant at the top of Trump Tower, ask for a taste and then decide if you're going to pay.' Read the entire post here.
We took exception.
[Hillerns writes] "I've commented at a few sites on this issue and I do so because, like Ross, I believe it's a healthy debate and it needs to occur. The problem (at least as I see it) is the oversimplification of the issue and the apparent one-sided reporting by supposedly objective sources. Frankly, much of what initially rankled 'the established design industry' with the Forbes article was subpar journalism, coupled with a company figurehead talking out of both sides of his mouth. The spec issue is certainly a hot button, but the concept of devaluing design is what people who are not in the business simply can't understand. Designing a t-shirt is one thing, but a communications designer worth his salt is working for the client and for the client's client. That process requires time, experience, communication, training, and skill. As with an accountant or an attorney, design is a professional service. Let's not confuse design with manufacturing or say, art.
In your article, Aaron, I'm not certain that the 'ironically irrelevant metaphor' illustration is particularly representative or relevant. Is it the product or the service that a 'client' wants to sample? In terms of the example regarding the music industry, is it the technology or the product that the design industry should 'take a hint from'? I don't know about you, but I can't remember when my favorite band made a record specifically for me. No, the product was already completed by the artist and as a consumer, I had to determine whether it was valuable enough for me to purchase before it was mine to use and enjoy. I didn't hire the artist (musician) to work by the hour for me to address my long list of goals and objectives in order to represent my growing business. Nope. Like the manufacturer, the artist completed the product before any interaction occurred with the customer. As the customer, I just needed to determine whether I 'like' it.
We choose to visit a hot new restaurant because of the buzz created by the chef, or the service, or the experience. And likely, it's all three and more. Again, it's the restaurant's product and other than selecting the temperature of my steak, I have little or no direct communication with the chef. Unless the product is inedible, I'm paying for it. In both cases, I'd argue that your comparison is again more indicative of purchasing art rather than engaging in the process of design. The illustration is grossly oversimplified and in my opinion, is way off mark.
Clients choose a design firm because of the quality of the designer and his work, how the designer approached a problem, and how effective they have been for their clients. Not the designer's tools or technologies, or their boilerplate approach to making one size fit all. As a partner in a design firm, I can't tell you how many times a client has wanted to see a solution for another client in that client's same industry. I'll gladly provide that. But there are then many who also want to see a solution which is exactly comparable to solving their own problem. My response is generally that I don't have an apples-to-apples solution because I haven't yet provided a solution specifically for that potential client's needs. We can draw from what we've learned in working with that other, similar client, but their issues—how to position or sell, how they approach building their brand—are likely very different from the new client's issues. And therein lies the difference. We are paid to do custom work for very different types of clients even if, on the surface, their business looks to be the same as another. You could say that Apple and Microsoft are software companies and you'd be right. You could say that Nike and UGG are shoe companies and you'd be right. You could say that Ferrari and Hyundai are car companies and again, you'd be right. The difference is in design. And the difference in design is how well each company works to define their attributes and how they are perceived in the market.
What we do as designers is different and we look for the differentiators on behalf of our clients. It's not window dressing. Contrary to the perceptions of the inexperienced client, graphic design is not about picking a color palette and a typeface. It's not about having a Mac and it's not about Adobe illustrator. It's about communication and that's likely why some of the most successful professional designers are up in arms about this issue. A fair amount of our time, what we must be paid for, is educating (consulting, if you will) the inexperienced client through the process. Whether in their role as designer or as salesman, communication is both what we're practicing and what we require to be effective in our efforts. Direct communication between client and designer is vital and 'a few mouse clicks' does not communication make. If responsible journalism is in the business of communicating the issues behind the problem, then many of the stories about crowdSPRING are woefully inadequate. It's not apples-to-apples, and like crowdSPRING, is only interested in telling part of the story. I don't tell a journalist how to write his article and most journalists are not qualified to tell a designer, the design industry, or a service such as crowdSPRING, how to run their businesses.
With that, I should say that I whole-heartedly agree with your proposition that the most successful designers are also the best salesmen. It takes a fair amount of thrust to move a skeptical client (with much invested) to approval. Regardless of the idle talk of 'thinking outside the box' or 'pushing the envelope' inexperienced clients are often most comfortable approving something similar to what they've seen in the past. They want their friends' or their wife's opinions without any procedural context before signing off on a direction. This me-too approach isn't intentional, but it is safe and ends up doing little to differentiate a company. That's fine when designing a simple t-shirt, but try taking that approach with the consultation from an accountant or attorney. As most of us would likely attest, design by committee waters down the product and usually adds considerable time to the process. To even begin to address the copyright issues or related liabilities is another series of articles altogether. The issue of ethics is equally pesky. Ross (of crowdSPRING) has simply declared that the ethical debate is absurd. So be it. Is he qualified to make that determination? Likely not, but you know what they say about opinions and particularly if you're aiming to reframe the issue to position your company. And let's not forget that Ross is spot-on in one area. crowdSPRING is not the only company doing this. They're simply the most vocal."