#no-spec

by Julia Ptasznik

Note: This article was written for and originally published in the Fall 2000 edition of Exchange, the semi-annual journal of the Toronto, Canada-based Design Exchange.

Something magical happens when a designer and client begin to work together. It’s like the bond that develops between director and actor, composer and lyricist or psychoanalyst and patient. In the design business, this creative chemistry should lead to breakthrough thinking around the design opportunity and ultimately to the design solution. But this relationship cannot begin to gel until there is commitment on both sides. It certainly cannot take hold in the speculative pitch situation in which the designer feels insecure and on show. And yet, in Canada and other countries, both public and private sector organizations persist in asking designers to develop creative concepts in competition with their peers for a set fee or on spec. What’s more, they often impose a totally unrealistic timeframe for spec work, and the set fee, if offered, bears no relation to the work involved because at this stage client and designer have not agreed on a scope of work for the project. …This article discusses the issue in the context of international practice.

Test-driving potential suppliers: If you are a design professional, you are probably intimately familiar with requests for proposals (RFPs) which require not only schedule and financial estimates, but often full-blown creative presentations as part of a pitch for the job. If you are on the client side, you have probably heard of test-driving potential suppliers, or may even have done so yourself. This article should help both sides, as it provides a global perspective on the issue and suggests how to negotiate a mutually-beneficial working arrangement.

First, let’s briefly outline the main problems involved.

Spec work is a problem because: 1. It’s exploitative. It requires the designer to perform services free of charge, without any guarantee of compensation. Further, it is inappropriate for small-scale design projects, because the work performed often constitutes the entire project.

2. It’s unethical. It essentially amounts to buying new business and doesn’t fall far from bribery. It also fosters an unhealthy competition environment among designers and firms bidding on the same project.

3. It offers no future potential. Many designers hope this is going to lead to future ongoing business, whereas the reality is that clients who adopt this vendor selection method tend to apply it to every project.

4. It can lead to copyright infringement. There are numerous cases where a design house, initially told that they have not been awarded the project, has found its work used either in its entirety, or as the basis for creating the actual project, without the original designer’s knowledge, consent, and without appropriate compensation.

5. It negatively impacts the entire design industry. As long as there are designers providing services free of charge, the practice is going to continue to flourish and to erode the professional status of designers in all disciplines.

Speculating on design futures: The increased demand for design services in the last decade of the 20th Century has brought about an increase in legal and ethical disputes. Apart from the issues of rights, liabilities, and ownership (which Eric Swetsky discusses in this issue [of Exchange]), the good old test drive, or speculative creative pitch, is making a comeback.

The practice of clients requesting creative work to be done before the project is awarded has its origins in advertising, where speculative creative, commonly referred to as a "pitch," is the mode in which agencies compete for multimillion dollar accounts. In these cases, the practice is considered appropriate, as the winning agency stands to earn millions of dollars, making the initial investment of time and effort well worth it.

However, when the project is a one-time, smaller scale, graphic design assignment, a free pitch essentially amounts to performing the majority of the required work up-front, without any guarantee of compensation. Consider the design of a logo. In addition to scheduling and budgeting the job, designers submitting comps for consideration have to go through the entire research process, evaluating the company and its competition, and determining and executing several appropriate solutions — which amounts to 90, if not 100, percent of the assignment. This type of arrangement, while extraordinarily unfair to the designer, is on the rise.

Global perspective: In the United States, the practice has almost become the norm, especially for large conglomerates and governmental organizations. Just within the past six months, my own marketing communications consultancy has received three speculative creative requests. The most interesting example is that of a prominent international children’s advocacy fund. Here is an excerpt from the first two paragraphs of its RFP: "Bids are invited for the design, layout, typesetting, and print production of the [organization’s] 2000 Annual Report ... The designer [is] expected to present a design concept for the publication, showing the overall design and the treatment for each of the elements; when awarding the contract, both the concept and the price [are going to] be taken into consideration."

This amounts to at least 60 hours of work, above and beyond preparing the actual proposal and estimating the costs of the project. It is interesting that of all types of organizations, an advocacy group would make such a request.

USA-based design firms are not alone. According to Jack Yan, one of the most prominent contemporary type designers, founder of Australia’s leading type house, JY&A Fonts, and publisher of several magazines: "A lot of this ‘pitching’ happens [in Australia and New Zealand] as well. We frequently are involved in free pitches. I consider them a necessary evil to doing business and cannot see alternatives, given that our client market likes to play things that way."

Keith Williams of the UK-based design consultancy sprout.uk.com suggests that the local situation also mirrors that of the United States: "In the late 80s and early 90s, this was just the way it worked. You did the unpaid pitch, or the work never seemed to come your way." Today, government departments still entertain this practice, simply because they have the muscle to do so. Overall, he suggests that although the practice of UK companies requesting speculative creative has eased a little with smaller and medium-sized firms, some of the larger clients still encourage or even expect it. The irony, of course, is that the larger companies are the ones who can afford to pay.

While the practice is on the rise among the design profession, the advertising industries in some countries are beginning to recognize just how exploitative free pitches are. According to Ranajit Tendolkar, a veteran of the Indian ad industry and currently one of the principals of the Bombay-based Web design shop Pigtail Pundits, the free pitch practice is dying out: "These days, when asked to make a speculative presentation, many [local] agencies tell the prospective client that the presentation is not going to be free, and many clients accept that. These clients are professional enough to realize that the agency is spending valuable time, money, and effort, so they [agree] to pay a ‘rejection fee’—an amount mutually agreed-upon beforehand."

Designers’ position: American advocacy groups have made their position on this issue clear long ago. For instance, the Graphic Artists Guild has a chapter devoted to speculative creative in its Handbook: Pricing and Ethical Guidelines. The beginning of this chapter reads: "The Graphic Artists Guild is unalterably opposed to any artist being asked to work on speculation because of the inherent risks to the artist in such circumstances. Art buyers should not ask artists to work on a project unless a fee has been agreed upon in advance. Artists must be adequately compensated at any time they are requested to create artwork. Working on speculation places all the risks on the artist without a commitment on the buyer's part."

This position is in line with the Model Code of Professional Conduct created jointly by the International Council of Graphic Design Associations (ICOGRADA), International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID), and International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers (IFI), headquartered in Belgium, Finland, and South Africa, respectively. The Code’s objective is to state the principles for an international basis of ethical standards related to the practice of design, be it graphic/visual communications, product and capital goods design, or interior design and architecture.

The remuneration close of The Code states: "A designer shall not undertake any work at the invitation of a client without payment of an appropriate fee."

Asking designers to submit creative before the project is awarded is just like asking a construction company to build a house before one decides to actually buy it.

The client perspective: Perhaps Claire Burke, vice president of the New York, USA-based public relations firm Hunter & Associates, puts it best when she says that asking designers to submit creative before the project is awarded is "just like asking a construction company to build a house before [one decides] to actually buy it." According to Burke, free pitches may have their place in the advertising and public relations industries, but the practice is really not relevant to the design field. She points out: "There are other, more appropriate methods of selecting a designer."

Another interesting point of view is offered by Meagan Crosby Hayes, director of marketing communications of one of the States’ leading mergers and acquisitions firms, The Geneva Companies, headquartered in Irvine, California. Hayes notes that: "The process [of selecting a designer] is largely trial-and-error, and there are those who try to avoid the possibility of error by employing competition-like methods of designer selection. It is not something I do. Leaving the obvious ethical argument alone, it just doesn’t make sense from a business perspective. Having three different people or firms work on the same project at the same time is taxing on our own internal resources. First, we’d have to educate them as to the nature of the business. Second, we’d have to give direction on the project itself and monitor its progress. I’d much rather interview people, see their work, and make an educated guess as to who is better suited to a particular project. While I may ask them to pitch a concept, I wouldn’t expect them to execute it prior to formally engaging their services."

A disturbing case: It seems that there isn’t a global consensus on the issue of spec work, among industry organizations or creative professionals. For example, Jeff Fisher of the Portland (Oregon), USA-based Jeff Fisher LogoMotives, an accomplished identity designer who has won over 130 industry awards since 1995, unequivocally states: "I do not do work on a speculative basis. If someone wants to ‘test drive’ me as a designer for future projects, they pay for my time at my usual rates."

What led to this non-negotiable position was a disturbing case of blatant theft — or copyright infringement — on behalf of one of Fisher’s clients. After the client commissioned and paid Fisher for a logo design, he requested that a few layouts of stationery be prepared on speculation, as he wasn’t sure he was going to produce them immediately. After submitting the work, Fisher was told that the client would contact him once he was ready to proceed. A month later, Fisher received a letter from the client company’s accounting department, written on stationery and accompanied by a business card Fisher had designed. The bookkeeper, having no idea the client had effectively stolen the work, was asking for some tax information. Fisher immediately took legal action, and was compensated for the work via an out-of-court settlement.

Fear of the unknown Clients who understand what is involved in coming up with an effective design solution tend to operate along the same lines as Burke and Hayes. However, there are many clients who lack awareness of the design process. Some believe that new technology has made the process of developing creative concepts both faster and easier, whereas in reality it is only the tools that have changed.

It is also easy to see how clients could be uncomfortable awarding a project to a firm with whom they have not had previous experience, and how requesting a free pitch may seem like the easy way out. But consider this: Could you ask an accountant to do your taxes under the assumption that you will only pay for this service if you like the amount of money you get to keep as a result?

Selection criteria There are other effective ways for a client to ensure that the selected designer is the best person for the job. If you are in the market for design, the best place to start is referrals from colleagues. If that is not an option, national or local industry organizations, such as the Design Exchange in Canada, can put you in touch with designers who specialize in the type of service you seek. In an ideal world, a portfolio review, client reference checks, an acceptable cost estimate, and last but not least, the chemistry generated between client and designer at a face-to-face meeting should be enough to make the choice.

If some clients still feel uneasy, Robbie Vorhaus of New York-based Vorhaus Public Relations, suggests that a paid pitch may be mutually beneficial: "Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we have a budget of $100,000. We may take $5,000 and divide it between three people or firms, thereby covering their initial expenses. The firm that does the best work wins the project."

If a client company has budgetary restrictions, it may choose to run a public competition, although that is another practice that is heavily frowned upon in the design industry. In this case, there are two suggestions to be made. First, it is a good idea to consult the local industry organizations and review their fair practices recommendations with regard to competitions. Second, it is important to make sure that the grand prize is commensurate with the market rate for the project at hand.

Taking action: If you are a designer presented with an RFP requiring work on speculation, take the time to ask yourself these questions:

1. Am I willing to work for free? (Of course, there may be exceptions to the rule, such as bidding on projects that are enormous in scope or involve potential retainer-based arrangements.)

2. Do I want to secure new business by buying it, or on the merits of previous experience and accomplishments?

3. Do I empathize with designers who participate in speculative creative presentations, and do I care about how my participation in such schemes affects my colleagues?

4. Am I comfortable with the fact that doing a speculative presentation does not guarantee any future relationship with a client?

5. Am I vulnerable to the possibility of someone taking my work and using it without my knowledge, consent, or payment?

And here is one final suggestion. Most designers faced with a request for spec work think that they only have two choices — to do the requested work or to gracefully bow out. But, even if you are not willing to work for free, you should still submit a proposal and cost estimate, accompanied by a letter explaining your position on free pitches. Once alerted to how unethical this practice is, the client company may change its position. My firm consistently takes this route, most recently in response to the aforementioned RFP from the children’s advocacy fund. We have been awarded that job, despite the fact that other firms competing for it had chosen to submit the requested speculative creative.

In conclusion, to borrow from a well-known adage: Designers and clients alike don’t get what they deserve — they get what they negotiate.

by Jeff Fisher, Engineer of Creative Identity, Jeff Fisher LogoMotives

It may bark like a dog and look like a dog but, is it really always a dog?

A similar query may arise with many “design contests,” especially those popping up all over the Internet on a daily basis. Business and organizations, with the ability to pay going rates for professional graphic design services, have found the lure of winning a “contest” will reel in large numbers of designers for the chance of a few minutes of fame, a little glory and perhaps cash or prizes not nearly worth the value of the design effort on the open market. In return, those conducting these design lotteries often get a virtual menu of design options, and the rights to use all entries as they please, with little need of valuable prize options or the outlay of much cash.

Some blame for the proliferation of “design contests” must fall on the design community itself. For a great many designers, such activities appear to be an opportunity to gain some quick income. In the excitement of the moment it is often forgotten that winning is not a sure thing and the “fine print’ of the competition rules may be even more detrimental to a designer. The only thing worse than a client, or potential client, who does not value the efforts of a professional graphic designer, is a designer who doesn’t appreciate the value of their own time and work. Participation in such “competitions” certainly devalues the efforts of the creative individual and encourages others in the business community to seek inexpensive design work in a similar manner.

In most cases the target of such “contests” is the somewhat naive, and not so business savvy, designer. For that reason many of the “competitions” are often posted on newsgroups, or venues like Yahoo Groups, frequented a great deal by “newbies” to the industry. Those conducting such competitive ventures are not always seeking to take advantage of designers not knowing better. Some simply need to be educated about the design profession and all designers need to take it upon themselves to aid in that education process.

Other businesses holding design competitions are very much aware of what they are doing. Recently, on a design-related Yahoo Group, a firm posted a letterhead “design contest.” This company, which sold document templates, was offering small cash prizes for the top three designs. No additional residuals were to be offered to the selected designs that would eventually be sold for use by others. In fact, the fine print of the competition noted that all submissions to the “contest” became the property of the company and could be used as they saw fit - meaning the firm could use and sell the designs of non-winners without any form of compensation. A few days following the posting of the names of “winners” the web site of the “contest,” and the company, no longer existed.

The similarity to speculative design work is blatant in many of these “competitions.” (Additional inormations about dealing with “spec” work situations can be found on NO!SPEC). Designers are being asked to create work for the chance that their work might be selected or used by the client. In these cases the carrot being dangled is often a prize of significantly less value than the designer could earn if contracted directly to produce the work. Instead of committing themselves and contracting with one design professional, the business or organization in question is setting up a veritable smorgasbord of creative possibilities for themselves, with little consideration for the individual designer or the value of their time and talents.

In March 2004, a “contest” for a logo, web site design and collateral materials was posted on the Internet forum at Designers-Network.com. Immediately, designers from all over the world pounced on the poster of the message and his offer of a $1000 prize for a great deal of speculative work. Those responding to the post invested a great deal thought in putting together their arguments against the practice of such competitions. Some provided information about the actual value of a designer’s work. Others posted messages outlining the evils of “spec” work. A few questioned the turning over of all rights on a project to a for-profit venture. The individual posting the message about the event was initially stunned by the reaction but then responded that he had decided to cancel the contest as a result.

Some producing and promoting similar “design contests” should simply know better than to solicit design work in such a manner. Naming names is not necessary, but recently a well-known writer, the writer’s publisher, a stock photo company and an online payment company began a competition to design the cover of the author’s book. The competition was then promoted by a variety of design industry and business web sites that supposedly support the efforts of the “little guy” in the design profession. The “prize” package for the winner included a camera (valued at approximately $1000), a signed copy of the book and a credit for the stock photo company. It was necessary to pay a $1.00 entry fee through the online payment firm in which the author has some financial interest.

As Creative Latitude’s own Neil Tortorella noted, in one of the Internet discussions of this specific competitive event, The Graphic Artist Guild Handbook of Pricing & Ethical Guidelines (10th Ed.) estimates a typical fee for One/First Concept of a mass market hardcover book to be $2,000 - $3,500 US, with licensed rights for first edition only.”

The rules for the “contest” were clearly posted for all to read, and agree to, before submitting a design. And there it was: “All entries become the property of Sponsors. By entering the Contest, the winner agrees to assign all of his or her rights, title and interest in the entry (including all copyrights, trademarks, design rights, moral rights and all other intellectual property rights) to the Sponsors or their designee(s).” A designer would be submitting a speculative design to an established publisher - and giving up all rights to the work. It makes it tough for all designers when those supposedly “in the know” about the industry, and aware of the value of a designer’s creative efforts, are working against them in the guise of a “contest.”

Various online forums presented lively interaction between posters on this particular book cover situation, with mixed reactions from those joining the discussions. In general, the more established the design professional the more likely they had a negative reaction to the “contest.” Designers with less experience in the industry seemed to look at it as a great opportunity for exposure; rather than a situation that would be taking advantage of their talents and wasting their limited valuable time. The biggest disappointment was the attitude of the author in question. He basically blew off all criticisms with a response of suggesting designers not enter the “contest” if they didn’t like the event or did not want to abide by the rules.

Over two decades ago the Graphic Artists Guild established “Suggested Guidelines for Art Competitions and Contests” through their Graphic Artists Guild Foundation, with a supporting grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. The organization conducted a nationwide survey of art and design competition holders, as well as jurors and competition entrants, in determining recommendations for competitions and contests conducted by art-related organizations/associations, for-profit companies desiring work for commercial purposes; and nonprofit organizations. Serious consideration of such recommendations is now more important than ever to those in the design profession attempting to wade through the competitive offerings promoted via the Internet.

In all cases, the Graphic Artists Guild (GAG) suggests that those conducting competitions initially review existing work of designers or artists, rather than requiring the execution of newly created, speculative work. Through a process of elimination, finalists are then asked to possibly submit rough sketches prior to being named the finalist for the project contract. A number of guideline recommendations then help the event sponsor select a final art piece or design. The organization also stresses that any prize awarded should be commensurate with the fair market value of the work being done. GAG also recommends that the individual creating the work should retain a variety of rights for the work done.

The most legitimate design contests are often those conducted by nonprofit organizations. Still, such organizations may benefit from knowledge of the GAG established “Suggested Guidelines for Art Competitions and Contests.” While smaller, budget-challenged, nonprofits seldom seem to be intentionally taking advantage of designers, there is still room for some improvement when it comes to establishing specific contest rules and conducting the competitions. It is the prerogative of many in the design profession to make some concessions about these issues when dealing with project opportunities for nonprofit causes in which they have strong personal interests.

It should be noted that the “contests” covered in this article are not the industry awards designers either love, or love to hate. (Those competitions have already been examined in another Creative Latitude article) The “design contests” that are not always what they seem are most often requests for newly designed work to be used in the marketing and promotion of a business, service or product - to the financial gain of the entity presenting the opportunity.

In considering possible participation in such events, designers should review suggested competition guidelines - such as those recommended by GAG - and do a little online research of the business or organization conducting the activity. Carefully read all of the rules presented by the sponsor and give consideration to the actual market value of the work being requested. By doing so, a design professional can make an informed decision about possible participation in what someone else is referring to as a “contest.” The investment in time in learning about such issues will also make a designer better informed when finding it necessary to educate those promoting so-called “contests” about the errors of their ways.

Designers beware! The beast known as a “contest” may look like a dog and bark like a dog. However, be careful when you go to pet, or play with, this animal. Its bite could be much worse than its bark.

This article originally appeared on CreativeLatitude.com in April 2004. It was also published on Pixelgirlpresents.com, GDC.net - Society of Graphic Designers of Canada, TheCreativeForum.com, Commpiled.com, Singapore.net and NO-SPEC.com

I can't believe there's an entire site devoted to spec work. Fuck 99designs, if you want work freaking pay for it, don't string along artists for your dumb contests. Do you tell programmers to program your entire job for you and pick the best one in the end? Do go to restaurants and ask each chef to make you a meal and only pay for the best one? NO? then STOP DOING IT TO ARTISTS!

ImageBrief Director and Content Manager, Meg Moss argues that in the big gap between commissioned work and the five-buck stock shot, crowdsourcing can deliver a ‘win-win’ for the buyer and photographer.

  The term ‘crowdsourcing’ is only five years old but has already earned ‘dirty word’ status, especially amongst graphic designers.  But does it deserve its bad rap across the board or would photographers be wise to take a closer look? 

  Crowdsourcing as a method of transacting business is not inherently evil.  The devil is, as always, in the detail. What has really got the designers breathing fire is the ‘on-spec’ aspect of the platforms that have sprung up in their industry.  Creatives object to being asked to put in the hours with only a slim chance that they’ll be the one to win the competition and get paid.  They also object to giving up the rights to their work.  Many photographers know how that feels.

  The term ‘crowdsourcing’ means “the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.”  The term ‘on spec’ means to do work, spending time and resources, without guarantee of payment.  All crowdsourcing platforms require some time and resources to be spent up front.  This is not, in itself, unreasonable.  Creatives often have to spend time to secure work before payment is guaranteed – credentials meetings, concept presentations and pitches are common.  How much time and resource is required and for what potential reward is the critical question.   

  ImageBrief is a crowdsourcing platform.  But it does not ask for hours to be spent on creating new work on-spec. It doesn’t require you to go out and shoot at all.  You read the buyer’s brief and decide whether you have an existing image that meets it.  If you do, you spend a few minutes uploading your image in low-res.  If the buyer chooses your image you get paid.  In any case you keep your rights to your work.  Importantly, you can see the amount the buyer will pay for the image and the way they intend to use it before you decide to submit work. 

  It’s also worth noting that you have to apply to belong to the ImageBrief photographer community and are accepted on the strength of your portfolio.  In this case the ‘open call’ goes out to a defined group.  ImageBrief is one of many platforms across a range of industries that would be more aptly termed ‘poolsourcing’.  

  The growth of crowdsourcing websites has been phenomenal.  In the space of 14 years the trend, which started with open source software development, has spread to a diverse range of industries.  In some, such as data input and analysis, it has created a seismic shift in the way business is conducted.  We’re betting it will have a similar impact on photography as demand for images grows at the same time that budgets are squeezed and buyer satisfaction with stock library results plummets. 

It's a favoured term for marketeers everywhere, but fills me with dread: Crowdsourcing. The reason it fills me with dread is the terrible bastardisation of the English language to invent a word that basically means "sharing".

In essence the process of crowdsourcing (shudders) is to pitch out an idea, project or activity to your target market and see what they think. The theory being that the crowd (or the mob if I was being Roman about it) would come back with logical, well thought out responses and solutions. On the one hand an excellent way to engage (or perceive to) with your audience or market to provide valuable insight into product, process, price or placement. On the other hand a lazy way of getting your customers to do your work for you on the cheap (or free). You can probably tell what side of that fence I'm falling on! 

The latest example of this nonsense comes from the peeps at Moleskine - a well regarded maker of notebooks and other similar paraphernalia, especially in the design community. They want a new logo and have chosen, in their wisdom, to crowdsource the generation of said logo, offering a prize of EURO5,000 to the winning entry. Rather than echo other's comments on the economic implications of this decision, I'll point to Mark Collin's post on Anti Spec. 

So, Moleskine are asking designers to sacrifice a good proportion of their time, for free, without the benefit of detailed, insider knowledge of the brand, it's value or strategy to derive insight and a design that aligns to those values, in return for a meagre prize and the "kudos" that end design may bring. In essence this is boiling the design process down to blind scribbling and colouring in. Would you do that with a house? No. Your architect for a start would tell you where to go, but more importantly you'd end up with a building that didn't match your needs.