Sorry, but the comparison to istockphoto and threadless is not accurate.

istockphoto:
You can sell one photo multiple times. You can’t sell a logo you did for company A to company B.
You can try and copy a look and/or concept of a photograph, but you can probably never replicate it–not to mention the significant time it takes to re-stage the photo. A logo? An hour of work in Illustrator/Photoshop and voila, the same exact logo (or at least very close).

threadless:
You’re posting something that you did on your own–no client demands or needs to be met–just whatever you want in your own style. Good luck doing that with graphic design. Oh, and their compensation? $2,000 cash + $500 gift certificate if selected (plus $500 for each reprint). Compare that to crowdspring’s $200 reward for a logo (if selected).

@ Colin:

Open-source is a vastly different model. In an open-source model, everyone’s working on one big project, so to speak. In crowdspring’s model, you’re competing with everybody else in many small projects to “win” some cash. Apples & oranges.

@Sean:

I think some designers are more affected by this trend than others. The established firms probably have a good roster of mid/large-sized businesses that simply cannot take risks with “crowdsourcing” their design work. I think it may be relevant to solo/freelance designers, whose clients may be made of a good number of smaller businesses.

But again, I do have a few freelance clients that I have developed good relationships with, and

@ Matthew:

I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are plenty of local businesses and non-profit organizations that can benefit from what graphic designers have to offer. If one wants to build his/her portfolio, this is a much more productive way to do it. One, you learn about client/designer relationship. Two, your work will actually be used in real life (as opposed to being a rejected proposal), which will add to your “cred”. And finally of course, you’re contributing to the local community.

I think in the long run, crowdspring’s model is simply unsustainable for the designer, if s/he is aspiring to be a full-time designer.

A typical designer probably has a few clients that he’s familiar with and doing continuous work for.. which is a sustainable model, since he’s not starting out with a blank canvas every single time. But in crowdspring’s model, you have to (if you want to get compensated for your effort) participate in multiple projects simultaneously. An average post gets 68 submissions. 1 in 68 chance of winning $250 (chances are there will be some unqualified submissions.. but 1:20 is still not very encouraging).

Now for the amateurs/hobbyists, that’s not an issue at all, because $$ is not on their agenda and they’re not doing it full-time. But for the true aspiring designers… well, there’s a reason why people don’t make a living from contests.

Good point – there are a billion examples of schools being taken for spec work of sorts… and I’ve never heard a peep about it.

Actually, good for that – at least the community can get *some* return on their awful investment.

The “gratuity” (if ever offered) was maybe 5% of a professional’s rate and never yielded an actual paid gig. Of course if the kids couldn’t perform no professionals were hired.

Again, the biggest problem I see here isn’t crotchety protectionism, it’s opportunity cost. crowdSPRING offers a way to develop one’s skills – I think there are better, more productive ways.

I don’t think that spec is “evil,” per se, but it’s a tough deal for someone trying to make it as a service provider. My take is that spec, especially in the case of crowdSPRING, is terribly unproductive. Just like you said, even if one can repurpose work done for a crowdSPRING ad, it’s terribly inefficient. Help out someone close by instead.

I don’t buy the comparisons to iStock, Threadless, etc., either. Hopefully I’ll read a more compelling argument soon.

The simple reason is, if a photographer truly has a unique and creative vision and the skills to match, it doesn’t matter if everyone on earth has the same gear. In the past, there were a ton of folks making a living in “photography” simply by virtue of being able to afford the best gear.

Now that gear isn’t the issue to the same extent, some of those folks died a lonely death. While that is sad, (my personality is quite blue) it is life in a free economy.

In my opinion, if a kid can just open CS3 and crank out logos like the pros, then perhaps there is something less “mysterious” about that skill. Good is good. You can tell it when you see it. (If you have any sort of aesthetic sense) This crowdSPRING will not ruin the system, if anything it might light a fire under the butts of some.

I actually like the idea for what it is- takes me back to James Surowiecki’s Wisdom.

Sean

One thing I’m curious about is the comparisons being made between cS and iStock, Threadless etc. I’m not sure the similarities carry through as one of the commentors on 37signals said, on iStock the artist has multiple opportunities to get 1 picture sold, whereas on cS you get 1 shot for that particular design. Even if you want to re-purpose the losing design for another project, you’re going to have to put more work into it. I wonder if there are other more relevant comparisons cS could use?
Like I said it’s fascinating and I look forward to seeing how things shake out for them, by all accounts it looks like it’s a successful model for them.

The Cult of the Amateur is a good way to describe what I think makes the United States such a historically-great country. I seldom thumb my nose at it.

If a designer, or any other service provider, can create great stuff off simple, written specs, they’re going to do quite well. Interpreting instructions clearly and then generating something appropriate is certainly a prized skill. In this respect, crowdSPRING is a valuable resource for designers who need practice.

And if that’s the most important practice for developing designers [or those learning any subject] needs, you’ve just made an argument for why we could cut about 80% of public school staff and school budgets.

The reason I think the crowdSPRING model is such a problem is because of opportunity cost – I said it before, I’ll say it again. The opportunity cost is far too high. The value you described for crowdSPRING is available in 1,001 different places, most of which make better use of everyone’s time, effort and productivity.

If a student researches a crowdSPRING design, mocks one up and submits, he misses out on developing most of the skills that make a designer successful. He’ll have a logo for his portfolio, but he’s not a better designer than he was the day before.”

I beg to differ. He’s learned different skills. Based on my own experiences in the business world, I dare say that far more often designers are working off of written spec documents and interpreting things from there. Yes,conversations do take place, but the written specs seem to rule. The best designers I’ve seen are able to take the written specs, do some of their own research and then create one or several comps.

Plus, with comments from the ‘buyer’, people can get feedback on the designs they’ve submitted, make changes, and then resubmit new versions.

I’m not saying that this is the perfect model, nor that it is in the best interest of professional graphic designers who make a full time living this way.

But I’m also not going to say that it’s ruining the world either ;)

I can see the potential in a community like you’ve described – at this point, from what I’ve see, crowdSPRING doesn’t do that. I may be wrong.

It sounds like ASIC works the way open source software sites do with everyone working together on the same project or on complementary projects. That’s a great model – and again, I don’t see crowdSPRING doing it.

I don’t mind objecting to crowdSPRING because I don’t see it as being like the ASIC site you mentioned or the open source sites with which I’m familiar. Could it become like those? Sure – and I hope it does.

There are lots of examples of market saturation that has made high-quality providers work harder. Sometimes that’s natural and good; sometimes it degrades the sector. We see it now with internet-based writing. Solid writers have to compete with adequate writers who cost 10% as much. The cost/benefit leads sites to hire the low-end writers and overall quality suffers.

Even though that’s what the market wants and it’s what the market gets, it’s unfortunate. That’s also an example where those high-end skills were valuable, they’ve just been replaced by the written equivalent of fast food.

I don’t like artificial protections on sectors, trade, or anything else. I just think that in this case, everyone [except crowdSPRING] could be better served by a different model.