One of the knocks I have heard about crowdsourcing is that the buyers are not savvy enough to recognize good (or bad) work, and even if they are they are not willing to risk upsetting the designers working without a paycheck by telling the bad ones that they really shouldn’t be doing what they are doing.
In a crowdsourced design project for a major publisher I just saw this as a comment from the person managing the project for the publishing house to a designer that had submitted many different ideas:
The commenter went on to identify ways that the designer could improve her work if she so chose. (I edited out the name and follow-on comments.)
While harsh, I actually think this sort of feedback helps to make crowdsourcing credible. The designs being submitted were exactly as described, and in this medium there is no better way to explain what was wrong. There’s a point at which a design is so bad that it can’t be fixed – but just saying “No, not good enough” doesn’t help the designer understand where they went wrong. The commenter couldn’t have helped them to fix the fact that they’re new to design, shouldn’t have to explain why putting outlines and shadows on a handwritten font over a cluttered background doesn’t work, and doesn’t have a responsibility to identify what the focus of the piece should be.
But the commenter took the time to at least explain what was wrong so that the designer wouldn’t keep submitting designs that never reached the required level.
Mark my words, people. Crowdsourcing is going to work, and it will work not because the designers are getting better, but because the buyers are getting more savvy. Sure, the demanding ones with no taste and no ability to explain what they’re looking for will always be around, but the buyers like this publisher are going to help change the game. Eventually designers will gravitate to those buyers who communicate well, leaving the clueless ones to deal with the well-intentioned, though inexperienced designers like the one receiving the comments above.
Sadly, though, the unseasoned, unexceptional, unfocused work will still have a market.
Which, come to think of it, isn’t a lot different than what we have today on the open market. Spec-work or not, every designer out there knows of other designers that have no talent and yet are somehow able to keep getting contracts. (And if you are a designer and you don’t know anyone like that then I may have some rather unpleasant news for you…)
I’m a little confused at your zest for crowdsourcing design Tate. Perhaps it is a logical progression of a social marketing/Internet workplace democracy and I’m being a ludite.
I run a marketing and design firm, and over the past 20 years I have worked with many designers and creative directors (as full-time employees and contract/freelance workers). I always have a “stable” of proven designers to choose from for a project and try to match the job and designer characteristics/strengths.
Crowdsourcing seems to be like having a large pool of unknown freelance designers who have not been vetted or approved in advance; and who have little motivation or opportunity to truly learn about/understand the project.
I appreciate that this could often produce some real gems and novel approaches. And the apparent cost is minimal. However, the real cost of your firm’s time invested in supervising the project and potential cost to the client may not be worth it.
Understanding the client’s needs, brand, market, competition, history, corporate goals, etc. are essential to providing a design that truly “fits” with the client. This typically comes from a talented and informed design team (ongoing communication between creative director, marketer and designers) working together. Even with a well-described crowdsourcing project, this dynamic is missing.
So to me, crowdsourcing seems like a “hit ‘n’ miss” strategy that could be very cumbersome and puts the client’s project in jeopardy.
Amen!
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Scott.
I think you are right. It is very much hit and miss. It is more miss than hit when there isn’t a creative director involved. Some of our early attempts weren’t great, in large part because we didn’t understand how to use the new medium to communicate nor what details would be relevant to the designers. We’re getting better all the time, now.
For a client that knows exactly what they want to see I’m pretty sure that crowdsourcing is the wrong direction. It’s for the ones that just don’t know that the real value is apparent. The system we’re using today enables us to communicate the essence of the brand to hundreds of designers, and those who feel they connect can give it a shot. If they bring something to the table that is unique or adds value they get paid. If their design gets chosen they get paid a whole lot more.
I fully acknowledge that most of the designs we see presented are basically at the concept/sketch stage. That’s fine – and I don’t want to see more than that for the first stage anyhow. Anyone that my team asks to do more is going to be compensated, even if it isn’t a whole lot of money.
As for the cost… We basically guarantee we’re going to end up with a design that advances the client brand based on our abilities as creative directors. If the worst happened and we couldn’t deliver we’d either refund the money or work on the project internally until we found a design that got the job done. And the ‘winning’ designer would still get paid.
Is it ideal? No. But we see things are getting better. And as technology evolves we think that sometime soon the line between crowdsourcing and working with an agency may be nearly impossible to identify. Crowdsourcing plus internet conferencing plus online design & editing tools, plus an independent creative director… well… most of today’s small agencies will have a hard time showing why they’re better. Especially since we at Stokefire have found a whole lot of talented folks who are moonlighting on these sites while working at some of the top branding and design firms in the country.
Candidly, Stokefire will not be doing crowdsourcing very long. Pretty soon we’ll spin off the small-business services into a new entity so we can focus on the larger accounts. When small business services go out the door it’s likely that crowdsourcing will go with it. Until that time, though, we do rely on it to help us identify promising freelancers (some of whom we’re actively talking with about full time employement, and others of whom we’ve been able to outsource small jobs with) and that alone is worth the price for us. And in that capacity we’ll probably stay connected to the concept either with the spinoff or even for small internal projects.
Crowdsourcing is incredibly threatening to the established way of doing things – especially when it comes to design. Traditional designers are absolutely right to be horrified by what is going on. There is a type of client that doesn’t care about brand, fit, competition or anything else other than having something to put in the spot marked “logo.” Those clients that used to make up the bottom rung of freelance contracts are basically becoming extinct. What should worry the traditionalists more, however, are those clients who DO realize the value of brand analysis and insight, but figure out that the insight and the design can be purchased independently at a lower cost than when purchased together – and that they can get far more concepts in play from a wider audience with arguably more talent for that lowered investment.
That’s scary as hell for anyone on the visual side.
A small sop can’t (and shouldn’t) compete on price per concept. But they also can’t compete with the creative director that has identified the ten top (and best fitting) freelancers available around the world, and can guarantee that at least half of them will participate in the project. We’re not there yet, but we have worked with exceptional artists in Romania, Singapore, the Southeast US, Chicago, Los Angeles, and… heck… some of ‘em I don’t even know where they are from, but they’re damn good. When I write and say I have $XX to send them if they’ll just submit a couple ideas I’ve never once had anyone turn me down. That plus the substantial payday if they are selected is more than worth the time it takes them to read the brief and brainstorm.
The model of crowdsourcing we ascribe to doesn’t really work for people without the ability to see strategically and provide unique work. It’s self selecting and affirming. If the designer isn’t exceptional they’ll never get paid, and they’ll understand what’s missing from their work. Those designers will gravitate to the projects without creative directors.
I agree that there are issues. But I also feel that until a designer or creative has tried working within the system *as Stokefire uses it* then the opinions voiced are just that – opinions. In about a half-dozen attempts we have had nothing but stellar feedback from every client and participant that we’ve talked with. (Yeah, that won’t hold up forever, but it is a good start.) We also see that most other projects get horrible reviews on the boards and post-project comments. We think there’s a reason for that.
Any designer that thinks crowdsourcing sucks is welcome to try just ONE of our projects over on crowdSPRING. You can even pretend you’re someone else… we don’t care. If you are good, can follow directions (or defend your divergence from said directions) and can communicate the power of your design work then you are most likely going to get paid. If you don’t get paid we’ll do you the courtesy of explaining why not and what you can do to improve the odds. Heck, if you’re truly awesome (as someone we just contacted yesterday is – Hello Chris from Chicago!) we might even pay you BEFORE you join the contest just to make sure you participate.
We don’t have it down perfectly, but we’re getting better. If we ever find a technologist willing to actually build us the system we want… well… damnit. I just drooled on my keyboard.
Thanks for your very insightful and well-written comment, Scott. I think there’s a lot to learn with this new tool and both of us are still getting familiar. I’d welcome further discussion as things develop.
OK; your comment is way longer than mine, so you win. Actually I don’t disagree at all with your viewpoint regarding how Stokefire is using crowdsourcing. You are applying traditional and structured creative direction/project management; Stokefire is the wise and benevolent sheriff in town for potentially unruly clients and designers in this wild new frontier. My concern with crowdsourcing is there often ain’t gonna be no sherrif and it allows any “client” and any “designer” to run amok.
Perhaps just like the early days of bulletin boards and chatrooms, the concern over lawlessness is largely unwarranted. A generally accepted code of rules and ethics will help hone crowdsourcing into a useful tool (by and) for the masses.
I don’t discourage its use, however I still feel that a professional and structured (tradiotional) process needs to be applied to ensure that clients recieve quality and strategically directed work, and that designers are treated fairly.
I applaud your approach and the effort that you are putting into it.
Thanks Scott.
Didn’t realize how much space I’d taken up. Sorry for the verbal onslaught.
Glad you were able to make sense of it all.
Cheers!