-
Website
http://designis.ms/ -
Original page
http://designis.ms/brand-identity/crispin-porter-bogusky-has-no-integrity-for-design/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Here's my post: http://www.blog.michaelfaberdesign.com/2009/08/...
Great post.
They're @BrammoSays
Lucky dogs... paying CP + J to tell them to hire spec.
However, I think a lot of designers fail to see why agencies use spec or seek it out. It isn't to get a polished result; none of us are that naive -- are you? Spec within agencies or organizations is often used as a cheap outsourced mechanism for creative brainstorming. A way to see what 100 other "designers" take on it might be -- who knows, there may or may not be a gem in there, but there will definitely be talking points. There are take-aways from what is stereotypical, what is "stock", what is "common" -- when 50% of the "designers" came up with the same concept, it is too basic of a concept, one worth avoiding.
Most often, spec work is used for the poor quality it produces -- to get the shit out of the way first to ensure an more efficient and productive working process for seasoned and talented designers getting paid fair to over-fair market value for their work.
I mean really, what is a $1,000.00 if it saves even 5 hours of creative brainstorming on common-place ideas; the obvious ideas and concepts that we all think of that are never the "perfect" solution.
Those that participate on spec are rarely any good; but that is an amazing "research" pool of obviously off-the-cuff ideas worth paying $1,000 for to have on a list of "what not to do".
Seems pretty deceptive all around. Wouldn't leave CP + G all the credit for lack of transparency/accountability.
Check out @brammofan and @brammodesigner
Quite the false word of mouth and social media campaign. CP + G was the wrong agency to hire!
Obviously viewing it from the business side of things, it seems like a great deal. There was a panel at SXSWi this year that discussed this same topic. Every non-designer believed it to be a smart business move, until they realized that they were cutting out an important part of the design process for the client. Where in this plan does the client get to sit down with the designer and communicate the initial idea, their feedback and their praise in an intelligible manner? Did you read Brammo's creative brief on the crowdSPRING site?
I understand that a lot of clients don't even know what they want, but then neither does the designer. The quality of the finished product would be much greater had they sat down with a professional designer(s) and was able to give feedback on each draft.
Think about a usability test -- you bring in 10 people, give them $100 and free pizza. We don't take their opinions at face value; we use that knowledge as research when creating our solution. Now picture spec work in the same manner -- you get a hand full of designs and use that knowledge in the designs as research; not as the end solution.
The use of spec work really isn't about the cost savings of using a 'cheaper alternative' to a design solution. The use of spec work is about up-front research and testing (in the context of design among 'designers') to save time, thus money, when 'professional' designers actually tackle the issue to create the solution.
Spec work NEVER claims that just because you win your work will be used; there is a winner because there is a contest -- but rarely (among large agencies and organizations that use spec work) is the work that won the work that is actually used.
Asking people's opinions and having designers submit real work with a focused direction is an absurd comparison, especially when the latter is an industry and real people make a living with offering these services.
This will always be an ongoing argument. As a designer and an entrepreneur I understand both sides of the argument. I just choose to defend one of them.
Is this true? I've seen diamonds in the proverbial shit pile. Isn't that what brainstorming is all about? And if you're going to hire people to brainstorm, shouldn't they be paid a decent wage?
Since brainstorming is the kernel of great ideas, why should it be paid less the refinement work it takes to get to the gems. And following that logic, without said shit pile, there will be no gems. So one could say that the brainstormers are doing the essential work.
Either way, it's dirty business, and I'm shocked to see these guys getting their fingers in this. Then again, I'm not shocked at all. We live in the days of Bernie Madoff.
>CP + G was the wrong agency to hire!
Color me amused. I think they hired CP+B.....
I agree with you -- I completely see both sides. I just *feel* that there is often times too much ignorance coming from the design community about "spec" and the nature of its true use (with respect to how larger organizations and agencies use it, most often).
Is the issue with the agency or with the "designers" using these platforms as a mechanism to make money? They are (often times) producing quick, non-thought-out, unorganized, unusable, aesthetically-challenged, visually-off-putting solutions that have the potential to be used inappropriately in the wrong hands.
If the lady at the grocery store offers me a free sample of an chicken nugget and asks me "what did you think" and if I reply with "needs more salt" -- no one is telling the company to add more salt to product because of my, one persons, take.
Spec should be used as research. Some organizations abuse that and some designers abuse that -- some would say, "thats life".
You really want to drag a usability/focus group kind of analogy into an argument about CP + B?
I say that b/c if they were following your tactic of using crowdsourcing for research, they wouldn't have used a vegetarian Hindu god for an ad about hamburgers or a phallic sandwich with a woman's profile saying "Blow your mind". Clearly, ethnography and research hasn't been their strong suit as of late.
Let's call a spade a spade please... yes, crowdsourcing can be used as research, but clearly CP + G is using Crowdspring as a gimmick, publicity stung (yeah they got that one for cheap!), and to save money on a logo design.
And besides... you don't need research to know not to do half the crap people posted. I mean seriously... most people didn't even read the brief and mangled their text-logo. One looked like a bull farting.
Ever notice nobody complains about Threadless? That's crowdsourcing done right. Ever notice people only shit talk Crowdspring and ilk that target designers? Reason to that madness.
Want research? Have that pizza party, not a "project" on Crowdspring.
I agree with you, I said in my first comment, "there may or may not be a gem in there".
But the research isn't happening from the "designers" on the spec site; so no "decent" wage required; they are the Guinea Pigs (or test subjects) -- the research happens when the professional designers (making a decent wage) take that input collect, process it and use it as a mechanism for designing a proper solution.
Think of it like a mood board. A social collective mood board from varying individuals who consider themselves to be knowledgeable in the subject of "design". You're not making the mood board; you're just the resource to its creation.
@Peter, thanks for the great write-up and continued discussion.
If you want to do research, find 10 designers and pay them each a slice. Don't arbitrarily award it to one "winner."
Creativity is an amalgam of the divine, experience, luck and a lot of other things. There is no 'creativity authority' out there who can determine where it's going to come from next. To suggest that this is possible indicates a lack of understanding and respect for the creative process. It can come from anywhere. And often does.
I don't buy that they (or anyone doing crowdsourcing) would put just any designer on the job. It doesn't make sense. $1000 to get junk? Why not just throw that out in the street? If you know $1000 isn't going to be enough to get you the real work, why not just skip to the real work? 'Real' designers know how to spin through the crap and would never present it to a client. That's why they get paid the big bucks.
Professionals should be paid for their work. Divvying up $1000 for this kind of work is such an insult. It's not enough for ONE person, let alone several or a dozen.
I admit on occasions I've been tempted to submit a design but there's no chance that I'd submit my hard work for the chance of winning $1000 to have Crispin Porter + Bogusky claim that it was 'hand made' by them!
I quote "To be successful, we have to approach every single day like it will be our defining moment. Because that's the reality." Crispin Porter + Bogusky
Well, this is certainly a defining moment for them, either that or an attempt for some hype around their name...
On a side note, noticed Crispin Porter + Bogusky won't be participating in a review of VW (an account they have) because that's not something they do.
Hey look!
Research by designers for a design firm without asking to work without pay!
http://abrandforlondon.wordpress.com/about/
I believe it's simple: quality work will always be rewarded. But lots of designers/photographers/journalists are just not good enough, which means that there's room for new creative models.
Today millions of people around the world is a potential competitor. It's better to do awesome things than complaining about "amateurs" taking your jobs. That's what I'm trying to do, anyway.
As an advertising agency CP+B should only be employed to help build the brand once the core attributes and a strategic plan have been established by a specialist brand consultancy. Their creative integrity is not at stake by employing crowdsourcing, their business integrity is.
One of the following scenarios seems likely:
1. CP+B aren't aware that they shouldn't try to compete with specialist brand consultancies. Advertising strategies shouldn't be confused with brand strategies.
2. They are naively attempting to create a brand identity by crowdsourcing a logo for their client. Without a brand strategy a brand identity is meaningless. Crowdsourcing is unlikely ever to accomodate meaningfully directed brand strategies.
3. They are just winging it to see what happens. This is what makes advertising agencies good at entertaining people but rubbish at brand strategy.
4. As with BBH Lab, CP+B might be fully aware of the brand strategy implications but their motivation and brand strategy is as yet unknown. If BBH Labs's experiment is anything to go by this seems unlikely. BBH Labs only appeared intent on creating a media spectacle and still doesn't have a brand identity beyond an association with the spectacle they created under the guise of innovation. Fine for them up to a point, given the nature of their industry but a potential disaster for Brammo and CP+B.
There is nothing inherently wrong with crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing demonstrates the actual value of design by marking out the limits of design. Perhaps all CP+B want out of the exercise is a logo. By crowdsourcing a logo, a logo they will get but, it won't mean much.
If the owners of the Brammo brand are not aware of these likely scenarios then they may become another case study marking out the limits of an advertising approach to building brands.
Taking chances will only get advertisers so far.
A.
Permalink: http://bit.ly/CYfck
.-= Natako´s last blog ..Launched the client section =-.
The clients beware--if your agency has to go else ware to get an idea---go else ware for an Agency!
Just saying....