The debate about spec work is a hot topic with a lot of web designers at the moment. After reading a massive article about it in the latest .Net magazine I feel compelled to write about my views on the evil process.
The way I see it is that there are many types of spec work, some are good, most are bad. I don’t feel that it will ruin our industry though, it just needs some common-sense thinking about when it should be used. For example, pro-bono work used in the proper sense of the word (free work for people who can’t afford it) is a good thing so long as it’s used carefully. One of the other reasons pro-bono isn’t so bad is because it’s the decision of the freelancer/agency to do it or not, and you aren’t competing with other people – you know your efforts are going to be appreciated and used.
On the flip-side you have pitching and competitions, which is where all the hatred for spec work comes from. There is nothing wrong with creating a pitch for a client that describes how you’d tackle their problem, this is simply part of the sales process. The problem lies when you are asked by the client to put together some samples or a couple of pages to show what you’d do for them. This is wrong and not only should it be paid for, it shouldn’t even happen. A quick sample would never, ever be a true representation of what you could produce. You need to spend time with the client, work through their brief, etc, before you could even consider producing something that would achieve what they need. If your pitch and previous experience isn’t enough for a client to choose you then get out while you can and go elsewhere.
As for competitions and what some people label as crowdsourcing, I feel this is an area that has both benefits and downsides. Before I talk about it though I’d like to clear up what crowdsourcing actually is, because it’s getting an unnecessary bad rep here. The definition of crowdsourcing, as I see it, is the use of multiple people to help achieve a single task, usually without monetary compensation (you’d never guess that I’ve done a few essays on it). Now that theoretically fits the bill here as you’re getting multiple people to compete to make a single website, but that isn’t truly crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is all about the control being given to the crowd to achieve something that the entire crowd has a joint interest in/desire to see changed. The originator usually has little to no control over the process.
Another issue is that no one is forced into crowdsourcing and anyone who does participate knows exactly what they’re getting involved in – the chance of no financial reward. However, in the majority of crowdsourced actions (getting a general opinion on Twitter, using Yahoo Answers!, even simply using a forum) the rewards can be as simple as the joy of helping another human being, or the excitement of being involved in a decision change at a major government agency – for example, getting the police to look at a case they’ve previously closed (see: ‘Here Comes Everybody’ by Clay Shirky). So in the true sense of the word, crowdsourcing doesn’t apply here because only one element from the crowd is chosen and power is in the originator’s (the client’s) hands. A real example of a crowdsourced design project would be one where every single participant has work in the final piece. For example, one person coding the navigation, one designing the css, one making the logo, etc. The workload is shared in a sense that something can be achieved in a way that would be impossible alone.
After that long-winded and roundabout trip, it’s best to refer to websites like 99designs, as competitions instead because that’s exactly what they are – multiple people competing for a single reward. And this is where the problem lies, the fact there is a reward, and the fact that this reward is usually pitifully low. If these competitions had no financial reward then we could simply pass them off as pro-bono work, or simply as new designers trying to gain experience. Because of the money, these competitions are technically paid work for one lucky person, and the fact that so many others have wasted their time, in the sense of lost pay, is where the hatred for this system stems from. Put simply there should either be no payment/reward, or a single designer should be chosen and paid the going rate. You wouldn’t have a competition with online stores to see who can dispatch a product to you the fastest, and then only pay that one. As fun as it would be, it’s common-sense that you do some research and pay for a service, regardless of the consequences. It’s pure laziness and exploitation otherwise.
Remove the money and we have a system full of rushed work and helpful people, but a system that doesn’t effect the industry in such a negative way as it’s made out. If you can afford to pay or give any monetary reward then go find a single designer to do it for you. The real campaign here should be to stop the cheapskates who are exploiting these benign competitions. If you can pay for the work, then do so. As for spec work as part of a pitch process, forget about it!
There is plenty more to be said on the topic. What about sites like Threadless who openly use competitions to pay only a few people who submit work? I could write a whole new post on the topic but, for now, I’ve said enough for now and will leave it there. Join in the comments below if you want to share your views on the whole debate.
Transmissions Received
Dan Frydman
Great article - lots of common sense that is worth remembering and repeating - particularly to younger designers just starting out.
Sites like 99designs are lotteries and some designers gamble big and still get nothing of commercial value.
I’d always recommend developing a network over competing to do the most for less than others.
Pro Bono work has a place in that to gain experience or a foot in the door, but it also has the danger of letting yourself be
regarded as a soft touch and easily pulled in tondo yet more free work.