New Ways of Selling Design
- Started
- Last post
- 45 Responses
- ********
From reading a lot of recent blog-posts it sounds like many of the large firms providing media-content via traditional means, are shitting themselves.
If the large firms are correct - and their days really are numbered - maybe in the future everyone will work independently of large organisations.
Currently in 2009, it seems that designers need to promote themselves to gain kudos in the industry. In a way, modern designers have become individual enterprises themselves - with their own individual brand, streams to interact with public (via a blog / twitter / vimeo etc).
Baring this in mind, I can imagine a time when all designers operate as 'hired-guns' and are hired according to a jobs requirements.
If this kind of situation was to develop, informal work networks would be created on a per-project basis. You'd need to work with a team of people who you'd not necessarily ever meet in person and you'd all need to get up to speed quickly.
If this became true, there'd be a need for a new breed of webapps that can provide a decent way for people to collaborate on projects. (There's basecamp - but I don't think that's ideal).
I don't like the idea of crowdsourcing because it builds upon exploitation - but I think that crowdsourcing sites like 99designs and crowdSpring are a stepping stone .. they won't last or replace the way that the majority of design jobs are carried out.
However, despite their faults, these crowdsourcing sites do at least attempt to tackle the problem of finding new ways to sell design services and interact with clients (without the involvement of large firms).
Maybe what we need are alternative models to crowdsourcing which tackle the same problem in a better way - but what could they be?
- ********0
Sorry for the essay (far longer than it should have been)
- ********0
Just do good design and explain what you are designing.
- ********0
I think you're right about the model: A collection of freelancers, scattered around the globe, that work on projects together.
But you're not going to see this model successfully implemented for quite some time. Shit like The KDU -- arguably the best current example of what you're describing -- is still laughable when you consider them in the context of real client projects.
- ********0
i don´t get it, are you talking collab (for development) or self-marketing (for selling services not providing)?
- ********0
"Just do good design and explain what you are designing."
That's not good enough anymore. The intrinsic value of your design doesn't mean shit. The market value is what matters. And the market is changing, fast.
- How does the market change fast in relation to design?********
- And how do you provide valuation matrix for design?********
- How does the market change fast in relation to design?
- ********0
shoes, he's talking about a model where both things are possible.
"Oh, NoPattern is working with TheKDU, I'd like to hire them to relaunch my magazine"
That sort of thing.
- Agency representation.********
- KDU website is horrible, looks like a wanky "luxury" banking site********
- Agency representation.
- ukit0
There is already a model for this in something like Guru or Elance which has been around for years, although they tend to cater to lower paying jobs. Maybe it's just a matter of having a similar site geared to slightly higher end workers.
- ********0
MrDinky, Aquent is a Client-to-freelancer model, correct?
Lukus and I are suggesting a Client-to-agency model, but where the agency is actually a collective of freelancers. They can handle the tasks of a traditional agency/studio, are multidisciplinary, well coordinated, and work together well.
I guess you could try to assemble that sort of team on Aquent. But at that point you're more of an in-house designer on an in-house team, rather than an independent agency that can pick and choose assignments and jobs.
- ukit0
Yeah I mean screw Aquent, what do they do except taking a cut off your hourly rate for hooking you up with a job at Microsoft?
- ********0
And again, agency representation is only good for a Client-to-freelancer model.
And too often that still necessitate that a traditional advertising or marketing firm actually picks the talent. So the client is paying for the old school firms to be a middleman and curator of talent.
A new model would be that designers represent themselves as part of this collective.
- ukit0
Exactly - what is funny is that the guy in the Mullen thread seemed to be saying agency managers would reap the rewards of the new distributed model.
I see just the opposite - those people are the first ones on the chopping block.
- hey mang, totally unrelated but check this out http://www.qbn.com/t…Meeklo
- ********0
Ukit, completely agree with you there. They think all the ad hacks will be magically paid to be "curators" or "directors of crowdsourcing" (their words and titles, not mine) while a bunch of kids competing for spec work do the real work.
It's fucking laughable.
- ukit0
It's extremely fucking laughable. Think about any successful web company, were any of them founded by people like that?
Almost of all them are the product of developers and designers, people actually creating something.
- ********0
shoes, nostradamus;
Yep, I am talking about both - these crowdsourcing sites manage to approach both sides of the problem (how to get the client / how to collaborate on the design).
I don't think that the two need to be separated.
The idea of marketing the _potential_ provision of a service is a little bit backward anyway .. it's making a promise about something where the result is ultimately unknown.
In my opinion, relationships matter more than marketing when any service is being promoted.. and a large part of any system that was developed would most likely focus on building relationships.
- formed0
Having a company keeps a clear message and communication with a client. Projects often require numerous people to get things done efficiently and cannot be accomplished by one person.
The other problem is that many people do not perform without someone looking over their shoulders. Without some sort of centralized business that is accountable for the project, you'd see people just taking off midway, should something better come along (or fresh powder!).
At the point where there is a 'team' assembled and presented to a client, they are essentially a company/agency, regardless if they have a big office (so nothing really changes).
- ********0
The main difference is that design is still subjective. It is hard to quantify or add valuation to the work. It differs from client to client and region to region.
One model that would work is real estate model adapted to design. Everyone is an independent agent with support of a bigger company. Much like a hooker / pimp relationship.
- ********0
formed, I completely agree with you, and that's why I think it will take a while before you see an "officeless agency" take off.
Shit like The KDU is so mismanaged and disorganized, and their output rarely ever meshes together into a coherent product. They'd never be able to function as a replacement for a real design studio.
But the main advantage is that they don't have an office, the overhead, nor the constrictions of the typical agency model.
- i_monk0
"in the future everyone will be temporary" is something they've been saying for nearly 20 years.
Now, back to my paperless office.