Crowdsourcing
- Started
- Last post
- 47 Responses
- raf
I understand that this word must bring an instant allergic reaction when thrown into the designer crowd. But other than undermining the comfy situation of being paid what we like to be paid for work, from a client's perspective, I can't really see anything wrong with it.
This especially applies to public work, so let's set aside crowdsourcing in general and ponder the type of jobs where it is taxpayer money being spent. People spending public money should have an obligation to do this in the most effective way possible. Am I right?
Take the case of London Olympics 2012. What would be more cost/result effective:
— have Wolff Olins do branding for reported £400,000;
or
— crowdsource the work, so thousands of design students would have a chance to make a name for themselves. Prize: say, £15K, not terribly bad even for a seasoned freelancer.
Who is to say crowdsourcing the Olympics brand would not:
— yield better result, ie. better brand;
— cost the taxpayer (a.k.a. everyone) much less.As a taxpayer, every time public design work is given to superexpensive established agencies, rather than crowdsourced, I feel I am being scammed. Am I alone in this? (of course I am, this is a forum for designers)
- foz0
the main problem with this is that the client is blind to the process and is nearly always left to guess at the ideas without the benefit of at least being shown through the work. They are overwhelmed by the quantity of submissions and thread though them at speed, quickly defaulting to personal taste [or lack of] and glazing over after the first 20 submissions. Where is the value in that model?
- raf0
OK, let the client (olympic commitee or whatever it's called) hire an expert, or a panel of experts – one of those names always talking on conferences. Pay them £5-10K each for a few days' work sorting through all those submissions, it'll still be much cheaper than Wolff Olins. Those experts will like it, they'll put "Olympic brand sorter" on their resumes and will charge more for conferences.
A prize doesn't have to be cash, could be ie. a Master/PhD scholarship in a top school – this would clearly address young students. And you don't call it 'crowdsourcing', you call it a 'design contest'.
Please, answer the question: Knowing the logo and its cost now do you think crowdsourcing of the Olympics logo would bring better results? (both in the quality of work and cost)
- georgesIII0
I rather have Woldd Olins design it.
He's not a 17yo kid who cracked photoshop and knows illustrator.When designing an identity, you need to see it with a vision, think about the many use of it and different platform it will be applyed on.
you don't need only to be pretty.
(the a'ol rebranding is a good example, it sucks but applyed on 50 formarts it rocks)
- Fax_Benson0
Knowing the logo and its cost now do you think crowdsourcing of the Olympics logo would bring better results? (both in the quality of work and cost)
Qaulity: no
Cost:yestherein lies the issue.
- __TM0
I think you are confusing logo design with branding.
Does whoever wins the logo competition also get to design the expression of the brand, the collaterals, signages, web, video, audio, create the tone of voice for different tiers of communication, do the PR...? Or would you also outsource all those individual elements?
- Ravdyk0
Keep reading crows surfing
- evanburke0
I don't envy Wolff Olins, they are going to earn every penny of that £400,000.
Branding the Olympics is a massive undertaking and will require thousands of work-hours. it's so much more than just coming up with a logo.
- evanburke0
Also, I just read what __TM said. That's the part that you're completely missing in your example, raf.
That's the part that crowdsourcing misses. It treats design as a one-off commodity, instead of a valuable part of marketing & communication strategy.
- jetSkii0
Crowdsourcing your design work for something like a t-shirt or a skin for an iPod wouldn't pose any problems. Creating an identity for the olympics could pose too many issues and lack of considerations. Using contests as a method of crowdsourcing seems to function more like an entertainment feature to engage an audience, like American Idol, which would be an unnecessary step to take towards creating an identity in my opinion. Because then you have to design a contest and all it's rules, when you can hire the right designer and begin work right away.
- raf0
I think Olympic branding is a one off commodity, but that's me.
I am not suggesting leaving it to amateurs. It would be students, freelancers or the kind of people who work for agencies anyway – the same people who end up doing in.
How often large contracts won by huge agencies are done by freelancers anyway? Many of you did those yourselves, having signed NDAs.
Another plus is, winning a design contest like that can be a big break for a young designer, which is a good community thing in the end.
"I rather have Woldd Olins design it."
You haven't looked at it in some time, have you?
Oh, while we're at it...
- you're missing the point. it's not just a logoFax_Benson
- babaganush0
Pisses me off when the newspapers report crap like £400k for a logo. Having been a part of large branding jobs for the likes of the BBC it would be impossible for 'freelancers' to manage the jobs with te stakeholders in those organisations- to co ordinate feedback, timescales. Manage inept departmental heads who may well be on £100k a year and no shut about branding.
That's aside from years if expertise having managed similar type jobs that have a proven case study of successfully telling the brand story...whoever said they earned every penny will have been correct Nd that probably doesn't cover the fact that the resultant logo was probably a committee arse fuck.
Crowd sourcing may work for small florist logos etc. But it should never be used for serious scale projects any more than architectural build may have a tender process but you wouldn't just crowd source to someone who'd built a rickety and done a Lynda course in draughtsmanship.
- randommail0
Sure, they could have crowdsourced the logo for £15,000.
But Wolff Olins still would have gladly done the rest of the branding work for £385,000. Which would in fact help Wolff Olins be more profitable. Logo design is the easy part.
- raf0
I have taken part ie. in meetings over a global corporation's web presence. They were held over two years in many European cities, marketing heads flown business class from all around the globe.
Hours of discussions over silly things, ie. 800x600px for the US audience vs. more modern 1024x768px resolution that German branch stood firm for.The result of all that was very underwhelming, to say the least.
Just the cost of a single one of those meetings, with airfare, expensive hotels, dinners, penthouse conference room rental would cover fantastic web presence by a top class small agency – one of those which normally end up subcontracting these jobs from the big guys.
It's ok, this is how money works at that level. It is there to be spent.
But should it be like this when it comes to spending public money?
Again, I am not telling "let's leave this to amateurs". Crowdsource among agencies who would provide full package. For peanuts, because this is something that would look good in their portfolio.
Seriously.Not seriously... If I were serious, I would want agencies to pay to do Olympic branding. And you know what? They would.
- babaganush0
Two wrongs don't make a right, the sententious us eight but a bit utopian. Head of BBC is on £800k I think ( a public body ) some council chiefs and even a head master in parts of London are on £250k.
I think there are far larger sums pissed up the wall on individuals that it could be argued as to why try are paid so much out if the public coffers. I have no qualms about Wolf Olins getting paid as a significant sized company what isn't really an insignificant amount when it comes to comparable piss-takes with tax payers money.
The point of hosting annolympics is that if it is done properly it should generate incomefor the country, so so-called experts get paid upfront for this contribution. Whether it works or not is a different matter
- I give up. Fucking iphonebabaganush
- Olympics don't generate income, big games always bring a loss. It's jut an opportunity to spend tax money on contractsraf
- That's wrong. It's subjective. Munich lost £178 million whereas LA made £215 Millionbabaganush
- well said sir!Melanie
- akrokdesign0
i freaking hate crowd-sourcing in all forms or sizes.
just cause you don't like that they spend the tax money on it. crowd-sourcing is not the solution or makes it's okay.
sounds like you wanted "made in china" and import it. just cause it's cheaper. what the fuck. why can't the work stay in britain or at least in eu. etc.
- It's ok, you're supposed to hate crowdsourcing as a designer. It's a healthy reaction.raf
- akrokdesign0
now, i don't know the details. but maybe they should had been more tighter about their budget.
- __TM0
Singapore Youth Olympics 2010 did a logo competition. After wasting everyone's and their own time managing this, they dropped the whole crowdsource/competition concept and quickly called an agency.
Just saying.
- There's more money to be sucked out of the budget via agency. Not saying that was the reason.raf
- Autokern0
"Crowdsource among agencies who would provide full package."
This is called pitching and it already normal practice. Maybe wolf Ollins was appointed after a pitch.That scale of branding project involves strict collaboration and participation with the client because it's not just a one-off thing but
it is a consultancy process.
Then it is interesting that you refer to London 2012 just as the logo without caring to explore the scope of the work involved.
And finally, London 2012 is one of the most successful branding examples. After the Olympics we will be able to tell whether those 400K were a sound investment or not.
- raf0
"And finally, London 2012 is one of the most successful branding examples."
Wait, so it is not the biggest flop in recent history anymore, only surpassed by the GAP rebrand? (which still could turn out to be a publicity stunt after all)
- raf0
OK, call it "pitching", not "crowdsourcing". Call it "pro bono", not "for free".
You'll still have agencies fighting for the privilege of doing the Olympics.