Crowdsourcing
- Started
- Last post
- 47 Responses
- PIZZA0
Any designer suggesting crowd sourcing as a branding solution at this level clearly hasn't a clue about their career
- Daithi0
1.
"the comfy situation of being paid what we like to be paid for work"
What planet do you live on? I want to be there.
- Daithi0
2.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." - Red Adair- so truemonospaced
- on second thought...
+1,000,000monospaced - brilliantbabaganush
- +1Glitterati_Duane
- Daithi0
3.
The olympics is a particularly poor example. Millions have been spent on the design of buildings and infrastructure, the figure of 400,000 for an identity is a tiny fraction of the overall design spend.
- monNom0
some pretty good arguments against it here.
- boobs0
Let's say you crowdsource a logo project, and get about 500 submissions. Who's going to look those over and pick the "best?"
The real work in making a logo is not drawing the thing. It's deciding which of the thousands of possibilities are actually "the one."
- BaskerviIle0
Crowdsourcing as a concept is a great idea and works well for collaborative processes. Look at open source code.
The likes of firefox, wikipedia etc. all create by big groups of people and refined over time.What they did not do is let 1000s of people submit browser designs and code and pick the one they liked the most. No, it was a collaborative process that slowly built and refined a browser.
That is very different from crowd sourcing graphic design, especially branding.
The first thing to note is that branding is NOT drawing a logo. The logo is often the last part to be finalised. I work for a large international branding consultancy. When you hire branding experts you get a number of things:
Business insight – yes we actually have people who understand business, have MBAs and have studied finance etc. we advise blue chip companies about how to improve their businesses. Business strategy is not logos.
Analysis and strategy – we analyse the market, the competitors and find ways to stand out from the crowd, differentiate with ideas.
We design a brand not a logo. Everything is done for a reason, from choice of colour, photographic style, overall look and feel, tone of voice, use of sound, movement, an appropriate user interface.
The logo is the summation of all of the above. So if you crowd source just a logo, you not only miss out on 99% of what a real branding project should be, you also employ an amateur who has no idea about your company and what it should stand for.
Brand design needs to be a coherent set of ideas and arguments that inform every aspect of the company (we even run staff training programs for companies we rebrand). it cannot be done by those with no prior knowledge of the client.
To take 2012 as an example. Wolff Olins designed the brand, and you can be sure they worked on that project for a long time before you ever saw the final logo.
£400,000 is a small price to pay for a large international brand. I imagine the team would have consisted of between 5 and 8 people plus freelancers. that budget of 400k plays for client managers, designers, creative director, artworkers, strategists etc.
They're all probably charged out at from £200 to around £1000 a day. so as a team might cost as much as £5000 a day to run. So that might be 4 months of work.
That how much it costs, everyone has to earn a living. I personally think £400k is a great deal.
The 2012 logo is distinctive and memorable, it feels fresh compared to all the bland brush-stroke style olympic logos that went before:I'm talking about these:
I think the sydney one is one of the worst ever and yet there wasn't a big fuss about that!
now compare these, so fresh and different. London really stands out as creative and modern:
And, as to crowdsourcing an olympics logo, this is the tripe that you get when you ask the public to do logos:
http://www.fubra.com/london2012/…
One other thing. If you crowd source graphic design, then you might 100 people spending 5 hours working on their entry. but you only pick on design. Which means 495 hours wasted by those who didn't win. Not exactly the most efficient way of working.
- NONEIS0
Crowd-sourcing results in mediocrity, not solutions. It's the sum of what EVERYONE thinks is great, so in the end that lands it right between middle of horrible and great – bland.
It's also directly detrimental to the design community as a whole.
- +1 great answer.akrokdesign
- You get mediocrity on average, but you're looking for those standing out submissions.raf
- It is a bland, defensive, non-empirical answer though :) Crowdsource solutions, not logos!raf
- Of course it's detrimental, it endangers our financial status quo we enjoy so much.raf
- akrokdesign0
raf, do you think you could make a living out of crowd-sourcing work?
- not that you would probably work on this project alone. i am sure you would hire freelancers.akrokdesign
- I am arguing crowdsourcing is good for clients. We're on the other side and must oppose it vigorously, don't we?raf
- monNom0
crowdsourcing (should be called CHUMPsourcing) must be absolutely fantastic for the company running the service. They get a 15% cut of everything for basically having an operating web server and disclaiming any sort of legal obligation to the contest holders or entrants. It's like a recipe to print money. Who cares if you're raping eager young designers, facilitating copyright violation, and credit card fraud/money laundering. DRILL BABY DRILL!
- monNom0
as to raf's original question:
I do not believe a government agency could conduct the production of a new identity as efficiently, nor to the level of quality, as a seasoned, professional design firm can. No matter if they hired in-house designers or crowdsourced all materials, they don't have the experience nor the knowledge of the landscape that a focussed service provider does.
With respect to the fee: These large numbers often reflect the entire project cost to the government; not just drawing the logo but applying it, everywhere. 400,000 pounds actually sounds on the low side, but probably reflects the scope of the project.
Think of it this way: How much would it cost to change all of McDonald's signs to another logo? That's where the cost comes in, not the 5 minutes it takes to draw another 'M'.
- 400,000 IS chump change for this sort of thing! I bet CP+B is being paid 10x that for the GAP debacle...NONEIS
- lukus_W0
If someone is spending time, working on an idea, for _you_ .... you should expect to have to pay them for it.
- maikel0
I should not spend time adding myself to the queue of people lecturing a post from a fellow that sounds like some of the 20 y/o students that think they are the coolest thing in the world for using photoshop and would shit on their pants only from seeing more than £10,000 on an invoice... but here I go.
When working for the public sector there is always money poorly spent but, just to clarify, you don't 'crowdsource'. There is something called public tender, and is mandatory for most of the high profile projects (at least in uk, but mostly worldwide).
There is a short-listing process, when you shrink your number of possible companies from MANY to a FEW.
Then you have a pre-qualification process where people submit proposals AND plenty of documents (i.e. 'stuff' like showing your company has relevant experience, is financially sound, etc) to qualify.
Then, if qualifying, there are strict evaluation rules, in which is specified the criteria of awarding points. Usually cost is one of the most important items, and it could drive a tender entirely.
ONLY THEN you send your submission. You need to work upfront but you are ensured that you won't be 1 in 100,000 options but in 4 or 5, and you will be told who wins and why. You can also litigate if you believe your submission has not been fairly assessed, and you take that risk voluntarily.
Companies after half a million or a few millions take the risk.
This above is what happens in the world I live.
This '400k for a logo' is a bloody fairytale manipulated by some media cunt who was envious of seeing money going elsewhere than his pocket. Although the results are not the best, I'm sure there is though and effort enough for justifying that bill.
Note: I do NOT like the Olympics' logo.
- 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?
- scarabin0
if we're so sure that expensive design is necessary for a business, we can rest easy knowing that those businesses will all fail, leaving us with nothing but the clients with big budgets who understand and want to give us their money. also, the crowd-designers will all fail because they can't support themselves, leaving us with no competition
so we win
- "those businesses" meaning those businesses who used crowdsourcing, i meanscarabin
- 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)
- scarabin0
i think what i'm saying is i'm somehow not threatened by hack designers and poor businesses
- 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.