Crowdsourcing
- Started
- Last post
- 47 Responses
- 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.
- Ravdyk0
Keep reading crows surfing
- __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?
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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?
- 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)