AIGA's stance on spec work and design contests

At first glance, it might seem like the Cleveland Foundation's contest is not a big deal - they are offering a substantial amount of money, after all (i.e. they are not really doing this to get a logo on the cheap). But the closer you look, the more you notice things like all entries automatically become property of the foundation - they own the intellectual property for the mark you are slaving over for free whether you win or not!

Being the person that TCF contacted first to pass this "great contest" along to the Cleveland Chapter, I had to voice an opinion to the VP of marketing. But my professional side kicked in and I left this one for the president to respond to.

The problem I have with a situation like this is that I currently have a main water line in my basement that is leaking. I know that this is going to costly to fix. What I do is jump online and research some reputable plumbing services. I find the best fit and pay them for my service. Some of these plumbers are charging more per hour to fix a leaking pipe than I would bill per hour to build a brand system. Understood I won't break nails and get cuts and bruises from making a great campaign, but we both would have similar skill levels within our professions. Yet one thing is for sure, I have never seen a "FIX MY PIPES CONTEST" from ~ANY~ other trade profession.

I despise this type of business practice. I do not even feel this is appropriate for someone to ask a college student to do. Now do not get me wrong, I worked for a student run studio, with real clients. Smaller outfits who need work that can build a reputation for a student. None of those clients were not "well off" philanthropic corporations.

Your response is dead on. The worst part of these "contests" is the clause where they own your work just by virtue of having seen it. There is still a pervasive perception that artists of all kinds need "exposure", and that that is payment enough for hard work. Can't eat "exposure", can't pay the mortgage with it, either. Love the comment by Dan Merck about the plumbers. Great analogy.

While I support the AIGA message and actions regarding contests and speculative work, I do find fault with one of the group's positions. The first position states, "Speculative design competitions or processes result in a superficial assessment of the problem and can only result in a design that is judged on a superficial basis."

This same statement could be used to describe almost any industry advertising or design awards program, contest or competition. Every competition I have ever entered has only asked to see samples and never requested objectives, client satisfaction, objectives met, etc. If we, as an industry are all about appropriate and meaningful solutions, why do we keep rewarding ourselves based purely on style?

And when the last time a design annual listed budget, actual client requirements, results of the work and ROI of project, next to the pretty pictures?

I want to begin by saying that I respect the position of the AIGA and the opinions of the others who've posted here. The great thing about a true community (of designers, neighbors, companies, countrymen) is that there is a free exchange of ideas and opinions. With that in mind, I would like to offer a counter-point to this discussion.

I'm really not sure what the difference between the widespread practice of 'pitching' and the Cleveland Foundation's contest is. The designer has the choice to enter or not to enter. If it's intellectual property you're worried about, then don't enter.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I see this a little differently. I see an opportunity for someone who maybe doesn't have the portfolio to walk into a corporate office and land a gig like an identity to:
1. maybe win ten grand.
2. maybe win a hell of a portfolio piece.
3. put their work into their portfolio and at least be able to say that they had the opportunity to pitch the identity "and this is what I was thinking..."
4. hone their skills on actual client work rather than another school typography project.

Are any of these bad things? I don't think that Cleveland Foundation is expecting the senior art director at JWT in New York to be sending in designs. I see an interesting opportunity for a entry-level to junior designer to get some exposure, practice and experience.

BTW: They don't own the work just by virtue of having seen it, they own it by virtue of you having agreed to the terms and entered the contest. We as designers are often guilty of similar manipulation of legal realities: Who doesn't know of studios, agencies and freelancers who regularly accept work, deliver product and cash the check only to tell the client that they don't actually own the designs by virtue of intellectual property law and that there will be an additional (and often quite substantial) charge for delivery of the native files?

As far as the plumbing correlation goes, other trade organizations do essentially the same thing all the time. What is a HOME-A-RAMA, or a the Home and Garden Show? In this case, not only do Interior Designers, Landscape Architects, Stamped Concrete Contractors and the like volunteer their time but often actually pay to be a part of it. All for the chance to 'win". Many would like to win the competitions often associated with these events, all want to win business of the prospects the event generates. The building trades version of a 'pitch'.

This doesn't seem that much different than what I did to build a body of work in the hopes of gaining gainful employment when i got out of school. Find a small biz in need of some help. Do some work on my own that I thought the biz owner would like and that i liked well enough for my own portfolio and walk in and offer the work for free. Prest-O Chang-O! Instant portfolio with actual client work. Only this offers the possibility to win 10K. Doesn't sound too bad.

Applause and appreciation for the well-stated and exceptionally appropriate response by this AIGA chapter's board. Thank you. As a creative professional in NE Ohio, I have long been appalled by the onerous and exploitive "design competitions" that are all too frequently engaged in by a variety of the region's institutions- and that many of these perpetrators are "arts and culture" supporters, makes this practice additionally odious. Being a visual artist as well as a designer, I have encountered similar competitions from Cleveland Public Art, RTA, and Parkworks for a variety of "opportunities". I would like to suggest that this informative response be extended to other regional organizations that also seem to have the competition habit.

I have over 2 decades of experience in achieving exceptional work in a very wide range of media and design problems; I get paid to understand my client's needs and intentions, to think, and to articulate elegant and compelling solutions. And I do it well. I know that this level of creative professionalism is exactly what TCF, as well as the rest of the Cleveland communtiy- institutional and individuals- aspires to. And I have no doubt it is in this spirit that this logo competition was extended: I add my voice to the Board's response by saying that we can best cultivate a higher level and larger culture of creative contribution to the region, and gain the commensurate business growth that such a design resource can offer, by treating the practitioners as the dedicated, skilled, and highly trained professionals that we are.

I must concur with others who have expressed reservation about the board's response to TCF's competition. It is highly naive to assume that contracting with a "professional" design studio guarantees "professional" level work. I've seen plenty of graphic garbage coming out of many highly regarded design businesses.

I also find the comparisons made with architecture and plumbers a bit beside the point. If an architect doesn't do his homework the building can fall down and kill you. If a plumber does a shoddy job, the pipes can burst and cause enormous amounts of damage to your home. If a designer does his/her job badly... does anyone lose a limb?

I don't necessarily agree with speculative work, but the AIGA's argument is full of holes. If we are concerned about being respected as professionals, running around and crying for the title from other companies is not the way to earn that respect. Do you honestly believe that ALL supposed "professional" designers use such a rigorous approach to their work?

An assurance of quality work from a profession with no system of safeguards such as professional certifications (such as in architecture) is nothing more than wishful thinking at best. I've taught plenty of students who could design circles around most design studios and would be more than happy to participate in such a competition.

The Cleveland Foundation's contest is an economically sound approach to obtaining professional services. I truly hope to see comparable contests for investment managers, legal services, management positions, board positions and a host of other professional opportunities including public relations campaigns.

Kudos AIGA Cleveland board! Keep up the good fight.

I feel it necessary to respond to some comments posted as they bring up different and very good points. I also don�t want students to think a competition such as this is the only way for them to build their portfolio.

Yes, it is the designer�s choice to enter a contest. However, these competitions can take advantage of the young or less informed designer. If a young designer or student is in need of good portfolio pieces then they should start designing. I have many pieces in my portfolio that represent what I can do, not just what the client wanted. You don�t need a client approved and printed piece to make it available for inclusion into your portfolio. A potential employer in search of good designers for their team should be looking for just that, good designers, not only printed pieces. If so, perhaps you don�t want to work for that company.

I would rather do the occasional pro bono project for an organization than enable this kind of treatment of artists and designers.

One last thing on a different but very important subject is the designer who isn�t upfront with their clients about property laws. This is unethical.

It saddens me to hear that students are being taught not to value their time or work. I don't doubt that some of them could design a great logo, but its bigger than that. At their level, they should be learning correct business practices so that they'll be prepared once they graduate and enter the field.

$10,000 is a significant amount of money (FOR THE WINNER), but what about the students who spent countless hours trying to grab that carrot?? What does that teach them? I guess they could put in their portfolio as "real world experience", but is it really? How does that help you look better in the eyes of a prospective employer??

"Well, I entered this logo in a contest...I didn't win....but..."

And further more, the rules clearly state that just because a logo is chosen by TCF, that doesn't mean that they are obligated to use it. So essentially, a student could win ten grand, which won't even cover a semester of tuition and a have a logo for their portfolio that isn't even being used...big winner!

We, as designers (or architects) in Cleveland, have a responsibility to teach the standard practices to the future design community. If the foundation that we're building on is faulty, the building will indeed crash down... and possibly kill design in Cleveland.

I really wouldn't want to argue about the reasons one would choose to enter a competition. I do feel there is some short-sightedness here and I wonder at the experience of those who argue in favor of it. I've seen the results of contests like these, and for the community, coming out against them is far wiser than condoning them. In the end, the expectations of designers is damaged, and that is what I see in the whole.

Still, as some have stated, it is their choice. I ask though if the actions of entering have really have been thought through?

I would point out that giving away the intellectual property of the ideas that will be presented in this contest means that, technically, legally, those entering have NO RIGHT to show the designs they submit, even in your their own portfolio. It's doubtful that anyone is going to press that issue, but still, without a contract and by submitting to the contest agreement, that is essentially what these individuals are condoning.

Further, and unfortunately, as a potential employer, the interest in seeing a non-winning design in a portfolio is not as inspiring as seeing a winner. Speaking personally-- and unlike the "beauty pagent" aspects of a designer showcase-- I'm interested in seeing skills in working with a client, understanding the response to the client's criteria, and how decisions were formed. That is the place where I want to hear about budgets and the problem-solving undertaken and THAT is what makes someone hireable in my world.

Shall I speak about what an employer might think if he/she were to learn the design shown in someone's portfolio was for a contest? I will just warn that entering is, by some, considered a moral stance, and there are employers that may not hire a designer if they don't adhere to the same business tenets as they do. Just telling you.

As for what was said about tradesmen giving it away in competitions, I would argue the competition between those individuals is small. Only a few are entering, and ALL of them get to show their work for the public to view and choose from. In their budgets, it is a promotional line item. They plan for those expenses and expect they will get a return on that investment. Further, their work doesn't stand for more than a weekend exhibit. The rationalization doesn't compare.

The Cleveland Foundation has stated that they will be hiring an outside firm to 'flesh out' whatever logo is selected, if indeed one is even selected. Jim Lubetkin has said the winner here likely won't be given the chance to build their design into a brand. Having been there/done that in the agency world, I can guarantee that the firm hired for the 'flesh out' is not going to be happy working with an outside designer's work. No matter how good it is, they will belittle it because it is not theirs and they will try to change it to model to their tastes. They also will have the better opportunity to do so because THEY are the one building a relationship with the client, not the winner. I don't really see an upside to entering. I see someone setting themself up for harsh critique in the business and design communities.

So, yes, it is your choice. But really, do you want to go there when you do so much to lessen yourself in the eyes of so many? This contest is getting attention and I'm not sure, in the long run, if winning it is really worth the $10,000 prize.

Sorry, I guess I do have more to say about this. It obviously is a fiery topic for me.

In response to this comment:

"I also find the comparisons made with architecture and plumbers a bit beside the point. If an architect doesn't do his homework the building can fall down and kill you. If a plumber does a shoddy job, the pipes can burst and cause enormous amounts of damage to your home. If a designer does his/her job badly... does anyone lose a limb?"

No, only elections. Two words: butterfly ballot.

Hurray!!!

For the first time in 10+ years the Cleveland Chapter of AIGA has taken a stand. I applaud each and everyone of you who brought this to light. I have a new respect for this chapter. AIGA is not about having a well known name visit us monthly for them to tout about their accomplishment.

This stance, I hope, is an embaresment to our city's so called leaders. They want to build Cleveand's industries by skrewing anothers. Good going Ronn and the rest of the CF staff. I'm sure when your day is done, some other idiot will propose the need for a new logo. I just wonder how many other logos this organization has had over it history.

I will make this offer, I'll donate $10k to CF if their management team presents to Cleveland AIGA, a rational why they need a new logo. If the think they're such experts in making these decisions, let the design community help you. It will be more worth your while.

A little advice, no charge to you at CF, a logo never sold anything. It certainly is't going to sell CF's mission. Keep the tree logo—make it mean something!

I personally thank the leaders of AIGA. After a 12 year stint, I'm going to finally renew my membership!

This is the type of work this chapter should be doing!

Well intentioned or not, the people that promote these kinds of competitions should simply be ignored, but to quote the old adage, "there's a sucker born every minute." The sad reality is that spec projects wouldn't exist if there wasn't a receptive body of talent waiting to lap them up (there's a reason that other professions aren't "offered" these kinds of projects).

As a community, we must develop the confidence, discipline and vision to avoid spec projects, no matter how attractive they appear and how great the perceived payoff. Let's reinforce the notion that design -- i.e. creative thought -- has value, and teach young designers to do the same.

The Cleveland Foundation is a noble organization and (I believe) their intentions are honorable, so initially I wasn't sure whether I should feel anger towards them for propagating a questionable business tactic or pity them for their ignorance. Ultimately, I feel a sense of somber resignation.

Apparently, we have much to discuss here. It may be an individual's choice to offer their work freely to a contest, and relinquish (at a minimum) the rights to it in the bargain, just as one can also choose to spend their money to buy lottery tickets. What this discussion seems to be losing sight of in the parsing of what best serves us, the designers, is what best serves our clients. I think one of the most important and appropriate points brought out by the Board's response is that good design, solutions that are effective, engaging, compelling, and contribute significantly to the mission, goals and vision of the client, are the result of deep engagement with them. This means forming a partnership with the client where we designers immerse ourselves in their world: the best work comes from researching, investigating, exploring, iterating, and evolving solutions, and with the participation of the client at various points along the way. I don't see how a drive-by beauty contest- regardless of the cash potential for the "winner"- could achieve this level of participation.

I agree with the suggestion that those who are hoping to gain portfolio enhancement would serve themselves far better by simply designing; and if they require a context or "job" to do so, there are many worthy pro-bono opportunities and needs out there, as well as smart, ambitious, albeit cash-strapped young entrepeneurs who would make excellent clients to develop exciting and fresh work with. As for what does agreeing to participate in such a competition say about a designer, I would ask what should one think of the organization or business that would settle for such a process to form so important a business asset as their most visible identity element . The answer to what best serves the designer community is simply for us to best serve our clients: and that happens when we fully communicate with and are engaged by them, and give ourselves, our talents, and experience in kind.

To the best of my knowledge, a plumber must be certified by the building inspector to be able to be a professional plumber. A creative person needs only to say "I'm a designer." and they're set. Some creative people, as designers, illustrators, musicians, photographers... may never even go to school and they are extremely talented and become very successful.

I understand and support the desire for creative people to be treated as professionals. People need to understand that the creative process has value and that designing an identity is more then a name set in helvetica that has bad kerning. If your desire is to elevate the stature of the designers that you represent, then I would suggest being more proactive on the subject. You may want to develop an ongoing campaign to continuously make the point that creativity has value. You may also want to let people know what the acronym AIGA stands for in your press release.

I think that for as good a communicator a designer is, they tend to communicate best with other designers. There is a need to communicate to others about the value of design and why they should choose an experienced designer to achieve their goals. I also think that some designers tend to design for other designers instead of focusing on their clients.

I don't have a problem with the competition. Some professionals may love the chance to design something for fun and a chance to win the competition. That is something that is special to creative people. Not only do they may create for a living, but often they create when they are not at work as well. I doubt that a plumber goes home at night and reworks the plumbing in his house for fun.

I agree with Cluadia in point that I think the flaw in the competition lies with the fact that they own all work that is submitted. They should not own what they don't compensate for.

People should be educated about the value of design but please compare apples to apples. No one is forcing anyone to enter the competition and designers here are not yet required to be certified to be considered a professional. It does help though, if you act in a professional manner and I don't think that going after the Cleveland Foundation because of a logo competition achieves that goal.

If the plumber that comes out to fix your pipes doesn't do the job right, you can have him come back out to make things right or at least get your money back and pay someone else to do the job right. When is the last time a designer guaranteed the ROI on a design project?