Do you go to different software engineers, ask them to write a custom application that suits your need, and only pay for the one you like the most?

If not, why do that to designers?

Have fun in scamsville.

Sorry for bad english, it's not my primary language.

Sorry for bad english, it's not my primary language.

Problem 2: Because of this, and is often the case with clients anyhow, their idea of what they want is often poorly articulated – with words like: conservative, trustworthy, funky, intelligent, innovative – you get the idea. Professional designers dig deeper and educate the client as to why doing so matters. Without this dialog, even given a competent designer, mediocrity is sure to result.

Problem 3: Logo designs submitted to these contests, I would say, are in the neighborhood of probably at least 50% derivatives of someone else's – some other company or whatnot – work. In some instances the derived iteration is sourced from another logo that another designer has either submitted for an entirely different contest, or in more brazen instances the very contest in question.

Problem 4: It is true that we all have the choice to participate or not. No one is forcing anyone to do so. I believe that these contests sites serve to undermine the entire profession. And yes I consider it a profession. Being responsible for a $100k brochure press run from design to proofing to press check involves many, many professionals in the process. The designer ultimately being the lead and card holder when the chips are down. I'd say that is a profession.

More to the point, Designers are not paid for their deliverables, as such, more so they are paid for their time. You see, my time is worth something. I have experience, education, insight, perspective, craftsmanship and a duty as outlined by the profession itself, as well as the AIGA. These attributes allow me to derive a certain value for my time. Instead of throwing the project up for grabs with a “prize” for the winner, the client reviewed a portfolio, checked some references, chances are very high he will receive exactly, if not more, than he bargained for.

Problem 5: Prize? My plumber doesn't expect a prize for his time. My dentist doesn't want a prize for his time. Matter of fact, neither does my cable provider. You might try to argue that these are all objective examples. You are right, and design is also objective. A professional designer is encouraged to educate the client to look at their design requirements objectively, rather than subjectively. Matter of fact, if the designer does this, he'll have more success moving forward through the process rather than getting bogged down with the client's personal tastes and be able to focus on what the client's customer base will respond to. This, too, affords a more successful outcome. A solid design might have subjective aesthetics, but it'd better be supportable with solid objective rationale.

Sure there are folks who've picked up a computer, installed Illustrator or Photoshop and are talented enough to whip out some facsimile of a logo. And sure there are many clients who don't know any better but to accept with a smile and gladly hand over the $250. I would argue that a business model that attracts this sort of “designer” and this sort of “client” might be successful in the long run.

But as professional designers, we have to ask ourselves “how does this serve the industry as a whole, and how does it serve to represent professionalism to clients and potential clients?”

Maybe AIGA should publish a website that helps educate clients about how to work with a designer, why spec work is detrimental to all parties and why client's can often get more value for the same money by using a professional instead of a spec site?

Isn't it about time they took an official stand on this?

Problem 2: Because of this, and is often the case with clients anyhow, their idea of what they want is often poorly articulated – with words like: conservative, trustworthy, funky, intelligent, innovative – you get the idea. Professional designers dig deeper and educate the client as to why doing so matters. Without this dialog, even given a competent designer, mediocrity is sure to result.

Problem 3: Logo designs submitted to these contests, I would say, are in the neighborhood of probably at least 50% derivatives of someone else's – some other company or whatnot – work. In some instances the derived iteration is sourced from another logo that another designer has either submitted for an entirely different contest, or in more brazen instances the very contest in question.

Problem 4: It is true that we all have the choice to participate or not. No one is forcing anyone to do so. I believe that these contests sites serve to undermine the entire profession. And yes I consider it a profession. Being responsible for a $100k brochure press run from design to proofing to press check involves many, many professionals in the process. The designer ultimately being the lead and card holder when the chips are down. I'd say that is a profession.

More to the point, Designers are not paid for their deliverables, as such, more so they are paid for their time. You see, my time is worth something. I have experience, education, insight, perspective, craftsmanship and a duty as outlined by the profession itself, as well as the AIGA. These attributes allow me to derive a certain value for my time. Instead of throwing the project up for grabs with a “prize” for the winner, the client reviewed a portfolio, checked some references, chances are very high he will receive exactly, if not more, than he bargained for.

Problem 5: Prize? My plumber doesn't expect a prize for his time. My dentist doesn't want a prize for his time. Matter of fact, neither does my cable provider. You might try to argue that these are all objective examples. You are right, and design is also objective. A professional designer is encouraged to educate the client to look at their design requirements objectively, rather than subjectively. Matter of fact, if the designer does this, he'll have more success moving forward through the process rather than getting bogged down with the client's personal tastes and be able to focus on what the client's customer base will respond to. This, too, affords a more successful outcome. A solid design might have subjective aesthetics, but it'd better be supportable with solid objective rationale.

Sure there are folks who've picked up a computer, installed Illustrator or Photoshop and are talented enough to whip out some facsimile of a logo. And sure there are many clients who don't know any better but to accept with a smile and gladly hand over the $250. I would argue that a business model that attracts this sort of “designer” and this sort of “client” might be successful in the long run.

But as professional designers, we have to ask ourselves “how does this serve the industry as a whole, and how does it serve to represent professionalism to clients and potential clients?”

Maybe AIGA should publish a website that helps educate clients about how to work with a designer, why spec work is detrimental to all parties and why client's can often get more value for the same money by using a professional instead of a spec site?

Isn't it about time they took an official stand on this?

Croudspring's traffic has been flat, which proves both that the model is not sustainable and that it isn't evolution at all.