AIGA’s response to NEA’s call for logos
On February 1st, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) asked designers submit logo design proposals for its Art Works initiative.
The request was a speculative one, prompting Richard Grefé, executive director of AIGA — the largest and oldest professional communication design association in the United States — to respond by addressing a letter to NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman.
I’ve picked out a few excerpts from Grefé’s letter (shown below), and the full response is linked to at the foot of the post.
AIGA’s response to the NEA’s call for logos
“This type of competition runs against the global professional standards and practices for graphic design [...] it is both unfortunate and inappropriate that the NEA would be pursuing this practice.
“The approach you are pursuing is one that seriously compromises the quality of work you are entitled to and also violates a tacit ethical standard that has long standing in the communication design professions worldwide.
“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. [Such competitions] will not result in the kind of work a client deserves.
“Only too often, [spec work] results in a client eventually having to bring a more experienced designer onto a project in order to execute it.”
Read AIGA’s full response to the NEA here.
Also worth reading: AIGA President Debbie Millman’s strong view against spec work.
Post image: 1968 AIGA Annual cover, by Paul Rand.
Related posts
27 appreciated comments on “AIGA’s response to NEA’s call for logos”
Anything to add?
All comments are moderated so you may experience a short delay before yours appears. Comments should be respectful of other voices in the discussion, and I reserve the right to edit or delete comments at my discretion.
Please use your real name. Keywords will be removed.
I really applaud Richard Grefé for turning the problem itself into a problem to solve rather turning it into an ugly back and forth mudslinging of who’s right/wrong, which it could have easily become. Its says a lot about the man’s character to offer not only his perspective but to try to make things right by educating those they disagree with.
Some months ago, I didn’t see a problem with spec work. I carry out web work and tend not to deal with matters of branding and logo design.
I now however subcontract work to another designer. I wouldn’t dream of offering the work to spec. I did my research. I asked for pricing and previous work examples. I didn’t ask for anything for free.
Spec work is disrespectful and damn right lazy. Now I have a relationship with a designer, it is crystal clear what the effects of spec work is.
I wonder how many other professions would put up with this.
Thanks for keeping us informed David.
Hmmm, interesting … isn’t this the second major brand to do this?
Is this going to become a growing trend with big brands?
Also is it perhaps a revolt against paying the huge fees of agencies like Wolf Olins only to find themselves ridiculed after spending zillions on their designs.
It’s just like the record industry, when you can download something for free why would you buy the CD? Same goes with logos, why pay someone an arm and a leg when you can pick and choose…It’s not right but it’s the sign of the times….
I generally agree that spec work is bad for the industry as a whole, but it does allow new talent to get potentially huge exposure. I guess there are two sides to every coin.
Grefé does a great job presenting his case, because he focuses on the NEA’s needs and points out how this type of competition will ultimately produce a less-than-ideal solution for NEA.
There are many reasons why design isn’t free, but many people think it is. Kudos to Richard for taking a stand on this!
I am conflicted on how to respond to that one. Being a young designer I’m for spec work, because when I was at University I submitted one of my logo designs into an international competition and did quite well (I won). So for young aspiring designers it is clearly a good thing to try and get some attention and experience.
But… for large institutions I can see why it is bad, and I can totally understand why it is frowned upon. The main thing that annoys me about spec work is that it does “cheapen” the logo design process to an extent where the designer can end up getting paid bugger all for quite a lot of work.
What are your thoughts on this, David?
A growing trend, Amanda? Perhaps. Or maybe with the increased exposure, and once the results become more well-known, it’s a kind of self-defeating practice.
Either way, it’s good to see AIGA take a calm, assured stance against it, keeping the focus on the needs of the client.
Mark, I’m with AIGA on this one, and you can read more similar thoughts through the links at the foot of this post: Debbie Millman on spec work.
When design schools in NI are teaching students how to design by giving them spec work to do, it does make it hard for students and new graduates to grasp the downsides to spec work, which I guess only come from experience in the industry.
You’re spot on, Mark. I strongly believe colleges and universities should take more of an active role regarding spec work. It shouldn’t take experience in the industry before the downsides are learned.
I’m graduated now about 2 years. Almost every assignment we did in final year was based around spec work! We would literally be given some spec’s to choose from, then we’d go off, plan, sketch, develop and come back and discuss. Most of these were live spec’s.
The actual design lecturer I had was excellent, and he worked in industry for years in some high profile positions, but he didn’t seem to be against spec work as such. I did actually learn a lot, but I guess we only really learned the bright side to spec work.
I’m not exactly an academic so I’m not sure what their justification would be for it, but maybe it’s an easier way for them to teach students?
There’s one big difference I see with your scenario, Mark, and that’s how you had a design lecturer offering feedback — someone with a strong design background who, I’d hope, knew the best way to give students constructive criticism. With design contests in general (i.e., outwith the educational arena), there’s little, if any feedback offered, and when there is, it normally comes from someone who isn’t a graphic designer. It’s far from the most suitable method for bettering yourself.
Yeah I see what you mean now, in that context what I was doing was probably quite different. If it weren’t in that educational environment it would have been us doing all the work, throwing it out there and probably hitting a brick wall in some cases.
We did have some assignments where at the very end of it we would throw our work out there into the live competition, and would either win, or hear nothing back. But fortunately it wasn’t all completely lost because we would have at least learned from the lecturer during the course of development.
I hardly ever post anything anywhere but even though I am just a student I have to agree logo “competitions” are horrible. Part of my job as a graphic designer is to help the client see why something isn’t really working. If someone came to you and said I want a lime green monkey climbing a hot pink mountain and he is carrying grapes and bananas and dragging a tree and oh there is lava coming out of the mountain and its lemon yellow….. would you really put EVERYTHING they asked for in the logo? How can we have a relationship with a client to get them the work they deserve and push us to give them said work if it is just a submit your idea contest. Then the uneducated leaders of that company pick the best one based on their own prejudice without really considering the ramification of said logo. Not to mention every suit in that company will want a say and more than likely the winner is a compromise and not really the best work.
It may seem like a good idea to new up-and-coming graphic designers but you cheapen yourself and might as well put a sign around your neck that says will design for free. Bottom line is contests but control in the hands of the client not the trained professional. Would you demand to fly the airplane because you paid for a seat or would you rather keep the controls in the hands of the trained professional. I personally would rather not crash and burn.
Great words.
in general, spec work is bad, but I don’t feel like all of it should be considered evil.
Lets not forget Richard Amsel, one of the most well known film poster designers of our time, got his start from spec work.
If spec work is a growing trend, then I would think it would be a short term one that would coincide with the current state of the economy. Businesses are cutting corners every which way they can and I would imagine they are seeing spec work as a cost-cutting measure.
However, as these things do, it is going to swing back and the behavior that these business have engaged in is going to come back and bite them. This site and many others have listed the major problems with spec work that no site facilitating spec has even attempted to correct yet (yes, we have heard promises but a designer cannot eat or sleep in a promise).
Spec work is fine for students. One has to learn somehow, and these can be good experience provided there is a teacher on hand to make the most of them.
However, when one is actually working in the industry trying to make a living, it doesn’t pay, and is a waste of time for all the reasons mentioned in the ‘letter’.
I can fully understand everyone’s frustration with spec work, however in this particular case i think it’s a little different (don’t shoot me for this!). being that it’s an “industry” type thing, it can give up and coming young designers a real opportunity to be seen somewhere relevant. Of more concern is the message this can send to others.
Like Mark, I was given a substantial number of spec projects with real clients when I studied graphic design, all coming from one teacher. In my final year, I also got the opportunity to work on live projects with real clients, where the students got to choose from a range of projects and worked one-on-one with the clients (this approach was arranged by a different teacher).
Guess which approach was more valuable in preparing me for working with real clients, as a fully minted, design graduate?
AIGA’s arguments against spec work are eloquent, calm as mentioned above, and put the NEA competition to shame. There is no small amount of irony in the fact that an organisation established to provide for creative disciplines is in fact taking away from a creative discipline by expecting designers to submit work for nothing.
Grey:
Even in the classroom, spec work is still a bad idea. Our instructors are there to provide us a bridge between hobbyists and professionals. How is working for free teaching someone to be professional? Yes classwork is done for no monetary gain but I am gaining something much better.
Besides, that issue aside, it would also be illegal for them to do it in the classroom. Adobe is very strict about non-commercial use of academic software
As an entrepreneur, I can’t afford to go to a design firm. I have spent countless hours looking at portfolios on the Internet and viewing sites submitted via CraigsList ads. Sometimes this is referred to as sweat equity.
If you have ever done the same, you know that finding unique, creative work that works for a particular, hopefully groundbreaking endeavor is not easy.
It seems to me that architects compete for projects all the time. But I don’t really care is a designer will work on spec or not. But why limit yourself and your ability to pursue new challenges (not talking about logo design here)? I think that at least some designers will find that if they think of themselves as entrepreneurs trying to break new ground, rather than just designers for hire that new markets may open up for them. Certainly, taking some risk now and then may lead to something innovative. At least in my case: Rule #1 Break the Rules.
Spec work not only demeans the design industry, the thinking behind that is that it is a privilege to do work for nothing, which doesn’t occur in most other industries, it also brings in a lesser level of talent that will work for nothing for some reason, perhaps for the thrill of it all, to be recognized perhaps at some level. It is not like doing a benefit concert to raise money for Haiti, or doing competitive spec work to win an account that will then generate revenue.
Better had the NEA solicited a reputable design firm to do pro bono work for them, the worst that could have happened would be that perhaps they might have been turned down once or twice.
I see it all the time in my business as a design recruiter where candidates are asked to do spec work for free to see if they’re good enough to get the job. That’s ridiculous. It’s one thing to ask them to freelance at a company for a period of time for the going hourly rate, but to do work for free and then use it to make a profit? It’s shameful at best. So I applaud Richard’s stand on behalf of the AIGA. It’s about time this issue be addressed openly.
ironically, AIGA not only DOES NOT PAY DESIGNERS for their involvement in AIGA’s promo work, but you need to be a member to submit entries to any of their “NO SPEC” calls for work…
http://www.aigadc.org/events/2009/12/37202309
I don’t consider a design competition to be spec work per se. It’s a way for a budding designer to get noticed. These contests have existed since design has existed. They are not the problem. What cheapens the industry is the countless template and stock sites that sell designs in bulk and the unscrupulous “designers” that then take these designs, slightly modify them and sell the work as original to a client. This happens quite often.
Let’s face it, the barrier to entry into the field of graphic design is quite low nowadays, as almost anyone can call his/herself one. But there are very few really good, innovative designers and if you happen to be one of them, you will stand out and you will always have work. If you’re not one of them, and most aren’t, can you really blame companies for wanting a cheaper alternative?
It feels like every time I open my blog reader there’s another discussion on this topic. Although the majority of designers I respect and look up to have taken a very clear stance on the issue, I can’t bring myself to do the same.
I think there’s room for commissions based on a portfolio and consultation. I also think there are projects more suited to “pitching”. Architects have to do it on certain projects. Performers have to audition for specific roles. Of course they also get contacted on the strength of previous work.
The problem for me is when clients get lost in the bells and whistles. It’s up to a designer to communicate in his pitch that concept is key, be that in a covering letter or a series of sketches. The belief that spec work is evil goes hand in hand with the belief that a call for submissions means asking for final logos only. Why not consider it a job application?
All is well in the design world.
I see your point David, there is a clear distinction between commission based work, or performance based agency business structures on the fortune 500 level that have clearly defined contracts with each side lawyered up. But logo design contests, elance calls for FREE moch-ups, even on this level with a larger organization just should not be done at all in my opinion for reasons we all know to well. I think the issue here is that there needs to be a clear line drawn industry wide for creatives. Have been a member of http://www.no-spec.com/, everyone should sign the petition to support “our” cause.