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?

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?

http://www.aigadc.org/events/2009/12/37202309

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.

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.

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

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.