CROWDSOURCING IS THE END OF THE WORLD.
That’s the general sentiment of the folks at the Denver Egoist, who are foaming at the mouth over mega-agency Bartle, Bogle and Hegarty’s decision to crowdsource the logo design for its new BBH Labs.
BBH posted its new logo project on Crowdspring, an online marketplace where businesses solicit creative work from pretty much anyone willing to do it. The most controversial part of Crowdspring (and the crowdsourcing phenomenon in general) is how much the projects pay. While BBH is offering a $1500 reward to the designer who provides the logo they choose (chump change for an agency of its size), most Crowdspring projects pay somewhere between $200 and $500.
The argument from people like those at the Denver Egoist is that this new model poses a serious threat to the livelihood of experienced creative professionals, because it takes work from them and gives it to aspiring amateurs who are willing to work for peanuts. In response to comments to its original post, the Denver Egoist argues that crowdsourcing “entirely devalues what we do for a living. It’s like saying sweat shops are okay for making expensive clothing just because the kids are available and will take the shit pay the manufacturer gives them. These cheap design gangbangs are taking us backwards, not forwards.”
A few days ago, Adam Glickman at BBH defended his company’s decision, saying it suited the progressive nature of the brand the logo will represent:
“This isn’t outsourcing and this isn’t bootlegging. This is simply about an expanded marketplace…[It] is definitely not about undercutting rates. The easier thing for us to do would have been to call on a number of established designers we’ve worked with or simply kept the project inhouse with our more than fantastic design team. But exploring new approaches is why we have ‘Lab’ in our title.”
While some dispute whether or not BBH’s movie is an ethical one, there’s no disputing its legality. BBH is well within its rights to use the power of the Internet to solicit work from hundreds, or even thousands, of hungry designers that otherwise would never have a shot at such a high profile project. And while the monetary cost of it will be much less than what they would pay a seasoned professional, they’ll sacrifice other valuable resources, most notably time (it takes a lot of it to comb through a sea of mostly mediocre to just-plain-bad logo designs), in taking the crowdsourcing route.
My gut tells me those most offended by the idea of crowdsourcing are deeply insecure regarding their own creative talent. The competition from amateurs scares them. My fiancee is a graphic designer, and when I told her about BBH’s crowdsourcing decision, she shrugged it off. My views on it are similar to those expressed in this blog, which enumerates 10 common arguments against crowdsourcing and makes a counterargument against each one.
In a capitalist world, a buyer almost never fails to get what he or she pays for. When you crowdsource a logo — the most powerful visual signal of your brand — you’re putting an enormously important job in the hands of thousands of strangers. They don’t get the opportunity to delve deeply into the philosophy of your businesss or organization, and discover what makes it It, so to speak. All they’ve got to go on is a one-page creative brief. If that’s all the communication you think needs to happen between you and the person designing your logo, you may be stupid, but you’re also in luck, because Crowdspring can facilitate it on the cheap. In the case of BBH, this is little more than a stunt, an experiment, a why-the-hell-not move. Those who are threatened by it are likely threatened by anything that pits them against more competitors than they already have.
3 Comments