5 ms·
I've hated their core business model in the past. For it to work someone had to be exploited. I think it is a pyramid scheme when someone has to complete a pr
by andrewhyde 17y ago
I've hated their core business model in the past. For it to work someone had to be exploited.
I think it is a pyramid scheme when someone has to complete a professional task for the slight chance of non noteworthy payment as a norm. It isn't sustainable.
That being said, this is a much better step. I see it being much more sustainable to everyone involved (and far less exploitative) for non custom logos being sold at a flat rate.
- tptacek 17y agoReasonable people can disagree about whether this is "exploitation". I don't think they can disagree about the fact that it isn't a pyramid scheme. Words mean things. I'm on the other side of the spec-work debate as you; I respect where you're coming from but disagree that designers should exist in a market that functions differently from all other professional services. I also think that this new, designer-"friendly", less-exploitative approach is going to do more violence to the bill rates of graphic designers than spec work contests ever could.
- patio11 17y agoAbsolutely right on that last point. A design contest has, let's call it, two dozen developers competing for the attention of Bob's Crab Shack. 23 of them will lose. That is potentially 23 perfectly good crab shack logos that get shelved, never to be seen again. With this innovation in the business model, those 23 perfectly good crab shack logos aren't wasted: indeed, they can be applied to hundreds of crab shacks over the coming years. Econ 101 suggests that if the supply of a good which was previously perishable a) vastly increases and b) is made nonperishable and c) sees transaction costs dwindle (because picking clothes off the rack is easier than detailing your needs to a tailor), well, price comes way the heck down.