3 ms·

I agree with your first point in as much as people are free to work or not work as they please. That said, here's some perspective from the design side which ma

by woodrow 16y ago

I agree with your first point in as much as people are free to work or not work as they please. That said, here's some perspective from the design side which may help you understand how designers may think about these kinds of things, even if you disagree or find it a touch extreme: http://www.no-spec.com/faq/ http://www.no-spec.com/faq/ As for your second point, how much would you say the brand equity of Apple, Coca-Cola, or Nike is worth? They would simply be selling electronics, sugary water, and shoes if they didn't have design and marketing experts building and executing their brand (experts who I'm sure have been compensated quite handsomely). While I'll agree that it's easier to "throw together" a logo than a web app, good design does require reasonable skill, training, and experience. ADDED: I guess I should be clear that I'm rebutting the assertion that design is necessarily less valuable than software development, not that startups require Fortune 500 branding.

wdewind 16y ago
Many of the issues no-spec brings up (ie: mostly misleading the designer about potential reward) are not present on 99Designs and contest sites, as people knowingly compete in contests for exact terms up front, not for potential jobs. The brands you mention are priceless, but the logo is not. Nike's logo was cheap as hell, for instance. 99Designs serves a completely different market, and I think the "How much is a F500 Company's brand worth?" argument HEAVILY confuses marketing, design, branding and advertising.
natrius 16y ago
In the early stages of a company, the logo contributes very little to the company's success. All it does is signal that the company is somewhat professional. It requires little uncommon expertise to achieve this goal. The comparison to Apple, Coke and Nike isn't applicable. You're describing a different product than most startups are looking for. Exhibit A: http://techcrunch.com/2006/07/15/is-twttr-interesting/ http://techcrunch.com/2006/07/15/is-twttr-interesting/ Exhibit B: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo
- techiferous 16y ago
  Here's another example: the GoDaddy logo. http://www.dotweekly.com/the-story-behind-the-godaddy-name-and-logo http://www.dotweekly.com/the-story-behind-the-godaddy-name-a...
techiferous 16y ago
"brand equity of Apple, Coca-Cola, or Nike" The last time I checked, Fortune 500 companies weren't shopping for logos on 99designs. "They would simply be selling electronics, sugary water, and shoes if they didn't have design and marketing experts building and executing their brand" We're talking about logo design for startups, not marketing strategy for large retail corporations. Apples and oranges. "good design does require reasonable skill, training, and experience." I absolutely agree. It takes a lot of skill to be a good designer.
techiferous 16y ago
"ADDED: I guess I should be clear that I'm rebutting the assertion that design is necessarily less valuable than software development, not that startups require Fortune 500 branding." It's possible to have a very successful web app with no professional design. Look at Craigslist. It is impossible to have a successful web app that consists only of design and not the underlying code. I'm not saying that design is unimportant, or that it can't make or break a product, but you can't with a straight face make the assertion that it's as important as the product. It's the icing, not the cake.

by woodrow 16y ago

wdewind 16y ago

Many of the issues no-spec brings up (ie: mostly misleading the designer about potential reward) are not present on 99Designs and contest sites, as people knowingly compete in contests for exact terms up front, not for potential jobs. The brands you mention are priceless, but the logo is not. Nike's logo was cheap as hell, for instance. 99Designs serves a completely different market, and I think the "How much is a F500 Company's brand worth?" argument HEAVILY confuses marketing, design, branding and advertising.

natrius 16y ago

In the early stages of a company, the logo contributes very little to the company's success. All it does is signal that the company is somewhat professional. It requires little uncommon expertise to achieve this goal. The comparison to Apple, Coke and Nike isn't applicable. You're describing a different product than most startups are looking for. Exhibit A: http://techcrunch.com/2006/07/15/is-twttr-interesting/ http://techcrunch.com/2006/07/15/is-twttr-interesting/ Exhibit B: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo

techiferous 16y ago
Here's another example: the GoDaddy logo. http://www.dotweekly.com/the-story-behind-the-godaddy-name-and-logo http://www.dotweekly.com/the-story-behind-the-godaddy-name-a...

techiferous 16y ago

"brand equity of Apple, Coca-Cola, or Nike" The last time I checked, Fortune 500 companies weren't shopping for logos on 99designs. "They would simply be selling electronics, sugary water, and shoes if they didn't have design and marketing experts building and executing their brand" We're talking about logo design for startups, not marketing strategy for large retail corporations. Apples and oranges. "good design does require reasonable skill, training, and experience." I absolutely agree. It takes a lot of skill to be a good designer.

techiferous 16y ago

"ADDED: I guess I should be clear that I'm rebutting the assertion that design is necessarily less valuable than software development, not that startups require Fortune 500 branding." It's possible to have a very successful web app with no professional design. Look at Craigslist. It is impossible to have a successful web app that consists only of design and not the underlying code. I'm not saying that design is unimportant, or that it can't make or break a product, but you can't with a straight face make the assertion that it's as important as the product. It's the icing, not the cake.