2 ms·
The poster you responded to, was suggesting that a decent designer could be matched to the project before the majority of the work takes place. This makes sens
by lwhi 16y ago
The poster you responded to, was suggesting that a decent designer could be matched to the project before the majority of the work takes place.
This makes sense.
If you have a competition - the amount of effort expended is far greater, and much of that combined effort will have been spent for nothing.
--
There's a commonly held assumption that design takes only a little bit of effort, and that it's so remarkably fun that little or no reward is required by its practitioners.
This assumption is wrong, and even if it wasn't .. what's the point in creating a design that stands a very good chance of not being used?
- jrallison 16y agoYou're right that a competition isn't the most efficient solution from a total effort / end result perspective. However, that's not what competitions are designed to provide. This isn't a corporate productivity debate. Competitions generate excitement, stroke entrant's competitive nature, provide some openness (in cases where the public participates), and promotes more out of the box thinking. You see it all the time with sports, the increasing number of hackathons (where yes, developers, designers, and others spend X hours building something nonstop for zero guaranteed reward), government initiatives (challenge.gov), etc. Religiously calling all competitions/contests bad because there are some companies which exploit the characteristics of a challenge is a bit naive. Note: I recognize that design is time intensive and not always fun. Hell, it's the same thing for developers.
- lwhi 16y agoFor me, the debate isn't so much about corporate productivity - it's more about respect for people's time and effort. I understand what you're saying - but maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. Competitions too often seem like an excuse for cheap labour.