3 ms·

>for him gratis. No, not for free - for trade. He's offering all the publicity that he can generate as a return gesture. If you think that is a worthy trade, g

>for him gratis. No, not for free - for trade. He's offering all the publicity that he can generate as a return gesture. If you think that is a worthy trade, great. If not, great too. Stop forcing people to negotiate their deals on your terms. It's called a free market for a reason.

potatolicious 17y ago
> He's offering all the publicity that he can generate as a return gesture. No he's not. The author of the article addresses this specifically - he's saying that too many people looking for spec work promise this ephemeral, vague notion of "exposure", which really isn't worth as much as the client thinks it is. And he brings up the Harry Potter example. EVERYONE has seen the cover to the Harry Potter books, but does anyone here actually know the designer's name? > Stop forcing people to negotiate their deals on your terms. It's called a free market for a reason. I wish the real world can be as black-and-white as yours. There are certain types of behaviour that is, in the long run anyway, a net negative for nearly everyone in an industry. There is nothing wrong with being in opposition to these things. It's not like we're hiring thugs to beat up people who are willing to do spec work.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  No he's not. Yes, he is. which really isn't worth as much as the client thinks it is. That's a completely different argument, and I addressed this in my first post. a net negative for nearly everyone in an industry. Um, except for the kid who turns around in a week's time and can say: You know that new Tim Ferris book? I designed that. Clearly, not everyone. I'm always concerned when people start talking about benefiting industry. In almost every case, the "benefit to the industry" is at a loss to the consumer. It's not like we're hiring thugs to beat up people who are willing to do spec work. No, but you have no problem publicly vilifying them, do you?
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    > No, but you have no problem publicly vilifying them, do you? Please to not be putting words in my mouth? Kthx. Seriously though, I don't have a problem with people willing to do spec work at all - I see it as a symptom of a systematic problem that is encouraged by people abusing the spec work model. As I've said before, the concept of spec work originally is so that the client can "try before they buy" - given that designers have such a high variance, and the product is hardly a commodity. You do a bit of leg work, show off your chops, and the rest of a sizable job is yours. The problem here is when people start soliciting complete work for commercial purposes. This is not a try-before-you-buy, this is just give-me-stuff-for-free. Material benefits (and lack thereof) aside, I think this model reeks of disrespect for the design community (disclosure: I am a coder, not a designer). I've issued these design contests myself in the past, and I no longer do so - and every single time I did, I felt like a jackass, since clearly I was trying to get something for nothing. I was trying to gain ownership for a volume of work that is worth far more than what I paid for it (in cash, "exposure", etc). This is not an equitable trade, and I knew it the entire time - and I think a reasonably smart guy like Ferriss knows this too. By the way, since I saw a post somewhere in this thread... I issued the contests because I was too poor to pay for real design work - but that's a justification to myself and myself only, and does nothing to change the fact that I the trade was still not equitable.

potatolicious 17y ago

> He's offering all the publicity that he can generate as a return gesture. No he's not. The author of the article addresses this specifically - he's saying that too many people looking for spec work promise this ephemeral, vague notion of "exposure", which really isn't worth as much as the client thinks it is. And he brings up the Harry Potter example. EVERYONE has seen the cover to the Harry Potter books, but does anyone here actually know the designer's name? > Stop forcing people to negotiate their deals on your terms. It's called a free market for a reason. I wish the real world can be as black-and-white as yours. There are certain types of behaviour that is, in the long run anyway, a net negative for nearly everyone in an industry. There is nothing wrong with being in opposition to these things. It's not like we're hiring thugs to beat up people who are willing to do spec work.

run4yourlives 17y ago
No he's not. Yes, he is. which really isn't worth as much as the client thinks it is. That's a completely different argument, and I addressed this in my first post. a net negative for nearly everyone in an industry. Um, except for the kid who turns around in a week's time and can say: You know that new Tim Ferris book? I designed that. Clearly, not everyone. I'm always concerned when people start talking about benefiting industry. In almost every case, the "benefit to the industry" is at a loss to the consumer. It's not like we're hiring thugs to beat up people who are willing to do spec work. No, but you have no problem publicly vilifying them, do you?
- potatolicious 17y ago
  > No, but you have no problem publicly vilifying them, do you? Please to not be putting words in my mouth? Kthx. Seriously though, I don't have a problem with people willing to do spec work at all - I see it as a symptom of a systematic problem that is encouraged by people abusing the spec work model. As I've said before, the concept of spec work originally is so that the client can "try before they buy" - given that designers have such a high variance, and the product is hardly a commodity. You do a bit of leg work, show off your chops, and the rest of a sizable job is yours. The problem here is when people start soliciting complete work for commercial purposes. This is not a try-before-you-buy, this is just give-me-stuff-for-free. Material benefits (and lack thereof) aside, I think this model reeks of disrespect for the design community (disclosure: I am a coder, not a designer). I've issued these design contests myself in the past, and I no longer do so - and every single time I did, I felt like a jackass, since clearly I was trying to get something for nothing. I was trying to gain ownership for a volume of work that is worth far more than what I paid for it (in cash, "exposure", etc). This is not an equitable trade, and I knew it the entire time - and I think a reasonably smart guy like Ferriss knows this too. By the way, since I saw a post somewhere in this thread... I issued the contests because I was too poor to pay for real design work - but that's a justification to myself and myself only, and does nothing to change the fact that I the trade was still not equitable.