Please read the post from Evan Fry, CCO of Victors & Spoils, titled “Of Crows And Prehistoric Tadpole Things: Avoiding The Consumption Of One, Helping The Evolution Of The Other.” (Opens in new window.)
Following is my full response that “await[ed] moderation” for over 48 hours:
- - - - - - -
Evan,
With as much respect as I can express – this piece is arrogant, unprofessional and disappointing.
First, you compare yourselves with the Apollo Program – specifically citing the Apollo 11 mission. It’s appalling to consider your initiative compared with such a noble and patriotic, human endeavor. Reread your history books to fully understand Kennedy’s motivations in 1961.
Forgetting the emotional ties you conjure, let’s look at the facts that cut holes in your argument. First, the Apollo program was backed by science and built on a decade of aeronautics engineering, rocket propulsion testing and actual launches by a team of people fully invested in its success. Millions of man–hours, reams of data, countless failures and even deaths led up to that moment before flipping the switch on the Apollo 11 rocket.
Even with a decade of try, try, try again, there were naysayers. Yes, there always will be people who have the right to believe whether or not something will work. I am sure, Evan that you have looked at a colleague’s or, yes, a competitor’s campaign and said some of those awful words. Yet, when it ran, it was a winner. But, that is not the point.
Where the Apollo program and Victors & Spoils differ – granted there are many more – is that no person ever said, “We are going to put a man on the moon. And we are going to do it with an airplane.” Which is effectively what you did. You launched your endeavor saying you were going to use crowdsourcing. Great, that’s interesting and you have my attention, but you followed that by procuring your own logo from an existing platform – like the airplane – of spec work on a massive scale. By soliciting what ended up being 1100+ logo designs from faceless people with a “chance” of being paid for their efforts you engaged in spec work – not crowdsourcing. Therein lies another problem, the widespread misuse of crowdsourcing to cover up spec work. Don’t call it “torture” call it “enhanced interrogation”. I personally was expecting crowdsourcing in its benevolent form where all participants are invested in the outcome and collaboration is the rule. Not this.
You jumped out there without an indication of a plan. No details about the way things were going to work. Just “crowdsourcing” – the mot du jour - and a spec work project. How else were we to react to your perceived motives?
You continue: “So, given this moonshot example, as well as myriad other examples throughout modern history where some yay–hoo or another was stupid enough to try something new, break new ground or shake something up – and given how many of those examples ended up being successful – why would anyone ever hate on anything?” You say this to support your argument without really providing a basis for how often these “ya–hoo” ideas end–up actually working. Hint: it’s rare.
Further, not everyone is “hating”, as you say, which is a derisive and dismissive term for all criticism whether it be hateful or not. There have been some well rounded questions asked about what you are doing. Yet, for almost the last two weeks we still have yet to see any detailed explanation about what you are ACTUALLY doing; only what you have done (the spec logo). And you have yet to engage these in a professional manner.
And you do a stellar job of that in this post:
“… you might want to take a lesson from history and keep your views to yourself.”
“Why not instead just watch it unfold with your poisonous skepticism kept to yourself and your anger bottled up inside where it belongs.”
“But keeping quiet and/or positive would make a lot more sense in the long run.”
What a wonderful way to engage and be a part of the community. Disrespect is a sure fire way to impress. Do you address disagreeable clients in this manner?
Again, not all the push–back has been “poisonous”. And, if you can’t filter that out and address legitimate concerns about your perceived practices then you need to reconsider launching so large via the NY Times and other media outlets. If you were not ready to talk about it but rather effectively tell people to shut up, then you were not ready to launch. Because all the public can go by is what you give us.
You go on to say about your proposed system that it will be, “One that lifts up creatives instead of exploiting them. One that puts quality over quantity.” But how do we take that when you chose to launch on a platform (crowdspring.com) that has exploited countless hours of both professional and hobbyist designers for their time and creative efforts. They have done this, along with others like 99designs, by not requiring awards be made, by not enforcing their own rules, by claiming that the work is done as “work–for–hire” and by submission the entrant loses all rights to their work. How does this lift up and not exploit the creative? This is a legitimate question.
Yet, for almost two weeks, you have chosen to not address concerns; returning here to tell us to “keep your views to yourself.” There are a few choice historical references that can be made if we took the time.
You do attempt to state what it is you are going to do. But, you don’t. You still don’t have it figured out – “We don’t know yet,” is salient. You follow by effectively asking [us] to help you create your business model. It makes me think that if we had not asked these questions – or not spit poison at you – that you would simply go on with what you planned and actually did from the outset. If you think about it, the people that were reactionary and angry have actually participated in crowdsourcing your business model. Oh, the irony.
What’s more, you ARE going to have to address it. You ARE going to have to figure it out. Based on what was delivered in those 1100+ entries for your logo, they are a product of a poorly written brief (you said so yourself in so many words). Look at where you ended up, with a lot of fists, swords, pirates, crowns and skulls placed with a complement of grungy and Garalde/Trajan style typographic approaches. Striking evidence that a couple of decently paid designers – rather than a few hundred unpaid participants, giving up their work – could have collaborated with you.
Together, you could have worked through the obvious, strived for the different and ended up with something great. Perhaps a powerful identity befitting an agency that I will hopefully look upon and proudly say, “I was wrong.”
Sincerely,
Brady Bone
Scan from “A Smile in the Mind” (1996), Beryl McAlhone, David Stuart (via CampaignBrief.com)
“In Japan, Even the Barcodes Are Well Designed”, FastCompany.com 11/09/09
Barcode Revolution (d-barcode) receives the only Titanium Lion at Cannes in 2006. Now they are getting mention on FastCompany.com for their “innovative” - might I say expensive - custom UPC designs.
Well, the late Rick Tharp - founder of Tharp Did It! - did it no less than 20 years earlier.
You know, if Verizon is going to pour millions of dollars into rolling out their iPhone-killing “Droid” handset, they could have at least hired an ad agency who knows how and when to use proper apostrophes and primes, and who doesn’t mix them multiple times in the same television ad.
I’m looking in your direction, McGarryBowen.
First moment I saw this ad run I said, “iDon’t know how to use apostrophes.” Few things annoy me more.
You keep telling yourself that here is nothing new under the sun. Then you see something like this.
Weird, interesting, fun, gross, brilliant, wish it was animated.
Dead Fly Drawings. via @thedonutproject
“I think it’s not enough to just publish something and say ‘here, a designer did this.’” — Julie Lasky @ MakeThink
Most parodies = not funny and/or poorly made. This is brilliant. “Kill the Kindle” via @TheDonutProject. #MakeThink