Graphic Designers: Why Crowdsource?

Crowdsourcing is a new flavor of Gutenberg’s moveable type, Niépce’s first photograph, Sholes typewriter and Wozniak’s and Jobs’ first computer that appealed to creative pratictioners. For many graphic designers crowdsourcing is perceived as a commoditization of the creative process that excludes the practicing professional and relegates the power to two parties: the client-purchaser and novices.

Crowdsourcing is a model where seekers of creative work present their needs and ask the creative industry to submit finished concepts to be judged by the buyer who, upon selection from many submissions, awards (some form of) compensation for the selected idea. Crowdsourcing’s financial incentives are not much different than stock photography. Finding the best creative idea for the cheapest price from the greatest selection of possibilities is the reward for the crowdsourcer. Crowdsourcing concerns are the same concerns felt by the gatekeepers of creativity throughout millennia; some luddite, armed with a new tool (moveable type, camera, typewriter or computer) is allowed to compete in an discipline that seemingly requires time and effort to master. But that notion gives designers a false assumption regarding who is qualified to deliver creative services. And it presumes that ownership over those decisions should not be in the hands of buyers of creative services. Add to that, concerns about unrealistically low compensation for crowdsourced ideas — like spec work and stock imagery — and you find a design industry very nervous about the concept of crowdsourcing. Very nervous.

So why is crowdsourcing so popular?
Many professional organizations (like AIGA and The Graphic Artists Guild) take a heedful position regarding speculative and crowdsourced work. They often advise members not to work for free and to differentiate between compensation expectations and unpaid pro bono work for the public good. They also state that designers should be aware of competitions where submissions are retained by the sponsor. AIGA specifically deems these situations potentially unfavorable contracts and they are right.

However, many designers have worked — or have given away free advice — for reduced (or no) compensation at some point in their career. When ReCourse’s David Baker says (crowdsourcing) “is good because it will nudge the entire industry to start selling their thinking rather than their doing”, I also add that giving away your thinking is just as harmful as participating in crowdsourced contests. Many creatives have done, and continue to give away all forms of creative advice. Remember of all the free ideas presented in your last RFP submission?

So then, why get involved with crowdsourcing? The answers are complex and contingent upon which side you are on. Designers can choose to see it as a threat (like so many other alleged threats: certification, technology, amateurs) or an opportunity as David Baker observed previously. Buyers of creativity — many of whom savor the freedom of choice at an affordable price have learned to work this way. And, why not? Their goods and services are similarly exploited. Rather than trust the more gratifying freedom from choice which experienced designers present, crowdsourcing buyers believe they are getting all three traits from the oft-repeated bromide: “good”, “cheap” and “fast”, rather than just two of the three.

Buyers of creative services simply have another avenue to pursue in their continued efforts to control costs and manage time. They are taking advantage of a large resource of hungry participants where it is a buyer’s market. Given that situation who wouldn’t take advantage?

Conversely, when a more measured and thoughtful process is needed, crowdsourced solutions are inadequate. There is plenty of that kind of work available. As designers, if you believe crowdsourcing presents unsophisticated projects and small rewards then that is not the type of work to be pursuing.