[iamdave]

I'm sure this is going to be a very unpopular stance, because it's been unpopular almost every time I've asked it:

Why do artists assume that every instance of something that doesn't involve the typical exchange of work for money is somehow harming their industry? The most vocal of these people are those 'No-Spec' who thinks sites like 99designs are invariably killing everything they stand for. It reeks of that same mentality and resistance to new revenue models that's turning so many people off to the music and movie industries.

Passion for the rhyme can be cheapened by feedback, and I think that's exactly what's happening with these 'artists'. They're looking at what other people are doing, seeing that it doesn't line up with how they think the industry should work, and then pull these statements out of their arses that it's killing their livelihood.

[farlington]

I don't know if I can answer your question, but I could maybe clarify what I think are a few misconceptions.

The first misconception is that artists are generally opposed to new revenue models. Artists, designers, craftspeople have absolutely embraced new revenue models, and the number of artists, graphic designers, fashion designers, video artists, industrial designers, et al. using sites like kickstarter and etsy, or selling digital work like templates or themes, is staggering. And many of these don't involve the 'typical exchange of work for money,' but are on one level or another creatively or professionally fulfilling.

The second is about the 'no spec' argument. There are huge differences between new revenue models—they're not all equal, and they're not all fair. Design professionals find spec work exploitative because they're exchanging their services to a client without any guarantee of payment. Most people in most industries find this unfair. Programmers are no exception. Nobody likes to do a lot of work for someone else to only earn a chance of getting paid.

Working for spec is fundamentally different from working for free for yourself—to design and manufacture a product, for example.

And as a sidenote, while few designers are comfortable with the proliferation of spec-driven websites, most designers I know don't feel particularly threatened by them anymore. At their best, they provide an outlet for students, unemployed, and self-taught designers to build their portfolios. But the work that comes out of them isn't generally great, and the clients that use them are generally the kind of clients nobody wants: fussy, demanding, unimaginative and cheap. Clients who probably wouldn't be paying for design services otherwise. It still costs money to get good work. That's what it's really about: protecting the value of the work you do professionally.

[iamdave]

Thanks for the response, some viewpoints there that I did not consider (mainly due to my own ignorance as someone not entirely connected to the design and art communities). One thing you mentioned I've never really been able to wrap my head around:

But the work that comes out of them isn't generally great, and the clients that use them are generally the kind of clients nobody wants: fussy, demanding, unimaginative and cheap. Clients who probably wouldn't be paying for design services otherwise. It still costs money to get good work. That's what it's really about: protecting the value of the work you do professionally.

Why is this the concern of anyone but the person doing the work and the client receiving it? Granted, on the whole, by-and-large it's not anything that's going to destroy the creative design industry or invalidate a beautifully composed ad campaign (for example) but it is something that I've heard before.

"Well the work produced isn't that great, these designs sometimes suck".

At the end of the day, if the end goal is to please the client, and the client is pleased with what they have, does it matter if it came from 99designs or if it were produced by Sterling-Cooper?

I suppose the same can be said for spec-work. If the producer of a product/service/design understands that they are working potentially for free to win a contract, who's business is that but their own and the clients? It seems like there might be a disconnect in that if your goal is to maximize output and bring in a respectable wage-say as a freelancer-that you'll go for clients who are willing to negotiate fair terms, and compensate you a decent wage. Instead, what I see (and this is just anecdotal observation) is people vilifying designers who choose to work on spec.

I might be missing the point entirely, so take what I'm saying here with a grain of salt.

[Hyena]

Why do people on Hacker News routinely complain about business models, management pilosophy or funding methods in technology? Is it perhaps because they realize that their industry, at least, is an ecosystem of concepts and social pressures that will make it either worthwhile or worthless?

[ralphsaunders]

Design and art aren't really viewed by most designers and artists as a commodity, which is what sites similar to 99 designs try to put accross.

99 designs and similar are at the very low end of the market and the argument is that it becomes harder for skilled designers/artists to find high-paying work as more companies opt for the cheap route. There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.

That said, kickstarter certainly doesn't fit in that category, if anything it brings more paying work to designers/artists.

[iamdave]

* There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.*

I can somewhat understand the 'harder for skilled designers' argument (though I heavily disagree with it), can you relate what some of the others are?

I'm just wanting to understand I suppose what can best be described as the vitriol of why someone conducting their business in a competitive/cost effective (for the client) manner should mean the demonizing of an industry that allows a company to pick what they want, considering they're paying for it to represent their brand.

[ralphsaunders]

I guess the first reason that springs to mind is that spec work is of poor quality. Most designers - I can't speak for artists, but I wouldn't be surprised if they shared a similar sentiment - look at products and think about how they could be improved. To see a company not only facilitating poor quality work, but for it to also be pleased with the result is rather... depressing, really.

Another is that encouraging people to work for free is rather questionable. Arguably it's preying on people who might be rather desperate for money when their time would be better invested in other things.

But most of all, is that the term 'designer' now includes people who produce that poor standard of work as well as, for example, the very talented people who work at Apple. It cheapens the term, and I think that's a lot of the reason you see new job titles appearing regularly from within the industry - a "user experience" designer didn't really exist 2 years ago and it basically means "generalist" or "designer".

A lot of clients evaluate design based on aesthetics, which is obviously only half of the solution. It can be very difficult to differentiate yourself from the 'designers' who churn out lots of ill thought through work, especially if you're new in the industry and you don't have lots of client experience to write about.

[nickpinkston]

Hear hear! It's funny how some artists are so conservative about their own industry...