UPDATE: This panel is going on as I write this. I want to share two updates.

First, I addressed this in the comments, but I want to be clear: those that do spec work are not evil, they are just doing themselves and their fellow designers a disservice. Those that try to convince you spec work is not bad for you or our industry are evil. They are lying to you and trying to convince you that the work you do is without value unless someone likes it.

Secondly, one of the evildoers linked to this post. My argument is made, but I want to disagree with him on one point. 99designs.com is in no way similar to iStockPhoto. iStockPhoto is a way to create products. There is no creative brief, just a place to sell your wares. iStockPhoto is a flea market for royalty-free media. 99designs.com, on the other hand, is unadulterated spec work, with clients presenting vague creative briefs and expecting specific, targeted work without the benefit of research and understanding.

Also, to Jeremiah: “evil” is a very strong word, but you are someone who is systematically trying to destroy and devalue an industry that still has a lot to offer even in this global economy. It’s the best word I could come up with.

ONE MORE UPDATE: I also recommend Andrew Hyde’s post comparing spec work to a ponzi scheme, which Jeremiah Owyang also linked to. It’s incredibly well written. Users of Adobe Creative Suite should should be required to read this post before they install the software.

___

At this year’s South By Southwest interactive festival, there is a provocative panel discussion called, “Is Spec Work Evil? The Online Creative Community Speaks.” I expect it will be a hour of monstrous bullshit, and I hope the design community will converge on it en masse.

Let me start by answering their question: yes, spec work is evil. You’re not going to ask three plumbers to come fix your a leaky drain and then pay the one who does the best job. It’s unfair, it’s unethical. And yet, designers are asked everyday to behave in exactly the same way. If you ask a designer to create a logo for you, you owe that designer money, plain and simple. Groups like AIGA and campaigns like NO!SPEC are trying to educate the public.

Crowdspring and 99designs don’t realize they are actually doing a disservice. What makes a good designer stand out is research and strategy. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Fortune 500 corporation or a start-up restaurant around the corner—you pay a good designer for the discovery phase, which is essential to identifying business needs and developing solutions that will help you grow your business. If you slap a 50-word creative brief online, you may not get strategic work that is focused on your customers (but you’ll surely get what you paid for).

Thus, when I read that this panel was going to occur at the very influential SXSW, I thought, awesome! Someone is trying to make a difference, convincing not only companies but other designers that spec work cheapens our profession.

Then I looked at the panelists:

Mike Samson

The co-founder of the aforementioned Crowdspring, the leading website for trying to legitimizing spec work

Jeff Howe

The author of Crowdsourcing, which is a different concept—ad hoc online groups coming together to solve a particular problem. Crowdsourcing is not necessarily bad; it can be powerful when everyone who participates derives value, be it in the form of a micropayment like Mechanical Turk or helping a cause like finding aliens. Howe writes like he is more of an observer of the phenomenon, but I get the impression that he’s a fan.

Jeffrey Kalmikoff

Chief Creative Officer of Threadless. Don’t get me wrong—I love Threadless. I have a $25 gift card I’m looking forward to spending. In the case of Threadless, it’s not about solving business needs, it’s about promoting your art and possibly making money on it. Not exactly spec work, but it does live in a gray area. Nevertheless, in the context of the other panelists, Threadless sits as an enterprise that attained great success by asking site visitors to design artwork for free. And that example will certainly be lauded by…

Jeremiah Owyang

The one name I had to Google. Guess what? He’s pro-spec-work. One of his arguments is that it happens all the time, so let’s just get used to it. Well, corporate greed is unstoppable and happens all the time, so we should just get used to that, right? I mean, what’s the worst that could happen?

Then there’s David Carson. What he’s doing on this panel, I certainly don’t know. I truly admire David Carson for his place in design history. Maybe he’s the one who will argue against the other four panelists. Or maybe Carson, who originally proclaimed the “end of print,” thinks all this crowdsourcing is a great idea. Either way, David Carson’s work hasn’t been relevant for over a decade. It’s like asking John Hughes to speak about the future of directing movies.

Essentially, what we have in this panel is a attempt at convincing designers that this unethical practice is the future of our profession and that we should stop whining. Whining is one thing; defending our ethics is another.

I won’t be at SXSW, but I know many of you out on the interwebs will. Please: show up at this panel and give these guys the what-for. We’re professionals, and we perform an important service. Long tail, schmlong tail: that’s what Craigslist is for. We need fewer people telling beginning designers it’s okay to give your work away for free and more explaining that the work we do has value and, when done properly, will bring value to our clients.

I feel like I need to spread the word, because dear Lord this has been bugging me.

If you use the AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) network and you’ve been receiving random messages from usernames that end with “coho” or “trout,” you’re not alone. Apparently the “coho” bot targets Twitter users, and it’s only the most recent version. “Salmon” is an earlier versions of the bot. Learn more on Wikipedia.

The group currently behind this absolutely annoying spam-like scourge is Project Upstream. There is no opt-in for this, and they provide no instructions for opting out. What a bunch of douchebags. Sure, my AIM account name is out there on the internets—it’s arlodesign, by the way—so I’m asking for unknown people to contact me. But I did not ask to have my AIM account added to some service, and I certainly should be offered an easy way out.

The point of this bot is to pair up random people to have anonymous conversations around the world. If that floats your boat, go for it. It doesn’t float mine. A Google search produced these instructions, which I am happy to link to and copy and paste here for your convenience:

You can stop the messages by typing:

$optout

Then it will respond with:

OPERATOR: Are you sure you want to opt-out? If you do, you will *never* be contacted again on the account “<screenname>”. There is *no way* to opt back in and undo this.
If you are sure, type “$optout DADD”. Remember, this is permanent and irreversible!

Type what it asks:

$optout DADD

And you will recieve one final (hopefully) message:

OPERATOR: You have opted out. The account “<screnname>” will *never* be contacted again. Good bye!

The AIM bot confirming my opt-out also gave me an email address to write with complaints, which I considered, but given that they don’t care what they do with my AIM account, I certainly don’t want to give them my email address.

This has been an ARLOdesign® public service announcement.