Spec work in graphic design is pure evil in all disguises. I'm ashamed to admit that I've done some in my career. But even in the cases where we've gotten the job -- the relationship doesn't work out and no good work results from it.

I've vowed to never, ever do it again -- even if it means I have to close my doors as a result.

After all, if the client got the initial work for free -- how can you expect them to ever truly value the work you do afterwards. It's a losing proposition everytime.

There was a huge debate about it among AIGA veterans a few years ago -- big shops and small. I'll see if I can find it.

Spec work is a common thing in advertising and architecture though. But you're talking massive $30-300 million dollar accounts -- where the primary cost is not creative, but media buys or implementation/fabrication. In those cases, the creative fee is only a fraction of the agency's billings. Therefore, the value structure is completely different. It doesn't make the spec work ok, but there's less for the agency to lose.

Not so in graphic design. Creative/intellectual property fees make up the primary basis of cost value in our business.

Tan, damn you, you spoke my words.

Spec work. Evil incarnate. During the time I was dot-commie laid-off, I had the opportunity to do work on spec, and I turned it down... even though I really could have used the income. No way. Exactly as Tan said, it sets you up for failure at every turn.

And as a side note, I'm suprised anyone would come to Sterling looking for work on spec. Maybe for an independent or a small shop, but not someplace with a proven record and world-class accounts. Treating one of the big firms like they're bush league is either insulting or uninformed.

Not to get too off-track, but what do you all think of changing the fee structure in order to win future work? What about bidding the first job low (and making it clear that you're doing so) as a "trial run"? Is that smart business or spec work lite? I've done that, and the results have been mixed.

-R

you ABSOLUTELY did the right thing!! never do any work for free when they can pay for it.

that said...always consider "pro-bono" when it comes to community or "cause" (homeless, children, benefits etc) service. the payoff for providing this type of service is truly immense.

when i started in design (1985) we also always applied what we called a "kill-fee" to jobs. don't know if this is used much today. the kill fee allows you to get paid for work done even though they do not use or scrap the project.

consider providing a kill-fee to all the jer...i mean , prospective client that ask for spec work. if they balk, chances are you probably DON'T want to work with them.

good luck!

It is good to find somebody else who feels the same way I do about spec work. The company I am currently working for on the other hand has a very different opinion. We not only do spec work for small and large companies, we will do it for any kind of companies (including those in the cigarette business) and in any possible time frame. More than once we have busted our asses in order to deliver creative briefs, multiple concepts, answers to 3 pages of questions, and many other unthinkable items in the to deliver list.

Now, you would think that this has been a great working method, since we always jump at the idea and start working before the end of that first phone call. In 3 years I have not seen this work once. Every time we lose to a larger firm, or the company pulls back, there is no money after all to move ahead� all kinds of reasons, and many long nights, highly stressed art directors and cranky designers.

Is it worth it? Is it respectable? I personally don’t think so, as Debbie mentioned, I too find it degrading to the profession. In a way we are saying to our future clients that we will do anything in order to work for them, and if later we wish to draw a line of our limits, nobody will look at it twice. Why should they?

And as a side note, I'm suprised anyone would come to Sterling looking for work on spec.

More than once we have busted our asses in order to deliver creative briefs, multiple concepts, answers to 3 pages of questions, and many other unthinkable items in the to deliver list.

You'd be surprised to know how often this has happened. What made this all the more shocking to me was the nature of the company: hip, supposeably forward thinking and a company that has a reputation for "cutting-edge creative."

But let me be totally honest about my history with spec work. In the late '80s I started a company with a partner and we were hungry for work. Desperate is probably a more accurate word. Like Bryony's employer, we took on everything we could, from anyone. I mentioned this story in another thread, but it is worth repeating: We were asked to do some spec work for a company and we were told who the other agencies were that were pitching the account as well. We were a small fish in a big pond, several other much more prominent agencies were asked as well. We did it, just to get our foot in the door. A "you never know" type situation. Plus, it was a cool job and we thought our creative team would be pumped to work on this type of project. All the other agencies except one (Frankfurt Balkind) agreed to do the work as well. So we stayed up for days on end and killed ourselves to do great work. We didn't get the project. About a year later, I found out that Frankfurt Balkind got the work. The client didn't like any of the pitch/spec work from ANY of the agencies, and hired the one firm that had said "no, we won't work for free."

I learned my lesson that day.

I think the best thing a design student can do is to do spec work. The sooner you get burned, the sooner you realize how bad it is ;o)

A big establishled musicfestival in Europe asks three design agencies to pitch the design of their website, then tell the winner of the pitch that they love the design but they will not pay them for their effort. However as a compensation the agency can get tickets to the festival and a VIP guided tour of the area. Agency grumbles but accepts the terms, since they had already done most of the work. The festival donates their profits to "humanitarian and cultural activities" which is always cool, however forgets to mention that its not a paid job when they invite agencies to come up with proposals. Nice huh?

No argument here. Spec work is a no-no. Here's one quick story and one quick question. The story isn't really about spec, but it piggybacks on Debbie's opening remarks:

Story

I was going over some change orders with a client about a month ago, explaining why it was going to cost more money to do more work. It seemed like a pretty direct correlation to me, but the client — mystified as to the nature of the design process — couldn't grasp it at all; a lot of people don't really realize what it is we do, much less how we do it. When I explained it she responded, "Jeez, it's like you guys are doctors or lawyers or something." My response? "In that we all offer professional services, yes, it is very much like that." I think she meant it as a bit of a jab, but it was actually an immensely satisfying compliment.

Question

Let's say three design firms are each offered a modest (but reasonable) sum to develop concepts for a client. All will be paid, and only the selected firm's work will be used. The other two retain the rights to their work and are paid for their time/efforts. A) Would you call this spec work as well? and, B) would you do it?

If you've just moved to a foreign country and you a self-taught hack and you have a family to take care of and the money you make working at the shoe shop doesn't pay the bills, you get pretty desperate to get some clients.

What I did a lot of until clients started coming to me was to pick a company that I wanted to work for, redesign something of theirs, and then go knock on their door with it.

This technique worked reasonably well, although only one of the clients that I picked up that way has turned into long-term customers.

I'm curious to know what you actual professionals think about that marketing method and where it fits on the spec spectrum.

Thanks!

If you like the way they feel after wearing them once or twice, cool, if not, bring them back and you don’t have to pay for them. I think not.

Except it is so. That's what return policies are for. But it's a bad analogy anyway since shoes are physical commodities and not a service.

I've done spec work -- who hasn't? I will never do it again... unless it's really fun, or I need the creative distraction, or any number of excuses I usually come up with. It's hard to break away from it.

But on the flip side, I know why it is desirable. Last time I hired an illustrator I required a sample to show they understood my extremely well-explained requirements. I said it could be rough. The illustrator's spec work was perfect, and she was happy too. She gave me a discount since I asked for no changes.

To Chris's question: No, I wouldn't consider that speculative -- you know you will get paid something. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

we can't afford to do spec work. we are too small to allocate the time resources to do the job right. we've been guilty of spec work a few times when we started and its always been a desaster. clients will not appreciate and participate to the level that they need in order to produce great work. there needs to be an investment on their end.

and how does it look to paying clients if you tell them that you basically charge them for your time spent on a project, but not the client down the street. if anything, a loyal, paying client should get a break once in a while. not a new potential customer without any established history. we have a paper that we send our clients that explains why we don't do spec work. its also on our website. since we started using it, more potential clients seem to undertand our reasoning and be fine with it.

I'm also deeply opposed to pure spec work. I did it when I was young and stupid, but now I turn it down reflexively and we've missed out on a couple of decent opportunities as a result.

The scenario Christopher describes however, I would not consider spec. I'm not sure what to call it, and it's still not an ideal arrangement, but it is not as distasteful as spec. Primarily, because you're getting paid. There's a level of respect to this transaction that spec lacks. Retention of rights is key and the stipend must be sufficient to cover the work. I've done this more than once and in one instance landed a nice project. I would not expect to land a great, long-term client this way though.

Several years ago, a company that was re-designing their logo, asked several studios to present their portfolios for consideration. It happened that the principals of each agenciy belonged to the same professional organization. While presenting my studio's book, I was told by the client that one of the other studios had offered to prepare "some sketches to show how they would handle the job"... and would I like to join them? (Sounds like spec work to me.) After taking a deep breath (this was a pretty big contract), I told the client that my professional organization prohibits its members from performing spec work. If I was to violate this part of the code of conduct, how could they rely on me to uphold other aspects of the code of conduct (other aspects like confidentiality and honesty)? So, in order to keep our working relationship as healthy as possible, my studio refused the "opportunity" to provide spec work.

I am pleased to report that our studio was, after all, awarded the job.

Also... if required to be specific about why spec work is held in such low regard, I usually mention the general absence of designer/client communication in advance of doing spec work, compared to the much more complete research that generally preceeds normal work. Without such research/investigation, the design process is crippled.

> A) Would you call this spec work as well? and, B) would you do it?

yes, I actually do think it's a veiled version of spec work. The amount of pay to each firm is irrelevant. The truth is, if it's a big enough account -- the larger firms competing will put as much resources as they can to win the account. The client is counting on that.

We had something similar happen to an agency I once worked for. A large client asked 3 large agencies (including the incumbent) to submit design concepts for their product catalogs -- and they offered to pay $4k to each agency. The winner would also receive the entire account, which was somewhere in the range of $2 million per year. Very large carrot indeed. As expected, my agency put no less than 8 designers on the project, and produced work the client didn't even ask for. It was well over $50K's worth of billing that went into that $4K job.

In the end, while all 3 agencies submitted work -- the client ended up choosing their existing, incumbent agency -- but not because they liked their concept best. They liked our agency's concept best, but just took it and gave it to the other agency to execute. And why not ? After all, it was technically paid for.

Working with a client should be more of a commitment than just one project. The learning curve on both sides, not to mention the trust involved is too great to be bid out for samples.

You'd be surprised to know how often this has happened. What made this all the more shocking to me was the nature of the company: hip, supposeably forward thinking and a company that has a reputation for "cutting-edge creative."

my experience with "cutting edge" companies is that they know they're considered as such and can probably get a lot of designers looking to amp up their client base to work for them by dangling a nasty little carrot. i had this happen once with a little company named...well, let's not name names, but they used to play music videos in the '80's and now play a lot of reality shows.

we did the sketches for a product line with a spoken agreement that we'd finish the pieces in another round, but that never happened. the sketches ended up being completed (badly) in-house. i don't know if the company still operates this way; that was a while ago. i've heard the same sort of stories about urban outfitters from friends who've worked with them.

also reminds me of the whole taco bell thing in court right now: taco bell was in talks with a couple of artists who'd originated the chihuahua character as a cartoon. the goal was to make it live action and a mascot for taco bell, but for whatever reason, yum brands pulled out and took their idea to another agency. several million in merchandising later: they're getting royally (and publicly) sued.

what bothers me about these scenarios is not that a potential client is asking for spec work, but that the ones peddling culture are generally looking to do so by spending as little as possible in somewhat of a dishonest way. i have no problem with trying to get your services completed for as little as possible, but blatantly screwing them is quite another story.

If you like the way they feel after wearing them once or twice, cool, if not, bring them back and you don’t have to pay for them. I think not.

Except it is so. That's what return policies are for. But it's a bad analogy anyway since shoes are physical commodities and not a service.

A) Would you call this spec work as well? and, B) would you do it?

Return policies are for things that don't fit or things you have decided you don't like BEFORE you have "sampled" them...not for things that you have already worn and somehow decided that you no longer want. To return something already worn is unethical and dishonest. To pay a couple of thousand dollars to a firm and ask/expect them to do $50K worth of work is demeaning to what we do as professionals.

I agree with Tan, it is absolutely a veiled version of spec work. In some ways it is worse. It is putting a shallow dollar figure on an amount of work that is clearly well below what is fair and equitable for the required service, and somehow assuming that because we want the project that badly, we will lower our levels of acceptable compensation because we want the work so desperately. So sad, really.

Who else would work this way? How can we agree to do this? Is it desperation or a complete lack of professional self-esteem?

sorry, I haven't read through all the comments, so forgive me if this is a repeat suggestion.

I request a fee up front (the percentage depends on the client) so I know I will get paid for my initial work. if someone is insistant about spec work (and I want the project), I will propose reducing my usual up-front fee so they aren't "blindly" investing too much cash. my opinion is that they will feel at least some commiment to you ("we've paid for it, we might as well move ahead"), and you increase your chances of completing and collecting on the full project.

there are no guarantees, but this approach seems to have worked for me. for those clients who a) will not be appeased or b) change their minds and terminate the whole thing, I walk away with a check for what I've done and a little better understanding of those difficult jobs.

if i'm doing anything even remotely resembling spec, i ask them to sign a contract saying that if i don't finish the work, then the concepts presented are MINE and they have no right to them whatsoever. it's the same tactic larger agencies use.

notably, i've had a couple of people decline to sign the thing. that tells me oodles about their actual intentions.

It's nice to know that other designers have broken the "no specs" rule and have been burned. Thankfully, it's a lesson that you only have to live through once.

I have never heard of a happy ending for a project that began as spec work.

On my few experiences with spec work, I (we) have always lost. It's a waste of time and energy. Plus, emotionally it's fucking devastating. Knowing that you worked your ass off, hoping all the time that you — by some great miracle, or pure naiveté, that the client will choose to continue working with you and paying you for your efforts — get it. It's always the same way "Oh, this time I'll get it, for sure." Nope. It sucks. It's ridiculous. It's unethical. Most of all, it's sad that no matter how many horror stories we hear, we sometimes end up taking on spec work. Why? Because it is human to hope, to want something so bad, that you are willing to take a chance, sacrifice your time and your resources. Client's (ha!) playing with our emotions, our efforts and our time is no fucking joke. It's so sad that it happens.

But such is life.

PK -

...i ask them to sign a contract saying that if i don't finish the work, then the concepts presented are MINE...

I do the same thing with my contracts. I once got burned on a job because I didn't have a good contract in place. Just like spec work, getting burned once does the trick. (By the way, AIGA has some great pdfs you can download on the subject of contracts, spec work, etc.)

This is another topic for another time, but I would be interested in hearing what sorts of items y'all specify in your contracts (comps, unused work, change orders). HOW magazine had an interesting article on the subject (dec/jan issue I think)

Interesting.

We, of course, went through the process I described. We were paid up front for our work, and the fee was fair for the amount of work required. The client volunteered the stipulation that only the selected firm's work would be used, and that in no way would any element or concept from the others be pursued. Had they not, we would have insisted.

On paper (screen, whatever) this does sound like spec work in a different guise, and perhaps the other two firms we competed against would be quicker to call it that in retrospect. In reality, though, the client was genuinely looking for the right "fit." They were more interested in seeing innovative thinking and our approach to problem solving that they were in seeing the solution. I give them tremendous credit for that.

As it happens, we were awarded the contract. We were up against a much larger (international) firm and, well, one of the most well known/respected designers working today. Were you just to consider each of our written proposals, I dare say we wouldn't have stood a chance. Having an opportunity to prove ourselves was welcome in this instance.

Of course the other 99% of the time someone asks you to prove yourself like that your ego tells them where to put it before your brain has a chance to stop your mouth from moving.

I guess it's case by case, and, like anything, honesty and mutual respect measure the distance between being acceptable practice and exploitation. A check in hand doesn't hurt either...

Let's say three design firms are each offered a modest (but reasonable) sum to develop concepts for a client. All will be paid, and only the selected firm's work will be used. The other two retain the rights to their work and are paid for their time/efforts. A) Would you call this spec work as well? and, B) would you do it?

What you have described is not spec work. It's a pitch. This happens all the time, particularly in the broadcast design arena. We have done this (successfully) and would be happy to do so again. As with ad agencies pitching large accounts, this is customary in the field since there is so much riding on the decision.

In the case of a logo or brochure or any more typical graphic-design project, I would never think of working this way--the economics of scale just wouldn't work. And we'll never do work for free, no matter what (unless it's a favor for a friend). But pitches like this are fine. And fun.

My rule of thumb -- if it smells bad, it usually is. We all know when a client is trying to pull a fast one, but like Armin said, we always hope that it isn't true.

Comprehensive contracts are wise. But unless they're drafted by legal counsel, and you're willing to take action if they're violated -- they're nothing more than pomp and circumstance. I've no interest in getting burned, but I'm very wary of long work contracts to scare the shit out of innocent clients. It destroys all trust at the get-go. I've found that it's better to create a simple document that outlines terms and policies of working together -- a basic work agreement. Meet with them, go over the important points together. Leave the legal huffing and puffing out of it unless you're really prepared for the consequences.

.......

Christopher -- you got lucky this time, that's all.

And Scott -- it's only a pitch if the value of the creative is low compared to the production or media buy portion of the job. Sell the idea, and make all the money on the back end. Eventhough it may be common in some fields -- I believe that it still devalues the creative process immensely. But hey, if your company doesn't care how it makes money, then have at it.

Scott -- that sounded waay more sarcastic then I'd meant. Let me rephrase "If that process has been working for your company, then keep doing what you want."

I find the whole idea of spec work to be infuriating. It's so insulting and disprespecful. I've never been asked to do it, but I dont think I could, no matter how much I might stand to gain.

However, I did work for a design studio where one of our clients (a university) would do a series of brochures every year — and their policy was that every year the project had to be opened up to several design firms, who had to complete concepts on spec. We did it 3 years in a row. Even though the client liked working with us, and it was basically understood that we'd get the job, we still had to do the concepts on spec.

After the third year the owner wrote the client a nasty letter because she was so high-maintenance in general, and we never heard from her again. But the point is that in this case, it did work out well for us — at least for a while.

In Sagmeister's book he talks about doing the concepts for the Rolling Stones Bridges to Babylon on spec. I just couldnt believe that a client with such deep pockets would be so disrespectful and petty about paying a designer for his time.

As someone handling creative at a web shop during the boom days, I can honestly say we were never compensated for any of our "pitches" (read: specwork). Obviously it worked out for us (well, the four and 1/2 years prior to the place going under), and most of us....either new to the working world or new to the industry saw it as routine. I remember being seriously shocked when someone from a tradional ad agency came in to work there mid-pitch and asked me how much were were getting to do this pitch we'd all been spening the past month on. I couldn't help but laugh........

Noble or not, it's what the market dictated at the time, and I can honestly say we did some kickass work on some of those all-nighters. Although the only thing worse than not winning a pitch based on hours of spec work is having said firm go off and hire another firm to rip off what you delivered to them in the first place. I've seen it happen with my own eyes...and with household names.

Luckily when I freelance now I can afford to say "Look, my portfolio is a pretty good cross-section of my work...if you think you like it thne let's go for it.....otherwise, you may want to find someone else." No more spec work for me these days.

you got lucky this time, that's all

It's a long story, but we actually won that contract three times, so I'd submit that it was less to do with luck and more to do with us being, well...good.

We're good designers over here, but we're good business people too.

With all humility.

Im sure most other Australians reading this know already, but AGDA has some great writings on their site regarding the issue. Heres one i pulled up at random...

Link

And Scott -- it's only a pitch if the value of the creative is low compared to the production or media buy portion of the job. Sell the idea, and make all the money on the back end. Even though it may be common in some fields -- I believe that it still devalues the creative process immensely. But hey, if your company doesn't care how it makes money, then have at it.

Let me rephrase "If that process has been working for your company, then keep doing what you want."

The creative as valuable as always (i.e. much more than production), and it is still a pitch. I'd prefer not to work that way. But in the advertising and tv fields, that is the only way it's done. No (new) clients will hire based on past work. So the pitch is a necessary evil.

It may indeed devalue the creative process, although not to the degree that pure (read: free) speculative work does. And I'd rather be doing this kind of work than limiting ourselves to the scale of project which does not require a pitch. So in the end I'm fine with it.

The biggest problem for us is that the pitch system favors large firms which can take a hit by putting a lot of work into a pitch and not really feel it. Ironically, often the larger firms put less work into a pitch than us since they don't need to win as much as we do.

> The biggest problem for us is that the pitch system favors large firms which can take a hit by putting a lot of work into a pitch and not really feel it. Ironically, often the larger firms put less work into a pitch than us since they don't need to win as much as we do.

That's so true. But I suppose that nothing is fair in business -- the big eats the small.

There are definitely creative fields that have consigned to this practice -- whether you call it a pitch or pure spec work, they're still cousins. I'm no idealist -- I understand why this practice occurs and is accepted. But that's what is so frustrating -- that it is so accepted, without any question. If given a choice, would advertising and broadcast design agencies choose to work this way? Does it make good business sense? Regardless of whether or not the system works -- if everyone on the creative side knows that there's something fundamentally or ethically wrong with it, then why doesn't anyone try to change it?

> It's a long story, but we actually won that contract three times, so I'd submit that it was less to do with luck and more to do with us being, well...good.

Christopher -- I'm sure you guys are good. That's why you won the account, and how you're able to make the account viable business-wise. But I still say that this "pitch" practice is not ethically kosher, otherwise you wouldn't be asking in the first place. It may not have hurt your business -- but in propagating the practice with that particular client, you will have indirectly hurt someone else in the profession. Not to mention the 2 firms that lost to you.

...the big eats the small.

But the small is oh so much more nimble and for whatever reason, more courageous.

The biggest problem for us is that the pitch system favors large firms which can take a hit by putting a lot of work into a pitch and not really feel it.

Not necessarily true, especially if you are concerned with what this type of "work" does to your profit margins, and what it might be doing to the other "big" clients you are not paying enough attention to as you put everything (if indeed you are) into winning a pitch.

Fundamentally I feel that paid pitch work is ultimately as satisfying and challenging as a bake-off. Is is really possible that all three firms (as that is usually what it is) are all getting the same thorough brief, the same marketing background and the same research? Who has the time for that--or rather, three times that? If a client is really interested in partnering with a firm, then they should have the courage and enough confidence in what we do to take a stand and hire a partner. Not a vendor they find in a pitch. And while we are all likely to find ourselves pitching against each other, (these are after all, the market dynamics of our time) we only perpetuate this behavior by participating in it.

The only spec work I've ever done was more along the lines of pro bono work for a friend who was just starting out.

My friend Alex bought an existing bar/club in the town where I went to college. Before it had been more of a hipster New York techno/house club. Alex owns a smoke shop, does graffitti art, and has a lot more hip-hop flavor. I wanted to work for him badly, so I told him I'd do a couple of flyers for him free of charge. If he liked what he saw, he could hire me to do things in the future.

I did two flyers for him, not more than an hour or two each, and he gave me incredible creative leeway. While not the best things I've ever done, they were a lot of fun to work on & produce. I've gotten good response from them & we've started talking about projects in the future. Did I think of it as spec work at the time? No. Do I now? Yes, very much so. If I had it to do over again, I'd bill at least for design time, if not consultation. Well, he provided drinks while we chatted, so maybe not. -- Kicker: His brother made him a really basic text logo, but could not provide me with any sort of computer file, scan, or font. I ended up recreating an outline version of his logo so he could actually use it. Something else I should have charged for.

I guess I'm not as concerned about the money as burning someone else in the local [and quite small] design community by de-valuing their work [and my own] or burning bridges. Sure, I have a couple of nice portfolio pieces, but mostly I think about the fact that I'm happy with them & the client is happy with them. Hopefully next time, he pays me. Or sets me up with a bar tab.

...

I still need to pick up the GAG pricing guidelines for freelance work. Anything on there about Spec Work?

I still need to pick up the GAG pricing guidelines for freelance work. Anything on there about Spec Work?

I'm not sure if they have info on spec work in there, but here's a question: Does anyone actually use the GAG guideline books in their daily freelance lives?

The only time I've used my copy was as a talking point with a difficult and uninformed client. "Well, I'm sorry you think that my estimate is too high - if you look here, you'll see it's less than half of what the 'going rate' is." [knowing full-well the rates in the GAG book were absurdly out of touch with reality]

Then again, that was years ago, dealing with clients in small Connecticut towns. Since I've been in NYC I haven't had a lot of problems negotiating fees (knock on wood).

M

If you estimate projects by the clients budget, and they have a wealthy one, sure, why not do spec work? However, if you do, be militant and charge for your time afterwards. Try setting a budget limit. Say, every budget under $5000 gets no spec work.

If you estimate projects by your hourly rate, NEVER DO SPEC WORK. It's a life-sucking downward spiral and at the end of the day you go home feeling like a spineless jellyfish.

Simple as that.

A) Unless you are freelancing or doing production -- you should never bill hourly. How do you calculate hourly cost on a logo?

and

B) It's not that simple. Doing spec work ahead of time tells a client that design is nothing more than superficial, shallow decoration. If you're arguing that it doesn't have to be superficial, then it's even worse if you put in time to research and build a comprehensive brief for the project, and still do the work as speculative. There's no correct reasoning to justify spec work -- it's a losing proposition no matter how you look at it.

And your rule about the size of the client's budget makes no sense, Justin. If the client can afford it, but chooses not to spend it initially -- what makes you think they're going to value your work anymore afterwards? If you're hoping to somehow recruit your cost once you've gotten the job -- are you suggesting to pad the bill to make up for the stuff you gave away? How is this more ethical? And setting a "budget" for spec work is saying that for a certain amount, you're willing to whore your services and disregard your ethics if the price is right.

Nice.

Not to beat on a dead horse... fine, I want to beat the dead horse... in the VH1 discussion Nancy started her explantion as such:

"We did the usual, get a few design studios to pitch logo’s but under the agreement that anyone in- house could submit logos too."

That, to me, smells of spec. I'm obviously assuming because I wasn't there and blah blah blah... I may be talking out of my ass, but I can live with that.

It was obvious who pk was referring too in his earlier post (let's not name names, but they used to play music videos in the '80's and now play a lot of reality shows) and I think I have a pretty good idea who Debbie is talking about — it all just adds up to one completely screwed up industry. I guess they just feel that designers will bend over backwards to get them as clients (with such a track record I can see why) but man, what a lack of respect from "design-driven" companies.

Return policies are for things that don't fit or things you have decided you don't like BEFORE you have "sampled" them...not for things that you have already worn and somehow decided that you no longer want. To return something already worn is unethical and dishonest.

Really? Unethical and dishonest? Ask New Balance, Birkenstock, or any number of shoe sellers. They will be happy to take back shoes you have worn a couple time and decided just didn't fit. I only shop at places where I can do just that, because I've had to do just that. No way I'm going to be out $100-200 because it felt fine when I walked in it for 10 minutes at the store (sounds spec to me...) but not when I walked 30 minutes in it at the mall.

Not that I am not against spec work. But I repeat, this is a bad analogy.

what a lack of respect from "design-driven" companies.

Yeah, but it makes sense for the client. From their perspective, they get to have *all* of the work done for them, and nearly free.

Just like those stupid commercials about how "When banks compete for your mortgage, you win" or whatever. What's the downside for the client? (Other than work that doesn't meet their needs, blah blah blah... I mean from a dollars and cents perspective).

I kind of think that every time one of "us" gives away work on spec / for free, "they" have that much more leverage. Next time "we" are invited to pitch a project, "they" ask questions like, "Well, why can't you charge less / work first and then we'll see if it's a good fit /etc etc".

Whatever. Hopefully we're all busy enough with real clients that we can tell those looking for spec work to buy it on eBay.

-R

> But I repeat, this is a bad analogy.

Think of the shoe analogy as an analogy on spec. If you had paid and commisioned somebody for a specific analogy to fit your own analogy needs you would have gotten a better analogy. How's that for an analogy?

Just to get this in the open - I've never done a thing on spec, nor would I ever want to. With that said I'm not sure how you can consider work done "in-house" as spec. If company X. asked studios to submit work for free, while telling the in-house dept to work on it - obviously it's a bad deal for the studios (and that part should be considered spec), but is it really spec for the in-house when they're on salary from company X.

In-house work, even if it may not be used, isn't spec work, exactly because of the salaried nature of their designers. The VH-1 thing — with several design firms working on the project — sounds more like a bad idea but not spec. It's similar to certain large clients (and Debbie will probably know which) that hire several brand design firms to do the same job, then bring it all in-house and finish it off. Those brand firms are being paid full project fees. It sucks for the designers, who should know that the chance of their work ever seeing the shelf is rare, but works out for the firm economically.

Ha, Armin. You got it. :)

In general, I agree that spec arrangements are bad, however, the firm I work for is engaged in one right now, and for decent reasons I believe.

1. It's a branding project for a neighborhood, which, if we win, gains us some decent visibility.

2. Two of our most consistent and lucrative clients sit on the board reviewing the work of the 3 firms involved, and were instrumental in getting us invited to the dance.

However, I have been screwed in general by spec work, in fact I just found out last night that a company in the western US just went ahead and produced some ads that I'd written the concepts for over a year ago. Fantastic.

--

To veer offtopic, here is something I've been pondering how to make work. I've had a number of requests from entrepreneurial personal non-designer friends for identity work and business papers. The pitch is always the same: they're starting a business, and have no money because they're just getting started, but still want to look professional. Can I help? Just a logo, business card, letterhead, envelope? I just need to get rolling and then once I have the green I'll come back to you for more and be able to pay what you deserve.

So my thought is this: I don't want a fee, I want X% of year one revenue. Or years 1-5. Has anyone ever worked an arrangement like this? One friend laughed when I mentioned it, but I think it makes sense. They believe in their business, why shouldn't I also?

I feel basically the same way as everybody else - doing design work on spec is nothing but pure, thankless pain.

What really scares me is that this is completely where photography is going, with designers moving toward using stock more and more. Now that Getty and Corbis own Every Photo On Earth, it's harder and harder for photographers to compete on their own, and more photographers are now forced to shoot "on spec" for little potential compensation because the market for assignment photography has dried up.

Now OnRequest Images, an agency in Seattle, has a "custom stock" business that allows you to submit a request for a shoot and have five photographers shoot an assignment on spec. You can read the Press Release here.

Maybe this is better for another thread, but the proliferation of bargain-basement stock photography to me is like a canary in a coalmine - when photographers can't get paid a decent fee, designers can't be far behind.

I don't want a fee, I want X% of year one revenue. Or years 1-5.

Corey, I'd say that unless you fully believe in the prospects of your friend's company, don't get involved in equity/percentage deals. Most businesses don't make profits their first year, and I doubt they'll pay you out of the losses. I'd either offer a lower fee or barter for their services, if it is something you'd use, of course. They won't get free service from the phone company, just because they are new, although phone service certainly makes them look professional. The only reason they're asking you for a freebie is because they know you. When you remove the friendship aspect, it comes down to business. They can't make succeed by giving away their services and neither can you. It is this perception of design as something you can weasel out of a friend that perpetuates the myth that design has no true business value.

hey, i've got a neat idea: let's unionize. thta would take care of some of our lack of uniformity in business practices. it'd also give us some leverage in the marketplace in pressure situations like spec. and, lastly, it'd take care of some of the price undercutting some of us are experiencing from younger, hungrier, desperat-er designers.

while we're at it, why don't we form some accreditation standards for ourselves?

:::sits back, waits for tomatoes to start flying:::

1. It's a branding project for a neighborhood, which, if we win, gains us some decent visibility.

Bad argument. This is the reasoning people always fall for spec work. 'Look at all the visibility we'll get!'

Granted, visibility isn't bad, per se, but this argument has long worn thin on me.

Two of our most consistent and lucrative clients sit on the board reviewing the work of the 3 firms involved

Well, then you may have an 'in' ;o)

So my thought is this: I don't want a fee, I want X% of year one revenue. Or years 1-5. Has anyone ever worked an arrangement like this?

That's a good way to approach it, but realize few new business make a whole lot of money those first few years ;o)

One friend laughed when I mentioned it, but I think it makes sense. They believe in their business, why shouldn't I also?

I completely agree. Obviously, your friend wasn't too serious about their identity, so I would have just said 'I'd love to help, but I can't give away my livelihood for free'.

Kia -- I'm familiar w/ that stock photography offer. It's a lame practice, but not as unethical as it sounds. That's because any photography work that doesn't get chosen can still be used as stock by the photographer. They retain all the rights. It's non-specific work, so the photographic 'spec' work has value beyond just that pitch. Plenty of photographers have been informally doing this for a while now for editorial and non-specific corporate work. They'll glom onto a number of agencies or companies, and shoot stock work that they think would likely sell. It's the gamble of the stock photography market.

Having said that, I'd never use it. I think it answers a question few people ask. It'll die a slow, quiet death.

.....

Patric -- brave man. Point (and sarcasm) taken. I agree -- no one said this business was fair or 100% ethical. The issue of spec may not be black and white, but it surely is not as grey as accreditation. The latter is self-imposed, while spec work is a controllable issue of ethical business practices. Surely we're smart enough to know from right and wrong.

Are there many professions that work in situations that could be considered speculative? Lawyers, for example, often work in contingency arrangements, meaning that if they win the case, they take a 33% cut of the financial award. Maybe design needs something like this to balance the risk of working for free? A design studio will do the design pitch/spec work for free or on an expenses-covered basis, then is paid 3 times their normal fee if they win? Yeah. Maybe not.

Lovely. Just perfect. Yes -- we should emulate the practices of lawyers. What the hell -- why not ruin the rest of western civilization?

There'd be a lot more wealthy designers! And we could be immortalized by modern-day Shakespeares, demanding our untimely demise.

Corey - I think that free work for friends and spec are two entirely different animals. We're talking about the same people who just need a hand putting some furniture in a truck this Saturday, right? If you'd help 'em move for free, you can bust out a logo for a friend. When this comes up I usually set up some guidelines about how "only paying clients get to make changes" and so far I haven't made any enemies. Often these same folks are in a position to return the favor in some way down the line.

A) I'm just going to come out and say what no one else will. Tan, you're overly emotional and can't handle it when other people choose to do things differently than you.

B) What makes you think you have the ultimate solution to everything? This is not sarcastic at all -- I'd really like to know.

I've won and lost on both sides of what I said. It's not something to live by, it's merely my experience. Spec work is not a "losing proposition" all the time, Mr. Negative. You win some, you lose some (if you choose to participate that is).

"If you'd help 'em move for free, you can bust out a logo for a friend."

That's like asking your friend the accountant to come over one weekend to do your taxes for free.

Not that you or your accountant friend can't to that...just that it's a bit different than asking for a hand moving.

Quite true, I was just thinking that if you're close enough with someone to help them lug furniture across town, you're close enough to help 'em out with a logo without asking for percentage points on their business.

if you're close enough with someone to help them lug furniture across town

If your business was moving furniture, then you'd probably charge them for that. The point is this: the friendship equation always muddles up both the business end and friendship end of matters. You run a design business, even if it's a freelance one. If you can take the financial sacrifice of doing a logo on the cheap for a friend, then do it. But don't expect an equal return on it from their end. They would never expect to get free phone service if you were their friend at the phone company. They would never get stamp discounts if you were their postal deliverer. They are simply using the friendship to exploit you, even if that is not their conscious intention. Always charge something, even if it is lower than normal, simply to reinforce that what you do is a real business with real financial concerns. They will respect you for it and you will respect yourself.

> Tan, you're overly emotional and can't handle it when other people choose to do things differently than you. Spec work is not a "losing proposition" all the time, Mr. Negative. You win some, you lose some (if you choose to participate that is).

Justin -- I personally don't care how or what you 'choose' to do differently. But this thread is in fact, a discussion about the ethical advantages and disadvantages of spec work -- and more importantly, whether or not it affects the profession as a whole.

I contend that spec work is unethical in practice, and very hurtful to our profession. It's also something that's propagated throught apathy -- that's it's no big deal, you win some, you lose some shit.

Justin -- this is a strong, polarizing topic. If you can't handle the heat and support your position, then I'm sorry -- but don't accuse me of bullying. Believe me, you'll know if that was true.

If you have a good point to support on spec work, then come 'on -- please don't let me stop you. Really, I mean it. I encourage you, or anyone else, to take a counter position on this issue. Just be willing to back it up.

That's the whole point of Speak Up.

i've read through this as it's evolved, and also read over it just now and;

i must be missing the reason/s why people think spec work is so bad/unethical etc. i can find lots of things saying it is bad etc., but no explanation/reasoning as to what makes this so. especially ethical reasoning. i really can't.

why is it 'evil'? why is it 'pure thankless pain'? why does spec work tell a client that design is shallow? etc. etc.

anyone?

Graham, simply put, spec is trying to get something for nothing. You don't have three accountants audit your books and only pay the one that found your books the least cooked. You don't have three doctors perform surgery and only pay the one that cures you. You don't have three contractors each build a complete house, paint it, furnish and landscape it, then decide you'll only pay for the one you like. Why should design be any different? You hire all three of the aforementioned professionals based on their accreditations and prior work and enter into a collaborative arrangement, albeit with differing power relationships. This is design as well. Why are we expected to offer up our stock and trade - our ideas and visual skills - for free?

To repeat Jonsel and a number of other people -- I don't ask my accountant, doctor, or mechanic to perform work for free, so that I can judge the value of their work acceptable for payment. Spec work is disrespectful to the value of graphic design -- that it can be chosen like fabric swatches, and therefore, is as disposable and frivolous.

It's unethical because the client who ask for it knowingly uses competition and the lure of money to coerce designers to 'sample' their work and efforts for free.

It's evil because it can also financially harm the losing firms that gave good effort with good intentions.

I dug up some more eloquent reasoning than what I have offered:

Ellen Shapiro, NY

Winning a spec competition is not winning anything. After all, if you are willing to give it away for free, it isn't worth anything and can thrown away as easily as it was procured.

Herbert Meyers (Gerstman+Meyers), NY

While this (spec work) may be a method aceptable to architects and agencies competing for multi-million-dollar assignments, most brand identities and package design offices consider spec design contents as unrewarding, as well as not in the client's best interest, as free design precludes their investment in time for in-depth investigation of the category and the full understanding of the marketer's strategy.

Two more postings from Alexander Isley and Lana Rigsby on spec work can be found here. Please scroll past midway down -- it's a good read.

I think I backed up my non-position-stance quite well by simply stating that, if you choose to play the spec game, you will win some and you will lose some or at least that's been my experience.

The only backing anyone has on this forum is their opinion so how is it that people opposing the issue magically have no backing? Or am I missing that this is a win-by-numbers game to you? And if this is ethical, and you're abiding by those guidelines, then why the hell are you asking people why they choose to bill clients by the hour? That has nothing to do with the "ethics of spec work".

Personally, the first thing I do in these forums is jump on the fence. I believe other people have a right to think and do what they want and they don't have to prove it to me or anyone else. I come because I enjoy the individualism. I oppose people like you who just can't seem to let others be individuals.

You're point isn't always the right one, buddy.

Never have I ever claimed "my point is the right one" on any thread.

Be the individual all you want Justin. But allow me to be assertive in my replies as well.

thanks.

You didn't have to outright claim "my point is the right one". Anyone can do that just as good by trying to belittle those that oppose them by sarcastically questioning the way they do things.

Be assertive, I respect that, but I'm not going to let you get away with trying to belittle anybody without saying something about it.

Your welcome.

not to divert attention from the current slapfight, but here goes.

The latter is self-imposed, while spec work is a controllable issue of ethical business practices. Surely we're smart enough to know from right and wrong.

(ed: that's tan replying to me a few comments back)

i don't think spec work is controllable entirely without a change in exterior perceptions. the common perception of designers is that we love to make with the pretty but hate to deal with the bills at the end of the day. it's really not that far of a jump to assume that we are therefore easily taken advantage of. unfortunately, that's usually true.

added to the problem is that we have no real professional standards that anyone upholds, except maybe an argument like this every once in a while. we also have absolutely nothing to lend us any credibility.

to the outside observer, (this is hypothetical, but realistic) a kid who just graduated from design school with no real design sensibility but a ton of photoshop filters - who's willing to puke out a site for a couple hundred bucks - looks exactly the same as someone with the same education and a real understanding of creative concepting for marketing.

i hear people crying over and over that we need to educate the public about the value of design, but frankly...you do it. i don't have time.

i'd rather have our own equivalent of a bar exam to use as a badge of achievement and dedication to the profession. that way, it'd be easier to set a (reasonably) uniform set of business practices that would actually stick to the market. and presto: if you're willing to make the commitment, you've got a gun in your pocket against spec.

So what is the argument for spec work? I understand the "you win some you lose some" point of view. But that's the short view, in my opinion. Like many of the issues we've touched on in other threads, the short view is easiest. It's design. It's what's right or wrong for the client or for yourself. But the long view takes the perspective of what this can do to an entire industry.

And that's my problem, because design has enough credibility issues already. We're already seen as temperamental artists. As depicted in the NYTimes regarding the MoMA logotype redesign, we are seen as expensive and odd type nerds. So when we are asked to give away our talent and intelligence for free, that just exacerbates the view that design is trivial and frivolous.

Unfortunately, this can only be turned around one design firm and one client at a time. But the Marketing Director who finally learns that spec is not conducive to good business will hopefully move to another company and spread that message and so on. Frankly, what Debbie should have done (and maybe did) was have AIGA and the GAG contact her would-be client informing them of the negatives regarding spec work. Maybe more of this tsk-tsking will eventually get the point across.

Ok, fine. You think I'm an overbearing asshole. I won't argue.

So do you actually have a tangible argument or point to make about the subject of spec work -- or are you just going to continue this emotional bs lecture?

i'd rather have our own equivalent of a bar exam to use as a badge of achievement and dedication to the profession. that way, it'd be easier to set a (reasonably) uniform set of business practices that would actually stick to the market. and presto: if you're willing to make the commitment, you've got a gun in your pocket against spec.

I'm not sure I overall support the idea of accreditation, because I'm not sure I would be accredited. But that's perhaps more my own insecurities! But this is a strong argument for setting common professional standards that clients can all see and deal with. It's not like I can read up on tort law, download a few case precedents and strut into court with my fancy briefcase and be a lawyer.

(Sorry, Tan, but it all comes back to lawyers.)

Damn Patric -- I really did think you were just being sarcastic about the accreditation thing.

I couldn't agree with you more. For once, I'm speechless -- I have to sit down.

One argument against spec work is the architecture profession. They bill out at amazingly low rates as it is and many, many firms make going after big spec jobs a regular part of daily business. Compare that to the design/build industry. Which offers more perceived value to the average new homebuyer? Which industry is designing and building most of the homes in this country?

I should have a more succint point than that, but it's late and I'm tired...maybe someone can pick that up and run with it in the morning...

i'd rather have our own equivalent of a bar exam to use as a badge of achievement and dedication to the profession. that way, it'd be easier to set a (reasonably) uniform set of business practices that would actually stick to the market. and presto: if you're willing to make the commitment, you've got a gun in your pocket against spec.

PK--

YES YES YES. This is what I've been trying to say for however long. YES.

Kinder, Gentler Tan--

Maybe my sense of humor just got really lame again, but that was hysterical. Well-played sarcasm.

i'd rather have our own equivalent of a bar exam...if you're willing to make the commitment, you've got a gun in your pocket against spec.

Didn't we just agree that most litigation lawyers are pretty much doing spec work? ;o)

hey, i've got a neat idea: let's unionize. thta would take care of some of our lack of uniformity in business practices. it'd also give us some leverage in the marketplace in pressure situations like spec. and, lastly, it'd take care of some of the price undercutting some of us are experiencing from younger, hungrier, desperat-er designers.

Movie directors and screen actors unionize. Maybe this isn't such a bad thought either.

unionize

Isn't the Graphic Artist's Guild a union? I know little about them aside from their pricing guidelines. Why are they not more effective or popular?

To me, GAG is more for commercial artists such as illutrators and photographers -- designers are welcomed in the organization, but our issues may not be their issues. I've always felt that GAG's information for graphic design is woefully out of date, their price ranges are too vast to be useful, and their contract/business documentations are too brief and general to be taken seriously.

And FYI, GAG is an official partner organization with AIGA national -- though to my knowledge, they've never done anything large together. Local chapter affiliations too.

Isn't the Graphic Artist's Guild a union?

yeah, i guess. but i'll be damned if i join something specifically for so-called graphic artists (i find that term old fashioned and insulting as a result of that) when i'm handling everything from creative strategy to stage set creation to traditional identity design to custom typeface design.

What would you join? Is AIGA a more representative body? Or should something new be formed that represents anything that falls under "design" ?

It should be AIGA, like the AIA and the IDSA -- which operate in the so-called 'union' capacity for architects and industrial designers. They have the infrastructure to implement something more tangible for the profession. They would if there was more agreement.

So I'm assuming that most of you are talking about doing spec work from an advertising or design firm?

But what about this... as the art director (actually the art department) of a small local magazine, I am asked to produce ads (and at times ad campaigns) for mom and pop clients who cannot afford ad agency campaigns. I never do ads entirely on spec, but I am asked often to come up with ads for the clients for free who would otherwise not advertise. I don't approve of this practice, as it is creative work that is being done for free and with no personal compensation, but for the good of the company, I do it.

This is a practice that is being done so much in my city that it is expected from many advertisers that if they sign an advertising contract with other local magazines, that the ad design and at times photography is included at no charge.

Is this common with other magazines in other markets? I came into the world of publication art direction right out of college, so I don't know what the industry standard is. Am I being pimped out by my company to do free work?

That's a new one (for me at least). I had never heard of something like that.

> Am I being pimped out by my company to do free work?

I assume you yourself are paid on a monthly basis under the magazine's payroll. So, in essence, you are not being pimped, you are just fulfilling your pimp's orders. The fact that the magazine takes on such activity is something to be frowned upon.

(I frown)

What would you join? Is AIGA a more representative body? Or should something new be formed that represents anything that falls under "design" ?

that would be my preference.

here's the part where i bitch about how badly the american center of design fucked up after having such amazing potential. god, i miss the living surfaces conferences.

I'd join the teamsters.

What did the ACD fuck up?

What did the ACD fuck up?

the management board got totally mired in internal politics. then the chairman got canned for his navelgazing, and shortly after that the dot-com bubble burst. they'd unfortunately invested too much time in retaining monies from that sector and not paid enough attention to other media (this was a year after razorfish basically underwrote the living surfaces conference), so they went kablooie.

memberships were supposedly taken over by the AIGA, but damned if i ever heard anything from them.

greenapple:

I, too, work for a editorial group and I’m often asked to do ads for advertising clients for free. Not that I like it but since I work in-house, I feel I don’t have much choice. In my experience they are often the most difficult and demanding clients, and tend not to value your work (and time) because they don’t have to pay for it.

In our sub-category of the design world, exhibits, we'd be hard-pressed to get a project without going through the speculative bidding process, especially when we started. The clients know that the big players play the game this way and have no problem asking eight exhibit houses for proposals on spec. There are even revisions and new proposals before a selection is made. Then, once they finally decide, there's about a month left to build it, have the review, jig it, and send it to Vegas or wherever the show is. With existing clients, the situation is different most of the time, although they do pull in a competitive bidder every now and then.

I'm curious if there are any exhibit design enthusiasts in the audience. Detractors are welcome, too.

I'm really surprised to hear from a couple editorial people that they're designing ads for nothing. I know a couple people that design for magazines (art director & associate art director) and there's no way in hell that they'd design an ad because the client wants to get something for nothing. With that said there's advatorials, but that's a different beast. If I was an enterprising designer at a mag, I'd work out a commission deal with the ad executive. I'd charge the client to design the ad, and give a commission to the ad executive.

It's october the 5th, this subject is clearly closed, but I'm sad I missed it so I can't stop myself from posting.

I guess my Canadian compatriots missed this discussion because GDC members have an agreement not to do spec work, period. It is officially considered unethical by our organization and when our Ethics Exec catches wind of calls for spec work she contacts both the company who requested it to explain why it's unethical and to try to get them to revise their RFP, and the companies who are partaking in the work to tell them of same and if they're GDC members to remind them that they are working against the prinicples they agreed to uphold when they became members.

This is one of the things I really do think the GDC is great for. Dana Dahlquist said, "told the client that my professional organization prohibits its members from performing spec work" -- and that really is a great thing. It takes the pressure off the individual designer, and in a sense says "Sorry, but my hands are tied." It also gives them the message that there IS a profession with standards. And it satisfies pk's lament "we need to educate the public about the value of design, but frankly...you do it. i don't have time." In our case the GDC does just that.

Will this ever get read? I doubt it, but there ya go.

(Sad i missed that fistfight, too!)