$5 Reward for Stock Logos

By now, you have probably heard about this but, just for the sake of discussion, let’s establish the facts: iStockphoto, purveyor of very low-priced stock photography and illustration, will now start selling logos created by its community. People whose logos are approved by iStockphoto in the first 10,000-logo inventory will receive a whopping $5 and, once their logo is available for sale, they can earn up to 50% royalties at a price point of somewhere between $100 and $750 (although in iStockphoto parlance, those are 100 and 750 credits). Once a logo has been purchased by a “client,” that logo is off the inventory, a one-of-a-kind logo if you will. If you need any further clarification, you can read the announcement, nicely titled “Become a Logo Designer for iStockphoto.” And if you doubt there is a designer market for this, simply read the first few pages of this forum thread with excited reactions — by page 69 the mood has definitely changed. Since this is an In Brief, I will reserve my opinion for the comments.

Armin’s comment is:

Yes, on the surface, this sucks. The craft of creating a logo is treated as nothing more complicated than picking a jar of mayonnaise out of a shelf. It denigrates what most of us take to be a complex and layered process, requiring hours of devoted care to both client and the actual logo and does not take into account that said process is something we take great pride in and the results of which we celebrate, whether it’s new work or that of legendary icons like Paul Rand and Saul Bass, who were handsomely rewarded for their work, and it surely wasn’t with “credits.” Instead, iStockphoto is willing to gamble $5 on each logo — although if you add up the 10,000 logos they want to gather, they are forking over $50,000 — and realize they won’t have to pay that 50% royalty to all of them, since it’s unlikely all those logos will sell. So, yes, it sucks. But, you know, so fucking what?

As designers, we are not the first to get this treatment, both photographers and illustrators have been getting a big, fat middle finger from the stock industry for two decades now and, yes, commissions for original photography and illustration are way down but those that excel at these crafts are still in business and doing amazing work. They have risen over the challenge and those of us who know we can do better and prove that a logo is worth paying thousands of dollars for must give back that fat, middle finger and keep doing the best work we can through the best customer service we have to offer and with the smartest rationalizations for the work we do. If you feel threatened by this service, by the ensuing logos that will populate it and by the people that will buy them, you need to switch tracks and do something else. Or, why not, take the plunge and send in some logos to iStockphoto.

This is not a real affront to our profession, it’s simply the evolution of the marketplace and while it may seem shitty to some, it opens opportunities for others, be it designers willing to put their logos up for Costco-like bargains and clients that either can’t or don’t want to spend that much money on a logo. Process be damned when you have results at the ready to be placed in a shopping cart. It doesn’t move us forward but, hey, it’s not the end of the world.

Heck, with the economy as it is, I have 100 logos that I might just submit. (No, not really).

On Sep.25.2009 at 09:34 AM

jason Parry’s comment is:

I guess if you just used logos rejected by other clients (sloppy seconds if you will) the work is already done.

Fortunately the folks pursuing a stock logo site for their corporate signature probably don’t have the design sophistication to know what they are looking for, so they will ‘get what they pay for’ anyway.

On Sep.25.2009 at 09:42 AM

Carl Fox’s comment is:

Armin,

NICE use of Comic Sans.
Very Appropriate.

On Sep.25.2009 at 09:50 AM

Carl Fox’s comment is:

Armin,

NICE use of Comic Sans.
Very appropriate.

On Sep.25.2009 at 09:50 AM

Alex’s comment is:

^ Are you talking about the text in the header image? It looks nothing like Comic Sans.

On Sep.25.2009 at 09:54 AM

Dennis Van Staalduinen’s comment is:

As a one-time creator-turned-outsourced buyer / procurer of logo creation services (because I actually suck as a designer), I see both sides of this issue - as does Armin I think.

On the one hand, the real superstars of the business will continue to shine and command high fees and awards, because let’s face it, the really amazing stuff requires an uncommon eye and talent.

But for smaller companies looking to look more professional than they did before, and for designers looking to kick-start their identity portfolios, these types of services just make sense.

On Sep.25.2009 at 09:56 AM

Phillip McKeown’s comment is:

Not Comic Sans. Techton perhaps?

Anway. Yes… I was definitely surprised by this announcement… and saddened to see the early excitement mentioned in the forum. It’s unfortunate just like LogoBee and LogoWorks. It cheapens designers education, experience and creativity. Obviously, iStock/Getty isn’t too concerned with that rather they are interested in making more money.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:01 AM

Armin’s comment is:

Correct, it’s Tekton. The rich man’s Comic Sans.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:08 AM

felix sockwell’s comment is:

i wonder how our friends at logoworks.com are faring? I have a mountain of scrap that I’d love to lose. But for $5? Nephew, please.

btw
Dennis, you’re flat wrong. ONe of the most talented young logo designers I’ve ever met (and nearly hired) was moonlighting at logoworks to pay back his student loans because his regular job paid so little. He quickly rose up the logo food chain and is working as a designer for Facebook (Ben Barry is his name, http://www.designforfun.com/ is where you can find him). We tend to think of Landor and Crispin Porter Bogusky as high end but you’d surprised who dips into this unsacred logo depository.

Whats ultimately wrong (bad) with this business decision is the naming device. You can’t operate Stock Logo Company under an iStockphoto.com moniker. I mean, why would they wish to dilute such a powerful brand!

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:14 AM

Bart Laube’s comment is:

Art Goes Stale Faster Than Krispy Cream Donuts….

I have years of logos and illustrations I carry with me, but I have never used them.
I wish I could and charge people twice for the same art then retire to a cottage somewhere. But trends change every year and everyone has something different to say.
Most of our job is finding new fonts and setting the same things in that new font. All those things I set in MIstral and Hobo are completely useless these days.

Every logo had random triangles in it in the 80’s, then nike swoops in the 90’s.
you can’t give that sh!t away now!

I guess I could sell that old stuff but it sucks now and I don’t want that to represent me…

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:18 AM

Neil Kelty’s comment is:

When I first read the title, I thought you were offering $5 for people to find stock photos…would’ve been a fun Friday activity.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:25 AM

Brad Thomas’s comment is:

Well, this is interesting timing. Just the other day I came across an article on the AIGA website that speaks to this issue. It’s called New Challenges from the Lowballers…and What to Do. The article is a few years old, but prophetic in nature. It speaks of the kind of practical stuff that every design student and recent graduate ought to know before working with clients. I wish someone would have told me about it back when I was first getting started. Anyway, you can read the article here if you are interested.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:37 AM

Steven Hoober’s comment is:

> The rich man’s Comic Sans.

I stopped my (not that common anyway) use of Tekton when McDonald’s decided it was theirs like 15 years ago. Might have to dig it out again when I need such a look now though.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:39 AM

marko’s comment is:

I fail to anything positive with this, and no I am not worried about it, I just don’t see why designers who truly love what they do, would de-value that which they love.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:46 AM

Marcus’s comment is:

Shouldn’t the last link be this one http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=119471 ?

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:46 AM

LB’s comment is:

A logo can’t be sold over and over like a photo of a handshake. I’m curious to see how this will work. A $5 logo is a 5 minute logo and what I do in the first 5 minutes is usually pretty bad. But maybe there are some people out there who have figured out an angle I haven’t.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:53 AM

Shaun’s comment is:

If a client really takes such a small amount of personal pride into their design process and crafting the image of their company - are we really concerned about working with these people? Could a really noteworthy and credible company stand behind a $5 logo? My guess is not. “You get what you pay for” is maybe not always the truth - but it sure makes you value the product more when you invest time and money into it. Whether or not the quality of the mark exceeds the $5 version.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:54 AM

Ricky Salsberry’s comment is:

My full opinion is here if anyone wants to read it:
http://www.thedonutproject.com/2009/09/23/istockphoto-to-begin-selling-stock-logos/

But in short - companies will do this as long as they make money. Cigarette companies exist and they make products that kill you… do you really think these logo companies give a shit about your whining? Hell no.

The only way this stops is if they don’t have any work to sell. We, designers and ‘designers’, enable this to happen by giving work away.

Crowdsourcing can’t thrive if there’s no crowd to source.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:55 AM

Nate B’s comment is:

Designers who are excited about this idea should not be designing at all. You’re demeaning the value of graphic design and creating a false perception that it’s normal in our industry to create a logo for a few bucks. If you’re starting out in this industry, please do everyone a favor and research before committing to a career that will leave you overworked and underpaid.

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:58 AM

Armin’s comment is:

> Shouldn’t the last link be this one http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=119471 ?

Yes Marcus, thanks. Sorry about that everyone.

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:03 AM

emil’s comment is:

Buying a stock logo is the equivalent of wearing second hand clothes, that are a few sizes too small.

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:12 AM

Armin’s comment is:

> A logo can’t be sold over and over like a photo of a handshake. I’m curious to see how this will work.

LB, as mentioned above, “Once a logo has been purchased by a “client,” that logo is off the inventory.”

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:18 AM

bill’s comment is:

Isn’t it the responsibility of every seller in a marketplace to walk over to the low-quality, high-volume guy and say “what the fuck?”

As a teacher turned designer, maybe I’m a little over-sensitive about the prospect of once again getting paid a fraction of what I’m worth because nobody threw a shit fit when the time called for it.

If you’re a designer who needs to make ends meet, there are established avenues for making money without making life miserable for an entire industry. Sign up with a temp agency and make some copies. Get your brother-in-law to take you on his landscaping crew. (These are both things I did while simultaneously declining low-ball freelance gigs and refusing job-candidate bake offs).

“But I’m a designer! Design is my life! I must design to live!”

Shut up and grab a broom.

This IS an affront to my profession. These people are shitting where I eat.

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:27 AM

Nick’s comment is:

It’s fast food design… Yeah, sure it may be cheap and, like fast food, it may actually fulfill an immediate need. However, just like fast food, in the long run, it’s really not all that good for you (your company)

The real difference between these services and traditional design streams is depth of services. When you buy a logo from iStockphoto, that all you get, a logo, that it… a signature. The rest is up to the company who bought it. If that same company went to an agency or freelancer or whatever, yes they would most certainly be paying more, in most cases much more, but the package they would be receiving a product and service worth much much more.

…basically you get what you pay for.

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:30 AM

Deshler’s comment is:

“…both photographers and illustrators have been getting a big, fat middle finger from the stock industry for two decades now…”

Well … yes, I understand where you are coming from. But as somebody who occasionally needs to shovel out a project for next to no budget at all, I am happy for the opportunity for a $15 piece of istock art. Given the temporary nature of the projects requiring this art, and the non-profit nature of my employer, I think that buying cheap artwork for these projects is a wise decision. If I had to commission original art or photography for each of these pieces, the pieces would, simply, not be completed.

Now, that said, we also recognize the value of paying tens of thousands for good photography for projects of strategic importance.

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:34 AM

Deshler’s comment is:

“But I’m a designer! Design is my life! I must design to live!”

Shut up and grab a broom.

This IS an affront to my profession. These people are shitting where I eat.

For sake of argument, perhaps the person without design skills or carpentry skills or other marketable skills who cannot grab a broom for pay because you refused to use your skills for less pay than you deemed worthy thinks that you are an affront to HIS livelihood.

Like it or not, there is a certain market for what we do, and that market dictates the price—just like in every part of life.

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:36 AM

Mr Mufasa’s comment is:

Why are stock photo sites trying to sell design? I’ve used istock but it seems like they’re venturing away from photography and now offer video and what’s next? Will istock consider selling website templates? I hope good designers stay away from this practice in the industry. They’re selling logo’s as if creating a well designed logo were as simple as clicking a shutter.

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:39 AM

Matt’s comment is:

It’s already bad enough that the average editor/boss/etc. doesn’t seem to understand the concept of the design process, and thinks graphic designers can, and should hammer out logos in under a couple hours. It’s services like this that will ultimately perpetuate and seemingly justify this ignorance.

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:51 AM

AwesomeRobot’s comment is:

As if photographers and illustrators weren’t enough for Getty.

Any potential client you’d lose to iStock isn’t a client you’d want anyway, though want and need are two different roads, and the traffic flows both ways. This type of thing drives smaller clients further away from hiring a real designer, which is often what they really need… and hell, sometimes we all just need the money.

On Sep.25.2009 at 12:01 PM

Andy’s comment is:

@Mr Mufasa
…Or are they selling photographs as if clicking a shutter were as simple as creating a well designed logo.

Seems hypocritical to me to denounce what iStock is trying to do to the design industry while implying that it’s ‘no biggie’ what they’ve already done to the photo industry. Taking good photos is just as difficult/takes just as much talent, effort, time and expertise as designing logos.

On Sep.25.2009 at 12:06 PM

AwesomeRobot’s comment is:

>They’re selling logo’s as if creating a well designed logo were as simple as clicking a shutter.

I feel bad for the photographers you work with.

On Sep.25.2009 at 12:09 PM

BWJ’s comment is:

Personally, anyone who is willing to pay $100 for a stock logo with no strategy behind it, isn’t someone I want to work with anyway. Someone with so little understanding and value of design is that last person I want to have as a client.

This won’t effect my business or my happiness.

On Sep.25.2009 at 12:12 PM

Impossibly Stupid’s comment is:

I won’t say I see all sides of this issue, but I would say it’s not as obviously a bad deal as the designers think, but that it will ultimately fail for iStockphoto because it’s not as great a deal as the buyers want. And I don’t mean that the buyers are cheap, but that a logo/trademark is something that rarely works straight from stock. And what business is wants to spend the time going through all 10K pictures just to see if one happens to match the identity they have in mind?

So, as a business-type-person, I say you creative-type-people should game the system to sell your other (custom, independent) design services. Think of it the same way a musician thinks of a $1 (or free promo) song in iTunes. Submit a good enough logo to be selected, but make it just specific enough that it won’t sell for the full 6 months. Price it or name it so that it appears early on their list (I don’t know what sort criterion they’ll use) so that it gets the most eyeballs. Above all, make sure anyone viewing it has an easy way to get ahold of you outside of iStockphoto’s control. Treat it like a loss-leader and you might be able to get a lot of referral business before iStockphoto scraps the whole idea as a failed experiment.

On Sep.25.2009 at 12:23 PM

grubedoo’s comment is:

People love Costco and Wal-Mart because you can get a lot of shit and get it cheap. But it’s mostly still shit.

You get what you pay for.

The people producing that shit have a booming economy at the expense of low wages, poor living conditions (for most) and massive environmental degradation.

You reap what you sow.

So fucking what if companies like iStock [Getty] make the same true for design, illustration and photography?

Even though, in the long run, everyone suffers from this “evolving marketplace” I guess we should all just shrug our shoulders and go along with it because those that excel won’t be affected.

Consume consumers!

On Sep.25.2009 at 12:30 PM

Tim Walker’s comment is:

I had the same reaction to this that most of the other commenters (and others) probably had. This and every other attempt at commoditizing design seems to chip away at our profession, and it’s disappointing that a company like iStock — making their living selling to people in the profession — wouldn’t see this.

I encouraged my design staff (and myself) to remember that these kinds of things are still no substitute for strategically informed, well-conceived and well-executed identity work. The clients who know that will still be there, and the ones who go for a $100 logo would never have been our clients. I really believe that.

Armin’s comment rings true and brings up a point we should all be thinking about. It’s true that this has been happening to photographers and illustrators for some time now. Like many other designers, I am often forced (or at least I think I am) into using stock photography to help lower budget clients. Perhaps this is the time for all of us to reconsider the value of all stock and find ways to return to commissioning original work from illustrators and photographers. Our Pearl Harbor has been attacked so maybe it’s time to get into the war and help our European friends who have been fighting it already.

On Sep.25.2009 at 01:03 PM

bill’s comment is:

Deshler,

Your argument doesn’t work. But I can see where you were headed.

Temp work is, by its very nature, temporary. Not a profession. I chose it specifically to offer as an alternative to designing for pennies. If you can explain how I was damaging any industry during my employment as a receptionist at a WLOL-FM instead of giving design away for free, please do.

Crew work and whatnot is in most cases assigned value under minimum wage laws and/or union contract. I wasn’t a threat to the landscaping profession or industry by taking that job, I was a threat to one guy’s employment.

And I’m all for being a threat to someone’s employment. I like to think I’m a threat to my CD’s job. And he tries to be a threat to the VP’s.

As for the market, don’t try to suggest that we as providers have no influence on pricing. When I refuse low-ballers, I send the message that you can’t get it FROM ME for that price. When WE ALL refuse low ballers, we send the message that you can’t get it AT ALL for that price.

There’s a difference between competitive pricing and destructive pricing. We all need to jockey around and find the sweet spot to win the fancy clients and keep the lights on. But it can be done without coming in %80 lower than the other guy.

My point still stands: if you’re a designer in need of cash, you can make ends meet without devaluing the industry.

That might require being something else for a while.

Sometimes designers are too hellbent on “being designers” for their own good.

On Sep.25.2009 at 01:05 PM

kevin’s comment is:

Grubedoo’s, I might have to license your quote

“People love Costco and Wal-Mart because you can get a lot of shit and get it cheap. But it’s mostly still shit.” (I will give you $5 for it.)

Seriously, your quote sums it all up. If a company seriously consider buying a logo like this, would you really want them as a client?

On Sep.25.2009 at 01:06 PM

Tim Lapetino’s comment is:

This is a sad development, imo. IStockphoto has been good at what it does—providing relatively inexpensive stock that’s better than their competitors, but they’re pulling a “BMW minivan” here and diluting their brand by this effort.

I think stock photography fills a different niche than commissioned work, as a “plug-in” image/texture/composite piece for a very specific design need. It doesn’t replace commissioned photography.

Just like great custom photo work, excellent identity design needs the back-and-forth, briefs, research and thought that a good client relationship gives. Even though this saddens me (no one in the marketplace is immune when a Wal-Mart comes in to lower prices to commodity levels) as an identity designer, their idea doesn’t affect our business, since those who would shell out $100-$700 for a fast-food logo probably wouldn’t pay our firm’s rates, and that kind of push-button service isn’t the kind of thing I’d prefer to work with.

If anything, we identity designers could be happy that IStock is giving us an easy way to differentiate and increase the value of our strategic, consultant work to clients. We can very quickly help demonstrate the value of what we do, when compared to a “service” like this—not only in craft, service, and relationship, but also in carrying out an identity through a large branding program.

On Sep.25.2009 at 01:10 PM

Andrew Klein’s comment is:

“If a company seriously consider buying a logo like this, would you really want them as a client?”

well…

There are plenty of small or medium-size businesses that go looking for a logo and find in a search “logo design $99” or “ready-made stock logos”. Owners or managers of businesses that may be inexperienced with marketing might think that’s where logos come from - you just go out and buy them… it’s not the fault of the business, it’s not the fault of the logo-mills or istock… it’s our fault.

Give a business owner a clear explanation of what a logo is, and how important it can be in a business’s marketing efforts - then explain that there are many professional designers that specialize in designing logos for businesses like them. Also, point out that if cost is a concern, there are many designers- freelance or otherwise - that may be willing to work for significantly less than a big agency.

I’d bet that most reasonable business owners would (after that conversation) see the value in a design service, as opposed to an off-the-shelf alternative. If they still only want to pay $99 for a logo… I don’t want their business, because there was no business to be had anyway- they didn’t have a budget to pay a designer.

The problem is, this conversation never happens. The conversation is circumvented by a google search top 10 results, and lack of knowing. These debates over spec/costco style design always evolve into a existential question of what our place is, and what we could or should do to educate or inform would-be purchasers of our services.

It’s one thing to be ill-informed, to not know, it’s an entirely different matter to not know what you don’t know. I think that’s the state a lot of businesses are in - they are unaware of the possibilities - or - if they have an ancillary knowledge, they are often very misguided.

What could possibly fix this problem?
Who knows…maybe a gigantic PR campaign for design, maybe designers doing more self promotion.Maybe it shouldn’t be fixed, or can’t be fixed.

On Sep.25.2009 at 01:58 PM

grubedoo’s comment is:

Kevin, sorry, I’ve already submitted the quote to iStock’s quotes and tagline service. They paid me $5 for it and if anyone buys it I’ll get 10 iStock credits.

On Sep.25.2009 at 01:58 PM

Samuel’s comment is:

Hey Armin,
I guess you can submit these to iStock now
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/003536.html

(This is a joke)

On Sep.25.2009 at 02:11 PM

Tom Muller’s comment is:

It’ll be interesting to see how this evolves. Once smart move, I think, iStock has made, is offering a logo design only once and therefore giving the buyer a sense of having a unique design (even if it is at a bargain price). Part of me is not averse to this approach: it makes design a bit more democratic and affordable for some. On the other hand, it could give the average customer the idea that logo design is something that a) everyone can do and b) costs very little.

But like Armin said, it won’t harm the “top end” of the market (I don’t see Pentagram losing business because of this).

I’ve done my share of stock imagery, and while I haven’t always seen a big return on them, I have gotten work out of it, and not at bargain prices. Or credits.

On Sep.25.2009 at 02:20 PM

Justin’s comment is:

The type in the above header image looks like Tekton not comic sans

On Sep.25.2009 at 02:24 PM

Samuel’s comment is:

Hey Armin,
I guess you can submit these to iStock now
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/003536.html

(This is not a joke)

On Sep.25.2009 at 02:26 PM

Jason Schwartz’s comment is:

The truth about iStock selling logos is that in the future it will become MORE important for companies to use an actual designer when they need quality logo and ID work done.

I don’t know what the logos will look like as of yet (until it’s rolled out) but I’m guessing that more and more companies are going to end up flat and GENERIC… just like the stock imagery already sold on iStock.

In the end, the logo is truly only a small part of a large identity system. $5 logo or not, a LOT more actual identity work will be needed to turn these into successful ID systems (if salvageable.)

On Sep.25.2009 at 02:45 PM

Laura’s comment is:

Yes, there clearly is a market for generic, inexpensive design (and photography, illustration, printing, cereal, etc.) And yes, like photographers and illustrators, talented designers and design studios will still thrive on clients who want real thought put into their projects. In the short run, not detrimental.

As these ready-made products become increasingly visible, their availability will seep into the greater consciousness and throw into question the time (and therefore money) needed to craft design properly. I see that Vistaprint is now running ads on national television. Already many of us have to convince our clients of the merits of offset printing vs. digital, a higher grade of paper, etc. Yes, Low-cost, low-quality printing has long been available but it hasn’t been top-of-mind for the majority of people/clients.

I suspect the pool of clients who appreciate and value thoughtful design and production will continue to shrink, perhaps at an increased rate. I believe this will force many small design studios to suffer and ultimately close. I anticipate the remaining work will go to the big branding houses, á la the richer get richer dynamic. In condensing the available points-of-view, I worry what impact that will have on innovation in design. It has not fared well in other industries.

On Sep.25.2009 at 02:47 PM

Deshler’s comment is:

Bill, you’re spot on with your discussion of what drives the market price. Simply, market price is a function of (a) how low the seller is willing to go, and (b) how high the buyer is willing to go. But here’s the thing: I think it’s unrealistic to expect somebody in need to withhold his own skills from the marketplace in order to help others. Now, being a big union man, I’m all for asserting our worth in the marketplace, and I totally get the annoyance at “scabs” for undermining our value. But it’s going to happen, especially in lean times.

On Sep.25.2009 at 02:54 PM

momo’s comment is:

They should call this “one-of-a-kind clip art design” instead of “logo design”.

On Sep.25.2009 at 02:54 PM

Josh’s comment is:

I think the outrage begets an idea that nobody ever tries. Designers reaching out en masse to the community. Small firms and freelancers should be banding together to introduce themselves to the community. The reason people chase after $150 logos is because they don’t know anybody.

On Sep.25.2009 at 03:13 PM

Reglan Side Effects Lawsuit’s comment is:

It seems like this could be a great way for designers just getting into the business to get a foot in. Obviously, it will never replace legitimate tailored designs, but can help both startup companies and starting designers.

On Sep.25.2009 at 03:19 PM

Brian Son’s comment is:

When you have clients that call you asking for free work until they decide you made something worth of paying a whopping $100 for, because their original designer couldn’t hash something out in TWO WHOLE HOURS and his best friend designed a better logo in Microsoft Word—well, these sites are great for them.

On Sep.25.2009 at 03:41 PM

Cameron Jantzen’s comment is:

You know, this is a step up in one way. It isn’t spec. It’s not like the other online logo services that say compete on this brief, best person wins. This is a take it or leave it proposition. Technology has made design a more democratic institution, and democracy has it’s ups and downs. Within the low-end field, this is a definite improvement. Stock logos harm the industry much less than spec logos.

On Sep.25.2009 at 03:43 PM

Untitled’s comment is:

Believe me there is no bottom to how low a logo could, and will be valued. Recently we got a call from someone an un-named national retailer to do an identity for an IMPORTANT internal campaign to get video success stories from their employees that could be turned into commercials - yes, the campaign you see on TV now. They asked if we “could shift the resources over to tackle this engagement” and I asked for a creative brief - got the three page brief and called back to discuss budget - It was a tight time line - I was in the thousands as a ballpark - their budget - under $200. Sorry - you just spent that much. Just one example of a culture that doesn’t get it.

On Sep.25.2009 at 03:44 PM

bill’s comment is:

Deshler,

I hate that you’re right. But I hope you’re only barely right. Maybe I’m an exception because I was a career changer and not a fresh young design grad, but when I got into design, I felt lucky as all hell to be there. Still do. And when people love what they do, they don’t want to do anything to ruin it for the next guy. At least I don’t. That’s why I made the decisions I made. And I consider myself to be a selfish bastard.

On Sep.25.2009 at 05:07 PM

Bill’s comment is:

“The reason people chase after $150 logos is because they don’t know anybody.”

Yup. If you replaced “anybody” with a blank line, a majority of designers would have written “good design.”

Am I wrong on that one?

Right on, Josh.

On Sep.25.2009 at 05:16 PM

Nicole’s comment is:

“You know, this is a step up in one way. It isn’t spec.”

Actually Cameron, it is spec design. If you’re creating without an agreement with a client (ie. a contract), it is spec work as you have no idea if you are going to be compensated for your efforts (let’s not even discuss the $5 “bonus” — hardly compensation).

Your point about it being a step up is like saying “instead of killing kittens, we’re only going to maim them.” Spec design work is bad for the design industry (and the kittens), period.

On Sep.25.2009 at 06:11 PM

Brian Douglas Hayes’s comment is:

As a student I think this is a pretty decent avenue. I’m making $9-15/hour at my part time jobs, and any random work that’s related to my study (and gets me paid) sounds good to me. I’ve got plenty of classmates that “donate” plasma just to earn some cash every week… at least you’re getting a bit of experience this way.

Yeah, I’ll probably change my mind after I’ve got more experience (and a degree) under my belt. But I don’t think this is a bad deal for those of us that lack some real-world design applications.

On Sep.25.2009 at 07:11 PM

al’s comment is:

this must be how photographers felt when istock was first launched … designers will get over it

On Sep.25.2009 at 10:17 PM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

Isn’t iStockphoto biting the hand that feeds it?

On Sep.25.2009 at 11:35 PM

tommy pez’s comment is:

What I don’t get is, as a designer of any caliber, how can one even design a semi-decent logo without knowing anything about the company one is designing the logo for? It’s slightly different if you’re creating illustrations, scenes, trees, flowers, swirls, paisleys, landscapes, etc. as art to be used in ads or packaging. And believe me, that kind of work is extremely valuable. But at the heart of the logo is a brand’s identity. Everything from font selection to color palette to seemingly abstract symbology comes from countless conversations, discussions and brainstorming. I’d love to be able to eliminate all that “work” from logo creation, but even if I could, it would be impossible. It’s like telling an artist “Paint me a picture of my cousin Marty” when the artist has never even seen Marty and doesn’t even know if Marty is a him or a her. He’s just throwing paint on the canvas. It doesn’t even seem possible to sell stock logos, but rather stock “bits and pieces” that can be used IN logos once company name, profile and promise have been established. Where would you even start from? Would you just make a little blob, make it look shiny (a la web 2.0) and put “insert company name here” in Helvetica Thin or something, and call it a day? Or, have I just been taking my logo design way too seriously over the past 5 or 6 years?

On Sep.26.2009 at 12:01 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

This is akin to a potential client asking a public relations professional on the first meeting … “How much will it cost to get an article in the XYZ paper?”

Nevermind that said PR person has no idea if there’s actually a decent story to be told.

It’s based out of ignorance. It’s part of the go-go nature of society today … the Targetization of our economy, if you will. i.e., “Expect More, Pay Less.”

Until we as professionals shift that lexicon to “Expect More, Pay For It” through patience, education, and not taking foolish ‘industries’ like this personal … we’ll continue to see them proliferate.

For every $99-a-press release PR flack … for every $100 logo designer … there are plenty of other legitimate professionals to be matched with businesses willing and in-need of real counsel.

This type of nonsense just serves as a distraction. Stay the course. Don’t let these discounters make you lose focus.

On Sep.26.2009 at 08:24 AM

Cameron Jantzen’s comment is:

Nicole,
With all respect I think you’re wrong. An analogy if you don’t mind:

Spec: Someone asks a jeweller for a ring designed like such and with this colour stone in this size, but they’ll only buy it if they like it.

Not spec: A jeweller makes a ring and offers it for sale.

If you are opposed to spec and think that artists/potters/jewellers are spec workers, then I hope you’ve never bought anything one-of-a-kind that you didn’t commission.

On Sep.26.2009 at 09:56 AM

Marcin’s comment is:

This sounds like really bad joke.

I think, people from IStock have no idea what GOOD LOGO is.

And that makes me laugh: ,,Cool! I wish I knew Illustrator! This sounds like an interesting counter to another web based logo design web site”. I’m a photographer and I was selling photos on Istock. Now: Logo Design here I come! :D:D:D:D:D

On Sep.26.2009 at 12:00 PM

R. Sinclair’s comment is:

While I’m not going to bother looking into iStockPhoto’s terms for this service, it seems like this site could open a huge can of worms:

As Armin jokingly (?) implied, the majority of logos that will be uploaded to this service are going to be work that designers have already created for other clients. No one is going to create new, randomly designed logos for the express purpose of uploading to this database.

People will upload old logos and alternate designs that were never selected, and are just laying around collecting dust. Many people will just figure, “Why not? The client obviously didn’t want them, I have a bunch laying around, and it won’t hurt to potentially get some money for them if they’re picked.”

The problem is, depending on your contract with a client, *they* might own those unused logos. If you were on staff when you did the designs, your studio or agency might own all of those mockups, and they’re not yours to sell. They might even be under an NDA.

Although it’s fairly common for photographers to sell unused shots from their rolls as stock, it will be an interesting legal scenario to see how this service evolves for logo design.

On Sep.26.2009 at 02:18 PM

Tom Klein’s comment is:

Isn’t iStockphoto biting the hand that feeds it? - GLENN SAKAMOTO

I think that’s an important question.

Who specifically would buy stock logos? Start-ups hoping to cut costs? People in a time crunch? Design students hoping to cheat in their logo design class?

It does seem like a smack in the face to iStockphoto’s primary customer. Perhaps it’s the natural progression from photographer’s work getting devalued as mere shutter-clicking. Now logos are just letters and little drawings.

Maybe desperate times call for desperate measures…

On Sep.26.2009 at 06:44 PM

Chris’s comment is:

http://www.visualeditors.com/apple/2009/07/istockphoto-a-designers-best-friend-or-biggest-threat-to-her-job/

Look at what iStock has done to photographers. Sure, it’s fantastic for a designer that needs some cheap stock photography and it’s great for iStock, but it’s devaluing the photographer.

Sure there will be those that use custom art and those that use custom logos, but when enough designers/photographers are creating logos/photos by the thousands, its pretty easy to make your art appear custom. Why buy an expensive logo when you can get a cheap one that appears unique?

We are undermining and devaluing ourselves, our peers, and our industry by submitting to these services.

On Sep.26.2009 at 06:49 PM

Courtney’s comment is:

I received the email about this from iStock. the first thing I thought was that when the word gets out, my potential clients are going to say, “Why should I pay you $$$$ for a logo when I can get one on iStock for $?” I swear, I really wanted to email iStock about this. It is not good for us designers. But then photographers were probably ticked off a long time ago when iStock first launched.

On Sep.26.2009 at 10:40 PM

Courtney’s comment is:

After my last post, I went ahead and emailed iStock to tell them how I feel. They are definitely biting the hand that feeds them.

On Sep.26.2009 at 10:46 PM

jj’s comment is:

We designers - especially those in agencies that have low-paying and somewhat less sophisticated clients - are forced to use stock photography at times (something I fight as much as I can.) We simply can decide not to use istock anymore if we want. This would kill their business. This is what boycotts are for.

However, I do note the hypocrisy versus stock photography and photographers.

On Sep.27.2009 at 02:13 AM

Vavoom’s comment is:

What’s more ridiculous than that and any other site that sells stock logos is:
logomaker.com

Design any logo in minutes! - Whatever!

On Sep.27.2009 at 10:00 AM

Ollus’s comment is:

I see where everybody is coming from with wanting to value their design craft at a high level - but as Jesus said, “You will always have the poor with you” - and those poor people want to be serviced. By denying access you create a caste system where people without capital remain so. Basically low price provides accessibility to an entry level of entrepreneurship for many companies that are just getting started, have little capital and yes little design skill. I specialize in the look for less for entrepreneurs in this category and frankly I’m interested in what these low priced logos have to offer.

On Sep.27.2009 at 10:26 AM

QuickenWebsites’s comment is:

There always will be cheap logos and there are always will be people ready to pay bi $$$ for custom trademark. Nothing is going to change in this area. It’s not bad it’s not good it’s just the way technology bring customer and designer together.

On Sep.27.2009 at 01:42 PM

Mike Williams’s comment is:

As enough people have mentioned, there is a market for logos with this price and distribution model. We’ve seen clip art and cheap logo companies before; without strategy and implementation the identities wont go far, which is okay - it meets the needs this price point/model was meant for.

But with someone as big as istock/Getty behind this, it will contribute to the lowering of the perceived value of identity work. The very top and bottom of the market will likely stay the same, but the middle will increasingly be effected just as it has with low priced photography, and I assume these clients will more often start to view identities as something to license rather than something to commission.

What to do about it? Unfortunately, adapt. istock or someone else, I doubt the business model is going away any time soon. And our industry orgs need to do a much better job of communicating externally about our value and business.

On Sep.27.2009 at 09:21 PM

Alan Horn THomas’s comment is:

its the same issue as 99designs, except more generic/more useless.

Sure if people want to buy pre made logos go for it, they wont ever develop brand models because brand is more than just a silly logo on your business cards - its a quick money making excercise which will attract the same low talented people that cant actually design.

Wot ev man,

On Sep.28.2009 at 12:01 AM

Warren’s comment is:

A logo is not a brand a brand is not just a logo.

This is happening, so revolting against it is not necissarily the way to discourage it. Instead I’ll just be producing good work tailored to my clients needs, hopefully increasing their succes. Not generic symbols that take into account nothing of the nuances of a company.

On Sep.28.2009 at 05:40 AM

Rebecca Larsen’s comment is:

I am not sure how they can do this legally…

How can they be sure the Designer has purchased the fonts they will use in their logo designs? Who in their right mind would spend money to buy the fonts, do all the hours of work and then get paid a token amount?

And when designing a logo - you are usually given a company name to work with… so if everyone is submitting their ‘second’s’ how can they sell “XYZ Company” Logo if this is a registered company name already in use? Or, is this all about designing icons?

Also - how on earth will istock ensure to their ‘clients’ (who are mainly designers in the first instance) that the logo design they are purchasing is not copied. It costs money to have it trademarked and looked at by a lawyer!!!! Talk about a can of worms!

Way to go istock for really insulting your main clientele! I am sure most of us are now aware of your competition: dreamstime.com and veer market place!

I am sure a few Lawyers will raise eye-brows at this!

On Sep.28.2009 at 12:52 PM

luc doucedame’s comment is:

This is so strange because I was just advised by an uninformed outsider to outsource preliminary logo explorations to sites like design outpost etc. Most of these designers are scrapping by in countries like Romania where the cost of living is much less. This is not going to erase the cast system in this business; its only create a bigger gap between the high and low end. As for those that are thinking about offloading your “scrap logos”.. If your identity designs are so ubiquitous and that one could simply change the name and tag line to match a completely different company ( with a different value prop etc. )then maybe this site IS for you.

As others have mentioned before these people will ultimately get what they pay for. A cheap, uninformed, whipped up logo that they will invariably change every year and not build equity in. But the real unforeseen cost will be when this system blows up in a mess of trademark / copyright lawsuits - which mark my words - will happen.

This just means we have to perform at a higher level. We have to provide a product that can not be outsourced. A story that can be seamlessly applied across every touch point. A brand that is informed by careful research, insight, and expertise. This is so much more powerful than “just a logo” and is not something that can be whipped up in a couple of hours.

My favorite quote on the subject..

Spec = asking the world to have sex with you and promising a dinner date to one lucky winner….

On Sep.28.2009 at 01:17 PM

tweetchirp’s comment is:

Why does everyone think the logos are selling for $5?

On Sep.28.2009 at 04:59 PM

lake geneva car accident lawyer’s comment is:

There is an up and a downside to this. Obviously getting any work out to potential clients is great, however losing a lot of the rights in obviously not all that great. Guess it depends on where you stand right now.

On Sep.29.2009 at 02:22 PM

kevin Lindsay ’s comment is:

We are doing it now and you earn a lot more than $5.00 if taken for a spin.

On Sep.30.2009 at 08:34 AM

Kim Tackett’s comment is:

There is nothing…not a thing…good about this. The clients are robbed of creative, collaborative thinking and tricked into believing a logo is a brand. And the design profession is degraded, not to mention the designer with his or her $5 fee. Oh, if we only knew when we were having those accreditation conversations twenty years ago. Our barrier to entry is so low, that all can join. I love democracy, and don’t mean to sound snobby…but design, real design includes education, experience, and mad, mad skill.

Sigh.

On Sep.30.2009 at 01:54 PM

Jordan Foutz’s comment is:

True true. My lead designer who is a graphics genius was one of the top earners for logoworks designers back in 2006-2007. He was in it similar boat to that of Ben Barry (now at Facebook) and was just building a portfolio and making decent money w/ his Logoworks wins. Logoworks isn’t a great model for graphic design as a whole, but great talent can be bred there.

On Sep.30.2009 at 08:11 PM

Miguel Buckenmeyer’s comment is:

Armin, I couldn’t agree more. The only nuance I would add is that coming up with one strong logomark is a process that when measured in hours is the equivalent of a photographer coming up with, in a digital universe, hundreds if not thousands of photographs. Maybe the amount of money that can be made by a stock logo designer and a stock photographer at the end of the day is the same but photography by its nature lends itself to stock and inventory where as “design” since it is more about the process itself, does not.

Anyway, I agree, we all have to adapt to the new realities out there such as crowdsourcing, contests, etc.

In case you haven’t seen it, here is a similar issue raising the hackles of the ad industry:

http://adage.com/digitalnext/article?article_id=139306

On Oct.01.2009 at 06:10 AM

Emily Tu’s comment is:

I definitely agree with Armin… It’s shitty, but not entirely unexpected. The lure (whatever that might possibly be) of selling stock perpetuates one vicious bloody circle. But it’s there, it exists, and you can only adapt. If you’re lucky, and very talented, it probably won’t affect you anyway.

The kinds of people who would consider ordering a logo from a cheap stock site, like iStock, would never see the benefits of having a trained and skilled designer develop something more thoughtful for them. They’re the dreaded, impatient dicks-for-clients that think you just need the software and some fonts – so fuck them. So long as there are intelligent, rational people who value creative and collaborative thinking, and so long as they have reasonably sized pocketbooks (well, ideally anyway), there will always be a market for good, thought-provoking design.

On Oct.01.2009 at 12:55 PM

Mark’s comment is:

Look at it this way, any time a “friend” or some other potential client wants you to create an identity for Bangladeshi wages you’ll have a place to send them after you tell them to toss off.

On Oct.02.2009 at 05:10 AM

Ben Barry’s comment is:

Howdy,

As Felix pointed out I used to design logos for Logoworks when I was a student/intern.

One day during my summer internship at The Decoder Ring my boss Christian Helms found out that I was participating in this devaluation of our industry. I quickly pointed out that he wasn’t paying me anything at all as an intern and that I couldn’t pay rent with concert posters.

Logoworks certainly paid a lot more than $5, but I was still very aware that it was “wrong”. It did help get me though school though, and it did let me exercise my logo designing skills.

Ironically they finally fired me due to “lack of quality”, or in my opinion “lack of gradients”.

I agree with Armin that these services are not a threat to talented people in our industry, but they do make us have to work a little bit harder.

-Ben

On Oct.05.2009 at 10:21 AM

dsi r4’s comment is:

Well nothing really new in the logo. Its not that attractive nor there is any thing new with the design.

On Dec.18.2009 at 04:25 AM

Austin bankruptcy lawyer’s comment is:

I’m sure the quality of a $5 logo isn’t going to be as nice as an actual logo that was designed and fit for my business. However in order to get designers names out there and a start up business that has no budget for one it seems like a alright situation as long as it doesn’t end with a movement to lesser works for everyone. Which i doubt it ever will.

On Dec.18.2009 at 11:19 AM

personal budgets’s comment is:

Business Management Programme - The Co-operative Group As the world’s largest consumer co-operative, we have nine different businesses, 87500 people, 4500 outlets and a turnover of £9 billion a year. We’re a food retailer, a travel provider, a funeral director, a pharmacist, a legal services provider, ….

On Jun.28.2010 at 12:24 PM

diätpillen’s comment is:

Superb site, I must read this really slow. People should never forget the importance of a healthy life. And from time to time a eating plan cannot do such harm, just try it.

On Jun.28.2010 at 02:04 PM