StudioCinna - Professional Details

Our Policy

The StudioCinna policy is that we do not enter into non-compensated competitions, unpaid design presentations and speculative work. We support the viewpoint that it compromises standards and is not in the best interest of the profession, designers and clients.

We have included the following AIGA article (Design Competitions and Spec Work) for your reference.

What About Design Competitions and Spec Work?

There are differing views on these two closely related subjects. Some designers are absolutely opposed to design competitions and speculative work. Period. Others are open to them, provided they are compensated fairly for their work (i.e., according to the market value of the work).

The design competitions being discussed here are those that require design firms to do original work for a company in an effort to get that company's business — not the kind held by nonprofit professional organizations, such as AIGA, for the purpose of recognizing design excellence.

Consider this real-world scenario:

A multibillion-dollar, publicly held global corporation with huge brand awareness surveys the work of several dozen graphic design firms for the purpose of selecting one to design its annual report. After narrowing the field to a half-dozen candidates, the company offers each design firm $25,000 to provide it with a mock design of the report, issuing well-defined design parameters. Assuming the compensation reflects the effort required (it did), this isn't an unreasonable way to approach the selection process. And many designers would opt to participate. Yes, speculation is involved, but so is reciprocal value — up front. Real though it is, however, this scenario isn't the norm. There aren't that many multibillion-dollar companies, for one thing. For another, few companies cast such a wide net in search of design. The more common speculative scenario includes non-compensated competitions and work that's commissioned but paid for only upon approval. In either case, the situation is the same: little or no value is placed upon the designer as a professional, as someone whose purpose is to give trusted advice on matters significant to the company.

Egalitarian or Just Too Eager?

A typical design competition can be drawn from experience with the International Olympic Committee, the U.S. government or even business enterprise, and it usually goes something like this: A competition is announced for a new logo and identity. No creative brief outlines the communication challenges or objectives from the perspective of the client. A jury will select the winner and a prize may be given (recent examples include a color TV and stipends of $15 and $2,000). Often the client indicates one of the "rewards" will be the use of the design by the client — i.e. exposure. The rules of competition include granting the client ownership of the selected entries. (In one recent competition, the client asked for ownership even of designs that were not selected.) Once a design is chosen, development of it may or may not involve the designer.

A competition like this prevents the client from having the benefit of professional consultation in framing and solving a communication problem. The client receives artwork at a cost below market value, owns the intellectual or creative property and can exploit the work without involvement from its creator.

Who loses?

The designer, the client and the profession.

The designer gives up creative property without a fair level of control or compensation. The client fails to get the full benefit of the designer's talent and guidance. The profession is misrepresented, indeed compromised, by speculative commercial art.

Unpaid design presentations are fraught with economic risk — risk that is absorbed entirely by the designer. Why, then, do some design firms agree to participate?

Sometimes a new firm or a firm without strong design abilities will offer the excuse that this is the only way for it to get work or exposure. A slump in business might make a designer more willing to gamble. Whatever the reason given, this short-term approach to hiring a design firm is not in the best interests of either party.

But the issues go beyond economics. The financial burden borne by the design team translates into risk for the client. To protect their "investment" in a design competition, competing firms often play it safe, providing solutions that don't offer fresh, new ideas — in which case, the client gets what it paid for. You wouldn't ask a law firm or management consultant to provide you with recommendations prior to hiring them. A design firm, no less than a law firm or management consultant, has to know its client thoroughly if it's to give valid advice. This takes time and commitment from both sides. Design competitions — even paid ones — just don't allow for this level of participation.

Comparisons sometimes are made with design competitions held for the purpose of selecting architects or advertising agencies. Where these analogies fall short is in the initial effort required versus future potential. Architects and advertising agencies typically present design alternatives in order to win assignments that represent substantial future billings and ongoing consulting services to the client. The "product" comes at the end of a long engagement (in the case of architecture) or is the cumulative effect of a long engagement (as in advertising campaigns). Either way, initial design represents only a small part of the project's total value to both client and architect or agency. Not so with graphic design. The design approach represents the real value offered by the design firm, and the bulk of the work may well be completed at the front end of a project.

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Home

Trademark & Copyright Notice: © 1995-2007 StudioCinna/Cinna Ltd. All rights reserved. StudioCinna is the trading name of Cinna Ltd.
Use of this Web site assumes acceptance of the Terms and Conditions, Disclaimer and Privacy Policy. Copyright Article © AIGA The AIGA establishes professional standards, which designers, their clients and their professional advisors can rely on for the most up-to-date information on the standards governing the ever-evolving business of graphic design.