How the Sydney Design festival poster competition went horribly wrong
In this piece which first appeared on The Conversation, UTS design academic Kate Sweetapple highlights the risks of running crowd-sourced design competitions.
Each year, Sydney’s Powerhouse Museum commissions one of Australia’s best design studios to create a poster and accompanying marketing material for the Sydney Design festival.
This year they went for a different approach. They put an online call out for entries to design a poster for the 2013 event, offering A$1000 for the winning entry.
Only a few days in, the competition was pulled, citing a disproportionately high number of “non-compliant, offensive and potentially damaging responses”.
Some of the more facetious entries have been archived here.
So what went wrong? Why did the creative community turn on the Powerhouse Museum for running, what was ostensibly, a poster competition with a cash prize and the opportunity to have your work plastered across Sydney?
One of the Museum’s first mistakes was allowing the entries to be anonymous, unmoderated and publicly viewable — creating a feedback loop and inspiring others to submit their own silly entries.
Then there was the money. The offer of $1000 to “create a concept that will be the masthead for our marketing campaigns for years to come” was seen as insulting to designers. This sort of job would normally attract a fee in the tens of thousands of dollars.
The Museum is careful to call it a “cash award” rather than a “fee”, but whichever way you look at it, $1000 to conceptualise the visual campaign for a significant design event, run by a major cultural institution, dramatically undervalues design.
Although the Museum says they “would have engaged the winning designer for further work and remuneration required to roll out the winning design,” this was not stated in the initial call out.
The problem of crowdsourcing
Increasing the prize money, though, would not have rid the process of all its flaws. What the Museum pitched as a competition looked to others like a request to design “on spec”.
Working “on spec” means without guarantee of payment, a practice widely condemned by the creative community along with “free pitching”, a term used to describe the supply of design services without payment.
It’s a practice that contravenes the Australian Graphic Design Association’s code of ethics.
The Museum attracted further ire by running the competition through crowdsourcing website, Creative Allies.
Sites like these allow clients to post a creative brief with an attached fee, which is then completed by designers who compete to “win” the job. The winner – the designer whose work best fits the clients’ needs – is paid the advertised fee. The unsuccessful designers are paid nothing.
The design community is split on the issues surrounding creative practice and crowdsourcing. Some designers argue that crowdsourcing provides a useful service when clients do not have the budget, nor see the value in paying more.
Many designers are more than happy for someone else to design a visual identity and website for $400. Others say that if you ask people to do work, you should pay for it.
But ask any design professional whether crowdsourcing is likely to produce quality visual communication strategies and you’re likely to get a resounding “no”. This is not designers being protectionist, but rather reflective of the importance of building a strong relationship between a client and a designer.
Commercial context
Running a competition is a strategy that the Powerhouse Museum has successfully used in the past to engage the wider creative community and as “a way of sourcing and generating new, innovative and exciting content”. The Museum points to two such examples: their international lace award, Love Lace and photographic competition, Trainspotting.
On the surface, the processes look the same: a callout for entries, cash prizes and an association with a prominent cultural institution.
The fundamental difference, however, is that by running the competition, the Museum pulled a substantial job – worth tens of thousands of dollars – out of the professional marketplace. The submissions to Love Lace and Trainspotting did not have a commercial context one year, and none the next.
I thought we were friends
At the heart of this issue is the design community’s feeling of being slighted by one of its own.
The Powerhouse Museum is NSW’s only publicly-funded institution with a mandate to challenge, yes, but also champion, nurture, and celebrate the design community’s achievements and potential.
The Museum’s actions create the perception that they do not understand, respect or value the design community, which does not tally with their past record.
The Powerhouse Museum pulled the competition and now says it will “revert to the standard government process for graphic design commissioning.”
Never has a bureaucratic process sounded so reasonable.
Kate Sweetapple is a visual communications and design academic at University of Technology, Sydney.
This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.
Now all the entrants that did submit have done so for nothing, 100% chance of time down the drain. Ouch.
User ID not verified.
I think the real problem with this ‘competition’ was the piddling amount of prize money – which is in keeping with the ‘spirit’ of horrendously underpaid crowd sourced design. It reminds me of the Kraft endeavor to have the public propose a new name for their cheese/Vegemite concoction a few years back. History was on their side as the ‘Vegemite’ name was the result of a public competition back in the day. I was going to enter but couldn’t find details of what the prize was. I contacted Kraft and was told the prize was two tickets to the AFL grand final and the warm glow of being part of the Kraft family. WTF does being part of the Kraft family mean? I asked this probing question and never received an answer. For potentially developing a piece of key intellectual property for their global juggernaut the prize sounded like the biggest rip-off of all time. It seemed all the more exploitative given that Doritos had their make a TV ad competition where the winner stood to make $50K. Part of the Kraft family! Lousy cheapskates!
User ID not verified.
Punishment: $1000 for each and every person who submitted a design through genuine passion for the competition/opportunity, a $10000 pitch fee to a minimum 4 agencies, and then last year’s budget plus 10% for this years’ work to the winning agency.
User ID not verified.
Great article. Well written and extremely illuminating.
User ID not verified.
It’s like they read Missing Missy and then went out to recreate art in life. Impressive unintentional meta-troll.
User ID not verified.
They got what they paid for! $1,000 is a joke, and indeed incredibly insulting. What a slap in the face to the design community!
User ID not verified.
‘piddling amount of prize money’ ?!…
It’s prize money. You don’t have to enter.
Designers are underpaid even though creative agencies charge REDICULOUS amounts. Hate on agencies if anything.
User ID not verified.
Wonder how much the PHM marketing genius that came up with this cheap skate campaign get’s paid annually…
User ID not verified.
Another marketer thinking they are clever by running a ill conceived idea whilst thinking they were cleverly getting 30k in creative for a $1,000 . Insulting on many levels…
User ID not verified.
Pay peanuts get monkeys…
User ID not verified.
whats wrong with memes? PHM cant take a joke, im sure there were legitimate entries they could have awarded instead of pulling it completely.
User ID not verified.
I’m glad I didn’t waste my time entering this competition..
User ID not verified.
A piece by the Design Institute of Australia:
http://www.dia.org.au/index.cf.....038;id=102
User ID not verified.
A well written and well argued analysis.
User ID not verified.
Perhaps the ‘Client’ is devilishly brilliant.
All this free PR.
And to stop the competition before a prize is paid.
Strategy 1
Design 0
User ID not verified.
In Shakespeare’s Richard III, Gloucester says…
….I cannot tell: the world is grown so bad,
That wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch:
Since every Jack became a gentleman
There’s many a gentle person made a Jack.
I fear that many have turned their backs upon the arts, and it may well be down to the fact that universities, having gone commercial, have taken to handing out simplified degrees in everything imaginable.
We now have more “qualified” artists walking about the streets of Los Angeles than ever existed in the Europe of Rembrandt’s time, or even Modigliani’s.
It seems that anyone who has made a bunch of friends laugh at a piss up, is suddenly a stand up comic, and anyone who can remember lines and reiterate them in the right order is an actor.
I guess it must follow that if you are half decent with a crayon or a felt tip, you must be qualified to join the ranks of Toulouse Lautrec
User ID not verified.
Crowd sourcing design work misses the value-add that comes with commercial creative. This story exposes the ignorance of those who wrote the brief, reducing a poster for a commercial purpose to something akin a kids colouring competition. Business people who have little understanding of the intricacies of marketing often assume the design process is simply a matter of creating something that “looks good”.
Commercial creative design isn’t about picking something to go on your living room wall to match your sofa. It’s a disciplined expression of a consumer proposition. Hopefully the people at the Powerhouse Museum will in future understand pretty pictures is what you spend your own money on, a design brief is an investment the client makes to achieve a commercial return.
User ID not verified.
How to get creative work for $0 – run a competition and have $1000 as the reward.
Who are they kidding?
User ID not verified.
hehe admit it guys, at least two of those were serious entries from agencies 🙂
User ID not verified.
I like the part where the Powerhouse Museum point out the Beirut Design Festival Poster Competition. What they fail to mention in their response is that the Beirut Design Festival’s branding and marketing campaign were all produced and finales by an agency well before the competition was announced.
Running a competition along side a festival is one thing. Running a poster competition to base your entire festival strategy around, is something different entirely.
User ID not verified.
It should be proportionate. There’s no reason why one creative could not join a group of creatives to collaborate at a discounted rate where all the creatives share the burden and the credit.
The problem here is this is a significant org with well-paid administrators asking the creatives to do it on the cheap. That doesn’t wash with me.
The outcome became a comment on the org’s choice.
User ID not verified.
Crowd sourcing – “say it softy and it’s almost like praying”.
User ID not verified.
I am honestly surprised to discover that this crowd-sourcing idea was a genuine attempt to get quality work. I was convinced it was Phase One in a campaign where Phase Two would have been to come out and discuss the value of what actually goes into great design.
That, IMHO, would have been a killer campaign. This, on the other hand, is so poorly thought-through as to be hard to believe. Particularly from the phm who you would assume would know an awful lot better.
User ID not verified.
I am staggered that this ever seemed like a good idea.
It’s the kinda thing you’d see on The Hollowmen.
User ID not verified.
Good write up. I have to agree it was poorly planned with entries going live anonymously. Combining that with not realizing or caring about the real insult to designers, it was a recipe for embarassment.
Btw, typo near the end. Possessive not plural, community’s.
User ID not verified.
Powerhaus Mewseum.
Weeping with laughter… genuinely…
User ID not verified.
This is hardly the first time crowdsourcing creative has backfired. Anyone remember Chevrolet allowing people to create their own online ads for the Tahoe in 2006?
Some of the more memorable ones can be found here: http://news.cnet.com/1606-2_3-6056633.html
User ID not verified.
Film Festivals such as TropFest are no better.
700 film makers pay an entry fee of $40 for the privilege of making a commissioned work for Tropfest, with film makers consuming thousands of dollars in value of labour and equipment use just for an empty promise.
On top of that they sign away up all their rights to the organisers. How crazy is that? There is no assurance that the film has even been viewed and if so by who and on what criteria
The prize is a crappy donated camera or a ticket to the US and a promise possibility of being on a SMH DVD.
700 suckers
User ID not verified.
TROPFEST
Ditto Syd.
This approach could be described as part of the, ‘feudalism of the film industry’.
It’s not new. Distributors and Agents have been acting this way for a long time.
Creatives are reduced to being treated as serfs who should be happy to work as slaves.
I feel a revolution coming on. Who’s first up against the wall?
User ID not verified.
David:
Contenders for the wall
*Withoutabox
*Any trade festival that has a pitching comp, where naive entrants give their idea to a room of idea hungry producers who have no obligation to any NDA (non-disclosure agreement). With a tacit implication that winning this will lead to fame and glory.
Personal one this:
*Commissioning editors who take one’s draft and adapt it into their pet project.
User ID not verified.
Yeah, Tropfest has always struck me as ‘hey, spend your time and money and we will decide whether to grace it with an audience’. It devalues filmmaking. People expect something great for nothing, and consequently nothing is what the filmmaking industry gets from people when we’re trying to make an actual feature film. Unless you’re Baz Luhrmann of course. Then the country will give you $80M and probably not ask for it back afterwards.
User ID not verified.
Where can i submit my poster idearz? I has sum gR8 ideas 4 sidny dezign poster. I wanna run wid the big boyz! Me is best dezigner , LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL !LOL !
i can haz dezign cheeseburgerz!!!!!! GEt iT?
User ID not verified.
But think of all that exposure you’ll get from entering the competition, and the possibility of future work, and if you are really focused and engaged we might even ask you to come in for a future presentation to our team…..Yip Yip
Did I mention that we are adding to our list of contributors ALL the time?
User ID not verified.
From the Sydney Design Poster site:
“… the Museum would have engaged the winning designer for further work and remuneration required to roll out the winning design into a more comprehensive marketing campaign.”
This sounds very much like the all too common cheapskate client who says, “You’ll get great exposure and there will be heaps of work for you in the future if you do this one job for us at this (low) price”
User ID not verified.
Really? The ‘Powerhouse Museum’ is not versed in the value of design? They are not familiar with the process involved for such a project?
I call out manipulation, or better still another classic case of carrot dangling, an all too familiar response experienced by creatives.
People if you want our ideas – in which you do – pay for them!
User ID not verified.
I think they should use the Powerhaus Mewseum poster in an ironic way. Love it
User ID not verified.