Just an idea, what if the new member registration system are based on voting by existing members. They have to post an external link of their logo portfolio and LT members will vote yes or no just like LC. If the results are mostly yes, they are allowed to join.
This sounds idealistic at best. Reversal of payment is too much of a stretch. I think the direction that Tyler had taken is the right choice, by closing the doors for furher designers until he finds a way to weed out the good from the bad ones. More entries per contest, doesnt mean quality entries, it is more the opposite.
best regards, mint
luminate said:
Lindsey said:
On the other hand, if you want to start a contest at LT, I say go for it. There are some amazingly talented designers here, and I'm sure you'll have a great experience even if your friends aren't able to participate.
I understand. Will start my contest soon.
The way I saw it was more designers - be it friends or not - the more competitive the contest and hence the higher the potential logo quality. I wouldn't let friends tell me which designer they were so my judgement wouldn't be skewed. I'm sure you can understand why a CH would want his contest to be as competitive as possible.
The incidents you raised will continue to happen even if there is a tighter approvals process. LT could amend it's T&C so it can reverse winning payments when it's found the winner is the CH or the CH uses another ranked design. It might even be able to place a provision in its T&C where it can penalise CHs for significantly exploiting the designs on the site.
Another idea to help with the problems you raised is that for a fee CHs could set minimum designer experience for them to be able to compete in a contest. Eg they must have been a member of the site for x length of time or competed in x number of contests. This will benefit CHs who want quality over quantity and benefit designers who want to compete in higher quality contests rather than free for alls.
I wish the total number of designers was about half as many as there are right now. Honestly, the inexperienced designers are so green they waste everyone's time.
Quality is far more important than quantity. I'd rather have 10 great designs than 100 awful ones.
The problem with a fee-to-enter system is that only one person will win. It has the ability to drive away the high level and mid level graphic designers along with the low level ones.
I suggest having tiered competitions:
TIER ONE: Designers Allowed To Submit - All Registered Designers. Price Range For Competition - $100.00 to $299.99
TIER TWO: Designers Allowed To Submit - Top 1,000 Price Range For Competition - $300.00 to $599.99
TIER THREE: Designers Allowed To Submit - Top 500 Price Range For Competition - $600.00 and up
Also, competition holders could pay for a Mentor to help critique designs in Tier One competitions. Let's face it, most competition holders are not qualified to critique the work being submitted to them. When I was a graphic designer I constantly had to bite my tongue when a client would ask for something that would undermine their goals. Imagine paying a Tier Two Designer $50.00 and a Tier Three Designer $100.00 to give up to three critiques 24 hours before a contest ends so the CH can get some valid feedback from someone who understands color theory, composition, typography, lighting, line weight and style.
I don't think the junior artists intend to do bad work. But, clearly, they believe that slapping a free font into photoshop and applying random gradients with a drop shadow IS graphic design...and that's sad. They're devaluing an amazing craft...perhaps not on purpose, but they do it all the same.
A lot of artists complain that low hourly rates is why clients devalue this craft. I've been in the business since I was 14...and I completely disagree. The problem is that I could get paid to do graphic design at 14! That's what devalued the craft! I was better than most 14 year olds, but I look at my old portfolio and cringe at how childish, melodramatic and crude my work was.
Clients learn this the hard way. They go to a graphic design firm and find out that a good logo will cost about $500.00 minimum. They leave feeling like they escaped a mugging. They complain to Uncle Joe, who says "You know, my 15 year old son is taking art classes in high school. He could design your logo just as good as that rip-off designer you met." So, the client hires his nephew...
...for one hundred dollars.
The nephew is jumping up and down! He just got 100 bucks to DOODLE! So, he downloads a few free fonts. He doesn't know enough about kerning, x-height, ascenders, descenders or line weight to judge a font properly. He just picks some random free fonts because they look cool and remind him of movie logos. He loads up his pirated copy of photoshop. Slaps on a few random filters. He never bothers to set up the project file for 300 DPI. He rasterizes the type. He flattens it as a jpg...
...and, that's what he sends to the client.
The client knows the logo isn't the most amazing in the world, but he doesn't have a clue what trouble he is in when he wants to scale the logo or alter the color so it fits better with a brochure. He doesn't understand why the logo "gets fuzzy" when he makes it bigger. He doesn't understand why the colors are so hard to reproduce (Who needs pantone, right? Color is color!)
For about a full year the client struggles with this logo. He looks at other brochures and their logo is sharp at any scale. He starts to notice the awkward spacing between the letters. He starts to notice that the "effects" applied to the "words" don't scale right and don't print well.
Ever so slowly, he compares his $100.00 logo to his competitors. To other business owners. To business cards at trade shows. Brochures that come in the mail. Magazines. TV. Movies.
Finally, he's golfing with a friend. The friend, who is also a business owner, hands him a brand new business card with a refresh of his company logo. And, the client quietly says "Wow, man, this looks great. Why's your stuff look so great and mine doesn't?"
The golf buddy says "I don't know. Which design firm did you hire?"
"Oh, I thought they were too expensive. I went with my nephew."
And, by the time that conversation ends the client realizes how he's been his own worst enemy. That he got what he paid for. That a logo should last 5-10 years and therefore $500.00 for a logo is a DEAL.
This is the problem with these competitions. The competition pits professionals against the 15 year old nephews of the world. Create a tiered pricing system and I believe you'll see educated clients pay more for logos. You'll also see quality go up because the top designers will only be competing with the top designers. They'll have to push themselves harder if their competition is tougher.
I'd never pay less than $350.00 for a logo. I always gadge how much work a logo is and I pay accordingly. I'm holding a $1,000.00 competition right now...not because I like to overpay for art. Because the design I want is damn hard and $1,000.00 reflects that I'll pay for quality. Not every CH gets that. So, create a system that drives them to the right answer without them having to fully understand why.
By the way, I don't want to sound like I'm not a fan of the site.
I love this site. This is the first time I've ever been able to hire a graphic designer online and get what I want. I held a contest a few months ago as a test. It was for a refresh of the classic film festival laurels. I risked $350.00 of my own money (my investors thought I was nuts and wouldn't authorize it in the budget). I thought "Well, the worst that happens is I get a crappy design, lose $350.00 and learn that yet again online graphic design gimmicks don't work...and I have to do it myself".
Most of the initial designs were awful. Just awful.
But, about three designers did an oustanding job. One of the designers got the design to an 8.5 out of 10 (and I'm crazy picky, so someone else probably would rate it at a 9 or 9.5). I was very pleased. The laurels were a dramatic improvement over what film festivals give you (which is the awful tiff file floating around the internet for free).
And, when I did the math, it was a deal. I discounted all the green designers. They were simply noise. I thought about the three quality designers. Normally, I'd have to hire all three of them to get their work. I'd have to pay $350.00 three times. Maybe, because it was a relatively easy design, I could talk them down to $300.00. But, then again...that's so little money they might have better ways to spend their time.
So, if I'd gone the traditional path I'd have to spend about $1,200.00 to get three designs and then pick the best one.
To be able to get a design that is an 8.5 out of 10 for $350.00...I think that's a deal! A tremendous deal!
So, when I raised the money to start a film studio I came back and decided to risk $1,000.00 on our company logo. The first 20 designs scared the crap out of me. It was as if the designers weren't even listening to what I wrote...
...but, then a few quality designs showed up. And, the designers responded to direction quickly. Within just two days I could see great logos starting to emerge.
The contest isn't over yet, but I'm fairly certain I'll have at least three stellar choices and one amazing, breathtaking studio-quality logo to choose from. I've also found graphic designers I can hire in the future...graphic designers that exceed my own illustration abililties and so I can dream up some wicked-cool stuff and have them execute it for me.
That's a deal, man! For someone who truly loves graphic design, I feel like I've stumbled across the greatest secret on the internet!
I just want the riff raff to go elsewhere so it's easier to focus on the great designers who are here. This site has tremendous potential. TREMENDOUS. I think it's like ebay...it has the potential to completely undermine a traditional, sleepy, established industry.
I'm a convert. I'm a zealot. I'll be bringing a lot of my company's work here.
I wish the total number of designers was about half as many as there are right now. Honestly, the inexperienced designers are so green they waste everyone's time.
Quality is far more important than quantity. I'd rather have 10 great designs than 100 awful ones.
I've been saying this for months on end...a lower number of Designers....LT should be about quality not quantity....look at the competition
I agree with Scott. I also think that designers who have been inactive for a certain period of time should be purged from the system. There are SO many people who just create accounts and never log in again.
I've been saying this for months on end...a lower number of Designers....LT should be about quality not quantity....look at the competition
RaspyDesign said:
I agree with Scott. I also think that designers who have been inactive for a certain period of time should be purged from the system. There are SO many people who just create accounts and never log in again.
Agree with Raspy and ECC! Quality over quantity. And eliminate the disabled designers from the rankings...but save their portfolios in a non-ranked section for copycat referencing.
Thanks for the valuable input Prodigi, somehow I woke up too late to the Magi contest I wish I could have contributed. But you have an awesome logo there and looking back at your direction, I wish more CH’s understood the value of design.
You have made my day: and I quote But, about three designers did an oustanding job. One of the designers got the design to an 8.5 out of 10 (and I'm crazy picky, so someone else probably would rate it at a 9 or 9.5). I was very pleased. The laurels were a dramatic improvement over what film festivals give you (which is the awful tiff file floating around the internet for free).
Sometime as designer you feel flat and that you know you could have done better, I know we all have days when we design scarily bad designs, but you have just confirmed that I can have “I CAN DAYS”