Since the London 2012 Logo was unveiled, there has been a tremendous amount of criticism/remark pertaining to the 2012 composition...Google it if you've been living in a cave.
I personally like all the Logos for any number of reasons, but from the Designer standpoint, I'll admit: I'd often re-designed at least a few of the Logos above just for kicks.
In a couple cases, I was surprised with the favorable responses of my "pseudo Olympic campaigns" from colleagues who are actively employed with competing Design Agencies. As there is always a critic, I concede that at the end of the day, the "re-designs" are simply for my personal benefit (in exploring the boundaries of Composition, Color, and Shapes).
I have often mused; what if London Olympic Organizing Committee instead of accepting this particularly unique (and comprehensive) campaign, originally outsourced the job on Design Crowd for thousands of GBP cheaper-Say-160GBP for "a basic Logo Design" with no further disclosure than the City name and Year?
When does $200 (or any arbitrary Potential Award) amount, actually suit the Project? Those of us who have some Professional experience with Branding might have turned down a Project, simply because of 'flags' that we notice in a particular Project Brief. Does the Logo Design Award also reflect a Favicon-application? Does the Website Project Award warrant additional, multiple Pages, Links, Upkeep or Coding? When does the necessity to build a Portfolio over-ride the work involved?
I am among the many participating Designers, who is not particularly adverse toward the lower-Award amounts 100% of the time, especially when there is the rare instance basic philanthropy provides that rules the day. Often, there is some extra time available (or made) for a Project that simply seems that much more intriguing. It seems to happen often with the crowd-sourcing, yea?
But more often than not, I admit I tend to also note when a Brief just doesn't match the Award for any number of reasons (given the actual work solicited and/or eventually required).
So, getting back to the subject of Olympic Logos/Campaigns (which draw bids in the hundreds of thousands), and where the "Scope-Of-Use (scope = Print Ad, Multi-media, Textile, etc.)" very much warrants a significant Award amount for 'Work Effected,' I'd like to revisit my original question with a bit of a twist:
What if an Ad Agency for a future Olympiad were to bid on the Branding project, win the bid, and then post the job on the Design Crowd (or any such site) for tens of thousands of dollars less than the original contracted (and Legally Binding) bid?
Where does Intention play a punitive role, in case an Agency X is presenting (or at least implying) the original Work as its own by accepting the contract/fees? Does the fact that a Designer has no knowledge of the intended application ever over-ride an Award that is ridiculously meager than 'going-rate?'
In an all-volunteer Army of crowd-source Designers, someone (usually) will get the Award..why not you?
Perhaps another question: how are Designers (who of course, enjoy participating on the site) protected from non-Owners who might (in turn) post Projects on behalf of the Legal Owners/Entities?
I don't assume there is a forum for the asking, so perhaps we might begin an open dialogue with a ideal-world suggestion: it would be great if only company Owners of the qualifying Entity could post jobs on Design Crowd.
I have been privy to at least one instance where hired Artists/Agencies posting work that they have already commissioned (from the legal Owners of companies/Entities) on this site for substantially less than they have been paid for said contract.
I also realize that due to the vast number of Projects at any given time, the 'Client Honor System' seems the best barometer for Owner Privacy as well as expediency in Project Turnover. However, in the cases when the Award clearly does not match the "Scope-Of-Use," or the regular (Public Domain) Marketing Budget, that in turn begs the question of a somewhat higher Award, is there a middle ground without necessarily disclosing private information about the company X to Designers, other than the 'Lowest Possible Bid' than the current site architecture provides?
I wonder if there is a potential Design Crowd employment opportunity for any number of individual(s) who might occasionally accept the random legwork to do some bit of research in order to determine whether the Project Owners are actually the Legal Owners of the Entities that are seeking the work. If so, call me yesterday-I'll do it.
I just feel there should be a bit more protection for the talented and capable Designers who enjoy working hard for the site, given the "Scope-of-use" in such cases where the Project is being "re-commissioned" by either Artist or Agency for substantially less than said Artist/Agency is being compensated in order to effect the commissioned work.
Non Guaranteed Projects, and High Award Jobs with Winning Logos that lie contrary to the Original Project Briefs (regardless of the Winner)-also seem to raise the highest amount of concern for New Designers to the crowd-sourcing, but that might serve an entirely different discussion...
26 Jul 2012