Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Amanda Shutz is kind of stupid. There is nothing unethical about holding a contest where only the winning design gets something. Her reasons for choosing not participate in said contest are valid, but Christ, don't whine because you aren't going to get paid to not do something you weren't going to do anyway.
As for the Montana mountains, unsurprising given that plate is just random clip art.
|
Honestly the story from CBC framed the argument really poorly. Especially with it's use of term graphic "artist" and the Wild Rose muddying the waters of the debate with their silly contest.
In a broader sense the design industry struggles with the common misconception that what we do is "creative art" and that the most "creative" piece is always the best for the client/project. When really, we're providing a service to a client and doing a job.
When a client/business comes to us and says "I need an [X] to promote my [Y]" it's really no different than when I take my car to the shop and say "I need an [oil change] for my [car]".
The "design contest" as it were amounts to
spec work, which is basically asking agencies/designers to work for free while awarding business the only one party, leaving the other parties unpaid for their work.
And it is work, this is a job, designers have families to feed, mortgages to pay, and clients to answer to. Just like any other business with have a process we follow and need to turn a profit at the end of the day.
While this video is meant as satire, it does a decent job of hitting the nail on the head. We don't try to haggle free work out of other service vendors, so why is design any different?