Fill/Stroke.com

IncSpring: One mans trash is another mans…trash.

Look at that tagline. Once you read it, you know that this site is going to be terrible.

IncSpring is a site that lets you sell unused concepts, contest entries or “new ideas” to interested parties. It is basically a garbage heap, recycling center of ideas that clients didn’t want, or the designer couldn’t pull off. It is a grab bag of unwanted, thoughtless brands.

Oh, and its ruining graphic design.

Though there may be good design on this site, is it right for the clients? Is buying something someone else didn’t want really the best route for your growing business? This site, to me, is attempting to apply the idea of eBay, where you sell old things you don’t want anymore, to the graphic design world. It does not translate, not at all.

Sites like this reduce the value of our industry as a whole. The ability to buy a logo for $29.95 (though the people on IncSpring are charging considerably more), slap it onto a piece of paper and call it a brand, and be told that you’ve purchased quality, is nothing more than laziness and is misleading. It takes advantage of those who don’t know any better, who don’t understand what can and SHOULD go into a fully developed design package, and giving them something that “looks good” even when the designer knows better.

When we did our initial interviews, we asked everyone this question:

What do you do with your non-applied ideas? Ideas that didn’t work for a project, ideas that were good but the client rejected or ideas that you have but have no time to get done. Do you write them down? Re-apply them to other projects? Try and forget about them?

Now, it may be obvious, but guess how many said “package them again and sell them on a costco style website”

The responses always talked about either leaving them to rest, because if they couldn’t sell it, it must not have been that good, or re-exploring an idea for a new client, but making sure that it works for the project. Design is not just about ideas, logos or “brands”. Its about taking an idea and making it work for the project at hand, and the client’s goals are realized through it.

Graphic design is not a means to an end, its an end with meaning

What happens with sites like these (and there are others, sadly) is that more knowledgeable designers begin to lose credibility with clients. When you can buy a logo for $30 or even $1000 and get what you “want”, it’s hard to explain to people that you have to spend more -time and money- to get what you “need.” When you are selling “solutions” that solve nothing, you are not selling design, you’re selling meaningless images.

IncSpring as far as I’m concerned is like a highschool kid with photoshop. Masquerading as a designer, but really just mimicking the adults who know what they’re doing. Monkey see, monkey do, monkey not understand what it just did.

I didn’t want to publicly denounce any specific users/sellers on this website, I thought that might be a bit much, but to demonstrate my point, here are some of the descriptions on a few logos for sale:

Description:

any-business suitable

fits good to design studio / food and gastronomy

This could be used for a number of different companies.

This logo would ideally suit the creative industry but technically should be perfect for a business that has a forward thinking mission statement.

…was originally designed for a church. it could also be used for travel, sporting goods or camping equipment…

It goes on and on.

Now I realize this may be some people’s main source of income, using ideas and giving them to people who need them. I’m not criticizing specific people here. I’m criticizing the practice, in general, of designing without intent, without a goal, without a result that solves a problem.

Posted by md in interwebs, opinion, rant on 24 July 2008.

Share/Save

I checked out the site. That’s one beautiful trash heap!

Wow. You couldn’t be further off the mark.

Nobody is trying to pass off IncSpring as a substitute for the traditional designer-client relationship.

It will never replace that relationship, but it does a solid job of occupying a middle ground between spec work and working one-on-one with a designer. It is detrimental to neither the client nor the designer.

I’d also like to address the notion that a design not being chosen means that it wasn’t good. That’s just silly–especially when spoken by a designer. Have you never felt the frustration of a client steering a project away from a groundbreaking concept towards something mundane?

Oh, and that ridiculous hyperbole equating IncSpring to a high schooler with Photoshop? Insulting and arrogant.

IncSpring is not ruining graphic design. Self-righteous bloggers, however, are another story.

Nice “blog”. I just visited the site and being an entrepreneur myself, I don’t understand your argument.

You mean, I get to look through hundreds of brands that were painstakingly (I’ve been through the traditional process a couple of times before) created by a good designer AND I get to see the logo before buying it AND I get to see what other people said about it first. That’s a horrible idea! (insert sarcastic expression here.) You seem to be stretching a bit to try and attract hard-core designers/readers… which could work.

A quick observation or two:
1. there’s no need to leave the first comment on your own story, linking to another one of your sites, telling us to come back to this story. We get it, you wrote the story.
2. if you’re going to site sources to back up your story, provide better information than “some initial interviews.” Did you leave out the rest of the “interviews”? Are you still conducting interviews?
3. since you’re trying to publish your first magazine this summer, try to not call your readers (graphic designers) “monkeys” – Quote: “Monkey see, monkey do, monkey not understand what it just did.”
4. I’m going to have to agree with the above poster that possibly you don’t have the design experience to post on behalf of the designer community since there are no samples in your own portfolio. (I liked your origami game, though. I felt like I was in school again.)

Let me congratulate you in advance, you should get some good hits from this well thought out post. Mission Accomplished.

Robert_

I believe they ARE trying to present themselves as a replacement. All the language (best designers in the world, “goodbye focus groups” etc etc) points towards not acting as a market that’s often overlooked, but acting as a replacement for traditional development of brands and logos.

Again, I’m not saying the designers themselves are the problem, though I’m sure some are. I think the concept is what concerns me the most. The fact that the idea can be reduced to a simple window shopping experience.

I also listed “not being good enough” as an example, not as the only reason for these logos not being approved. I realize that’s not always the case, and I have had similar experiences with clients going a direction I wasn’t fully wanting to follow along with.

Again, the photoshop user analogy was to express the idea that the site misses the point of branding completely, not that any particular designer is at fault. It was meant as an insult.

Christope_

Being an entrepreneur, I’d think you’d take more care in branding your endeavours. The idea that you can get a valid focus group of your brand from people visiting a branding website, seems a bit odd to me. Focus groups are always flawed, but this is like going to a dog park and asking how many people like cats more than dogs…You aren’t going to get a diverse test group.

I am trying to attract readers, only in the sense that I want to write interesting, thought provoking content. Nothing more.

Observation 1. Wordpress has an automatic trackback feature, where it automatically leaves a comment on another site when that particular site has been linked to.

Observation 2. This is in relation to the magazine. I’m guessing you are right about the background information possibly being necessary, but I’d rather have not gone on. To answer your questions though: The initial interviews were of most of the people listed in the left side bar as “Contributors/Interviewees.” They were all sent a questionnaire. After those responses, there was a few additional interviews done, without the questionnaire. I realize that I could have left out the word and not had to answer this question, but here we are.

Observation 3. I wasn’t calling my readers monkeys. I was calling Highschoolers with photoshop who pretend to be skilled graphic designers monkeys. If, however, any of the previously mentioned group has started reading this blog, I apologize for insulting you. Please go back to your filter menu, and disregard what I said.

Observation 4. I don’t believe he questioned my experience, just an event, which I addressed.

There are plenty of work examples on my website, which, I think it says, hasn’t been updated in quite a while. I thank you for taking the time to personally attack me though.

Mark,

I’ve been in contact with the owner/operator of the site for about a month now, and I can assure you that he understands the value of a good designer more than any layman you’d care to meet.

As a freelancer and student, I appreciate the exposure IncSpring offers, and the possibility that somebody might snatch up one of my off-the-wall concepts (be it recycled from an old client or the product of a random idea for no client in particular) is really just a bonus.

I see the website as a shortcut to branding for uncreative business owners. Would you rather eat at “Joe’s Seafood” or “Sunfish” (https://incspring.com/brand_details.php?brand_id=154)?

The issue of whether or not the logos on the website are custom made for their eventual owners is irrelevant. If the logo fits…

-Robert

Robert_

I think these same people would approach you on logopond/logosauce in the same way that they would on this site, but without the false front of being a branding replacement platform.

I understand you would like exposure, possible funding through something you were doing in your free time, I believe these are all valid points, and I believe when sites that treat such things the way they really are, and not “focus tested logos” it’s fine. IncSpring acts like it pre-packages branding, that’s what I have a problem with. You cannot buy a brand. You can create a logo and the materials and advertising around it, then change public opinion of your company, then, you have a brand.

If the logo fits is part of the problem. You might fit in that logo, but it makes your butt look big.

i suppose it depends on what a company needs from design. we see this kind of branding all over the place and most of it is forgotten or overlooked quickly… at least by me anyway. i think a smart company understands how important branding is and that in the long run, it will pay off to code the dna than build frankenstein. i don’t know what is worse, using stock photography or starting a company with one of these stickers…

Mark mentions, “though there may be good design on this site, is it right for the clients?” To me, this says a lot.

I’m sure there are designs on the website that have been given a decent amount of thought, but does that make them the right solution for the client? Does that make them “good design”? Not necessarily. How can a brand possibly be the right solution for a client if the designer has never been introduced to the business? And, if a brand isn’t the right solution, is it worth pursuing?

Good design doesn’t happen instantly. It’s a thought-provoking process involving lots of research and many revisions.

I think all the points about designers making cash on the side with failed ideas are valid. However, I don’t think its fair to the business owners and entrepreneurs who don’t know what is involved in a well-thought-out, well-designed brand. I don’t blame them for using sites like this because they don’t know any better. But, I don’t think its right for designers who do to offer it as a solution.

Design isn’t a window-shopping experience. Offering it as one devalues the field.

Thanks to everyone for a good debate. (Depending on what your opinion of a “good debate” is.)

“You cannot buy a brand. You can create a logo and the materials and advertising around it, then change public opinion of your company, then, you have a brand.”

Right. You cannot buy a brand. But you can buy a nice logo that will turn heads and get you noticed.

“You might fit in that logo, but it makes your butt look big.”

That sounds cute, but it doesn’t really make any sense.

“i don’t know what is worse, using stock photography or starting a company with one of these stickers…”

You have a problem with stock photography too? Weird. I’d say it’s pretty prevalent (and pretty important) in the design industry…

In a perfect world, everything would be made from scratch. I’m right there with you on that. But this is not a perfect world. Sometimes, people need to take shortcuts (like ready made logos and stock photography). And sometimes, those shortcuts turn out pretty nice.

Whoops, didn’t realize the stock photography comment came from another person. The layout of the comments is a little confusing. But my point still stands.

And a quick comment to Tanner:

You’re not exactly breaking new ground when you say things like, “Good design doesn’t happen instantly. It’s a thought-provoking process involving lots of research and many revisions.”

I’ve posted a few potential brands on IncSpring, and I can assure you that they were not slapped together haphazardly. They were created with a client and a brief in mind (some real and some hypothetical). When another business owner rolls around that fits the same mold as the one I had in mind when designing the logo, he’ll have a slick brand waiting for him.

I’m not proposing you throw together brands haphazardly. I’m sure months of thinking go into some of the design “solutions” that you propose. However, no matter how well you define a hypothetical client or work with a different client, it will never be “the” client it ends up with. This is the problem. These designs may be great for hypothetical clients, when in reality, they will never be a perfect fit for the “real” client.

You’re right, the world may not be perfect, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shoot for the moon.

I’m sure your points are valid to designers reading along and it sounds like you are trying to keep the client’s intentions at the front of your mind by saying we would not so this if we care about our businesses.

From the buyer’s point of view, what I’m hearing is that you, the designer, are the ultimate source on whether or not my customer will like my new logo. Wouldn’t my customers have to make that decision? I’ve started several businesses and have gone through the questionnaires, mock ups and the meeting where everyone throws out key words that “fit” my business with several different designers and ad agencies. With all of that “DNA coding” it’s still a crap shoot that they will create something “my” customer likes. Ultimately, it’s not about what the designer wants or what the business owner wants, it’s about what the market’s attracted to. How would you know the logo makes my butt look big before the market even sees it? I think that is the point made when they are talking about the focus groups. Why not let designers AND regular folks tell me if they like it or not? Then I would know that it did or didn’t ‘make my butt look big’. When it’s all said and done, I could buy a check mark as my logo (Nike) and I would still need to build a business around it. The logo is a piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle.

Robert, I understand your point about not being able to buy a brand (meaning reputation, credibility, customer, etc.), but I think you hanging on to the literal meaning of the word only to maintain your point. I consider myself a serial entrepreneur so I’m always trying to think of my next project. One of the most time consuming (and expensive) processes when starting a business in this day and age is naming it. I think that’s an important part you missed in your post. It looks like you can buy domains with logos on the site. Companies are having to make up their own names to get a .com these days (Twitter, Bebo, etc.). If I needed a quality name and logo, I could get Vibefresh for $3,000: https://incspring.com/brand_details.php?brand_id=172. (I do like this one btw). That’s a lot less than I would pay for a naming agency and design agency, not to mention the name we pick might not be available. And the great part about is I would know if I liked the logo before I contracted the designer to create it. I would also get to read any comments about the logo and name first. That’s more than a logo.

Tanner, you say “if a brand isn’t the right solution, is it worth pursuing?” So far two people have said they allowed their client to push them into a direction they didn’t want to go in with the logo design. That’s not doing what’s right for the customer, that’s doing what the customer wants. There’s no difference in that and IncSpring. Does it make it right just because they’re paying you up front? There seems to be a double standard.

I have a feeling there will be more blogs like this because IncSpring is threatening to designers. Designers will not be able to collect $4,000 up front and pitch 5 concepts. The client has no choice but to chose one. With this site, their work will be judged by everyone that goes on the site. That’s pressure if you’re not up to the challenge.

My two cents… or maybe more.

So, the brand will be hollow. If this is what a business thinks graphic design is, let them try to fit into it. You get what you pay for.

Businesses who are serious about branding will go to a real firm and trust the hundreds of years of school and theory consolidated there, rather than try to navigate some rehashed alien brand that they had no hand in molding.

I see this IncSpring site more as a resource for designers, in that you can get a sense of what is being over-saturated, or where trends are beginning to be made.

To be honest, speculating about the effect of this site on the universe of design is pretty hard to do at this point. So is trying to hedge your bets on a graphic style and a name you can call a brand that has never had to fend for itself in the real world.

Philosophically for designers, the only issue I see in publicly recycling work like this is the question, “do I want to be a craftsman or walmart?”

Christophe, several good points in your comment. I would not necessarily agree that a logo forced into something it shouldn’t be by the client (or designer) is “good design” either. Sure, a good designer can have an occasional project go awry, but with “factory brands,” this happens much more consistently.

I agree that a well-tested design is (or, should be) taken much past a focus-group. I’ve taken fresh designs on a clipboard to the streets in the past to gauge public reaction. I agree that IncSpring does this, but I don’t believe testing is the biggest problem with this business model. (In fact, I don’t think testing is a problem at all with this business model.) The problem is, businesses cannot be well represented if the designer does not know who they are representing.

I believe a brand exists to enhance and differentiate your specific business venture from the competition. By working directly with a “good designer,” you will almost always get a brand that is specific to your needs.

“Ultimately, it’s not about what the designer wants or what the business owner wants, it’s about what the market’s attracted to.”

so the business and designer shouldn’t try to guide the market? this is bondage, man!

moco, I wholeheartedly agree with your above sentiment as well as Jake’s in regards to speculating the effect of this site.

The problem of relying wholeheartedly on market testing, to me, is one of the most fundamental issues with branding. Market testing provides insight into what the market is and what people like, the key is to know this and differentiate your brand while still fitting within the realm it aims to be in. If you rely simply on market testing you will do what Sterling Brands (who does incredibly extensive market and focus group testing) does: add small gradient to an old package, make the logo bigger (lol), and call it new and redesigned. The market will want whats comfortable and you run the risk of drowning in the sea of sameness. That is where the designer comes in. It is not an either or situation but a balance between several variables, both in which the designer and client relationship is essential.

Inc. Spring removes the designer client relationship. You are only getting a portion of a picture, as was said above, a Frankenstein. You are doing market research by people looking at a logo that isn’t attached to a company, which is the entire point of the logo and a major portion of the brand: building associations to the face (logo) of the company. So how is this research supposed to even help you know anything other than what people think looks cool? That would be like hiring someone based on looks alone regardless of whether they are even qualified for the position.

To me Inc. Spring essentially is looking for a needle in a haystack. Not only are you looking for a needle, but perhaps you need a needle for needlepoint or for bead work or tapestry. It makes no sense to go look in hay when you should go to a store that can sell you the needle you need to get the job done.

And Mark, monkeys and photoshop? Are you possibly referring to the infinite number of monkeys? I hope you are because if an infinite number of monkeys had Adobe CS3, could it be that by random chance you will get the logo you need? Inc. Spring thinks so.

In any case, very interesting post. Looking forward to reading more opinions…

“Are you possibly referring to the infinite number of monkeys? I hope you are because if an infinite number of monkeys had Adobe CS3, could it be that by random chance you will get the logo you need? Inc. Spring thinks so.”

No, that’s what 99designs thinks ;)

The whole point of IncSpring is (despite the snarky tagline of this post) that one one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. It’s not about random symbols and the text “Company Name”. It’s about coming up with the first piece of the branding puzzle, with the rest to be filled in later.

For the most part, designers have a pretty good grasp on what the market needs. Non-designers are a different story. They know what they want (shiny stuff), but not what they need.

Is the website kind of a crapshoot (in that many of the logos on there may never find an owner)? Yes. And is the whole concept a little backwards and nontraditional? Sure. But does that mean it’s ruining graphic design? Not by a long shot.

Robert – If you want to be taken seriously, as a designer or otherwise, you need to be able to take criticism in stride.

Christophe – If you leave pretentious comments, at least make sure you’ve left them grammatically correct: “… going to site sources …”. It’s cite, with a c. If one claiming they are an entrepreneur posts things riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, it’s a little difficult to take that person on in a professional manner.

Regardless, I think this is a well thought out opinion post that resonates within any creative community. As a member of the arts community, I would personally compare the ideas this company seems to present as akin to going into a tattoo shop and choosing a design off the wall. Deciding to brand yourself, literally or figuratively, is something that I think shouldn’t be taken lightly. It should be a well thought-out decision that incorporates the personality of those being branded.

Otherwise, it’s empty and devoid of meaning; who wants to work with an empty entity? I agree with Jake’s comment – that it’s up to the designer to decide whether or not they want to be a “craftsman or a walmart”. If it’s important to garner respect in the community of your peers or your clientele, then stock options like these shouldn’t be considered. If not…then to each his own.

We’re all entitled to our own opinions and preferences, who are we to tell the other guy what to choose?

There’s a difference between taking criticism well and rolling over. I’m defending something I believe in.

And Christophe’s spelling is completely irrelevant. For all you know, English could be his second language. The internet is a big place.

I think everyone needs a nap.

Taking criticism well completely negates any need for “defending something”.

Speaking of irrelevance, the possibility of English being his second language has nothing to do with it; for all YOU know, English could be my second language. You’re not reading the point here, you’re reading into things in a way that allows you to find offense – the irrelevant parts.

“Taking criticism well completely negates any need for ‘defending something.’”

What an absurd notion. Does “taking criticism” mean accepting everything you say and not offering my own opinion? Seems pretty one-sided to me.

And you’re right. The possibility of English being Christophe’s second language is irrelevant. thr wy, y wr bng ntpcky dch whn y clld hm t fr bd spllng.

Sorry, “dch” was a bit much.

Robert,

We definitely don’t want to be in the business of moderating comments. But, there is absolutely no reason in the world to begin attacking people personally on this site. This post is about a discussion of design, not calling people “ntpcky dchs” because they do not agree with your sentiments.

Please be more considerate when commenting about our readers, even if you don’t agree with their personal opinions, or we will be editing personal attacks out of your comments.

Best,
Tanner

No, it doesn’t mean accepting everything I say and not offering your own opinion. I never once said you couldn’t offer your own opinion; in fact, I think I may have encouraged it. Taking criticism well is like being a good loser; you don’t have to lash out just because it may have hurt your feelings a bit.

Criticism, unlike childish name calling, isn’t meant as a personal attack; it’s often constructive and meant to help you better yourself or improve in some way. Perhaps think of this the next time you have the urge to call someone a nitpicky feminine product.

Right, like I said…that was a bit much. I thought better of it about a second too late. It would be great if you could delete that post so I don’t look like a total idiot.

However, prior to that I hadn’t “lashed out” at all. And my feelings aren’t hurt. I’m not the one in question here–IncSpring is.

If you could point out to me where you encouraged me to offer my own opinion, I’d appreciate it. How am I supposed to interpret it when you say that taking criticism well negates the need for defending something? To me, that sounds like I’m supposed to accept what you say as fact and not offer any kind of response.

I’d also appreciate it if you could hold off on the patronizing remarks. I understand what criticism is. But this is not a critique of my work. This is a debate (some might even call it an argument). There are two (or more) sides to a debate–and mine is one of them.

I absolutely see where you are coming from as far as your issues with the website. I recognize that IncSpring is far from ideal in the world of design. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for it.

I believe here: “We’re all entitled to our own opinions and preferences, who are we to tell the other guy what to choose?” is where I stated that we are all entitled to our own opinions. You can interpret that any way you’d like, I’m not going to tell you how…even though you asked.

On the same lines, if you do not want me to explain to you what I think criticism is, please do not ask me (”Does “taking criticism” mean accepting everything you say and not offering my own opinion?”). That makes absolutely no sense for you to do.

I realise that your opinion is one of the sides to the debate; I’m pretty certain that I never said it wasn’t. It seems you need to realise exactly what you yourself stated – that there are more sides than just yours to a debate, and we’re all entitled to our own opinions.

Disemvowelled. Play nice.

Good lord…

We ARE all entitled to our own opinions. We’re also entitled to disagree with others. I’m not trying to force my opinion on anyone, as you seem to be trying to do. I’m just putting it out there.

Anyhow, this is clearly going nowhere, so I’ll throw in the towel and get on with my day. I have a lot of work to do…for clients of the non-hypothetical variety ;)

“I’m not trying to force my opinion on anyone, as you seem to be trying to do.” I would really like to see where I am doing this, if you honestly think I am. I only once stated my opinion, about the article and not about you, Robert. If you read the entirety of my comments, and not only the parts you can respond to in a way that suits your fancy, maybe, just maybe, you would realise that.

Commendable post marky. Keep it up fellas.

sigh….

IncSpring to me represents the reason why some clients think they know better than me about branding.

It makes me think that what I picked as a profession was the wrong decision and that it’s whole reason of existence is silly… and that my friends, is bullshit.

Do you guys like sushi? I do. Have you guys ever been to one of those sushi places where they have sushi rotating around a conveyor belt?

You go there and just sit watching sushi pass by until something decent catches your eye. That’s what IncSpring reminds me of too.

With the small difference that you aren’t defining yourself and how you present your business practices to the world based on your sushi selection.

“I would personally compare the ideas this company seems to present as akin to going into a tattoo shop and choosing a design off the wall.”

You know, after thinking about that above statement, it’s still not even the same. At least when someone chooses a tattoo off the wall the artists inks it into their flesh and thats that. This form of branding doesn’t have balls. Why not make a program that satisfies all of your goals as a business and let it systematically pick everything out for you?

“This form of branding doesn’t have balls. Why not make a program that satisfies all of your goals as a business and let it systematically pick everything out for you?”

Exactly!

I totally see where your logic is coming from Mark, but at the same time sites and services and people lower than quality design are actually not a threat to the industry. In fact I would often think that they are enhancing the quality of good work by offering something that everyone knows isn’t the same as a typical client/designer relationship.

I wouldn’t call the site a pile of trash, although it certainly is a recycling bin. And that’s what it is. Sites like these are not going to become a trend that threaten the legitimacy of good design.

Plus another man’s trash is another man’s treasure right? Although I have never been one to take trash too seriously myself.

I absolutely dislike the idea of specwork, since it always hurts the designer (they’re doing work for nothing, get paid less.. you name it).

But with the case of Incspring, I think it’s a good middleroad. It ’s no specwork by any means, but it does give designers who have unchosen work i their drawer, a chance to make some extra fundings.

Does that site offer a chance to wannabe-designers to sell their (excuse my language) crap? Yes, unfortunately it does.
Does that site offer a chance to real designers to sell their unchosen logo’s to clients who don’t wánt to have that long and ongoing discussion of their logo and simply want to buy one and get it over with? Yes, it does.

There are a huge amount of clients that:
a) designers don’t wánt to deal with because their always being negative, way to demanding, not understanding the designbusiness at all, and not interested in a designprocess.
b) Do not have the funding or time to go through this process, and simply want to search for a fitting logo themselves to then give it to a printer that makes a reasonably “ok” stationary.

In both cases, I think Incspring does offer a solution. Of course there’s going to be tons of junk on that site at some point, but so does Logopond. It’s a fantastic site, but has a lot of wannabe’s on it as well. Does it still offer a good service to real designers? I believe so :)

In any case, the people who do not want to be treated as a client, and don’t care about the designworld/design process, are clients neither of us (designers) are going to meet or would want to work for. It’s for those people that I believe a site like Incspring is going to be a good outcome :)

For those interested, the discussion has another branch, this time with the owner himself, over in a flickr discussion:

Unused logos, what do you do with them

Joram_
You make good points – RFPs and specwork are lame, its good for designers to make some extra money, and there are sometimes clients no one wants to work with – but that still isn’t the main concern with the site. I explained some of it in my response to Wes at the flickr board: The concept, the idea behind the site is an extension of ignorance about the value of design.

Irregardless of any benefits that might be garnered from the site’s use, the concept is disturbing.

Khamis_

I may have used some sensationalized language in my description :) and I agree that in general the threat to quality design is not great, but I still think it important to speak out against these ideas of design as a pre-cut puzzle instead of design as traveling towards an unknown end.

When people view design as something that can be pieced together from a package instead of an exploration of ideas and goals without a predetermined end, I think it needs to be addressed.

Never pay for a free image. duh.

I find it hard to believe that a logo presented to a company in a specific industry (music, telecom, travel, web) but not chosen – could never be appropriate for another company (same or similar industry) to use. And I happen to be a successful 18 year veteran in the field and a quite decent logo designer if I do say so myself. I think I just ride a much shorter horse. Doesn’t hurt as much when you fall.

I think you don’t give folks enough credit. It’s fairly obvious when a mark fits and when it doesn’t.

I like the idea on paper. A ‘Design Garage Sale’ has some appeal. We’re always producing work that will never see the light of day that maybe should.

That said, while this is an interesting idea on paper, I don’t see it really working well in reality. It’s going to be really tough for the site to not devolve into yet-another $100 logos-made-from-clip-art sweat shop type site.

“I’m going to ignore the condescension in your tone”

Mark you made that comment in the first line of your response to wilson, in the flickr thread however your post here is full of condescension . holier than thou, I know whats best for design, arrogance and attitude, please learn to write more objectively and you wont have that problem of seemingly being attacked personally.

And yes calling someones work trash is personally attacking them not just the company. Most of the accusations you make in this post are quite baseless and sensationalized as Robert was trying to point out, i don’t have the time or inclination to give you a blow by blow, but congrats on getting some ‘burn’ out of this sensationalized and very aggressive post.

It seems like everyone is “destroying the design industry”, or “devaluing designers” these days.

It strikes me that if an entire industry 100 year old industry can be turned on it’s ear in a matter of months by sites like http://99designs.com and http://incspring.com, then it probably needed to be :)

That said, I suspect once the sensationalists stop beating their chest and the dust settles there will be very little real impact to the actual industry. Get over yourself.

Glen_

You say you find it hard to believe, yet its true. The whole argument here, is the language of “branding” and the idea of design being an uninvolved window shopping experience is the problem here. Each logo (and thats all they are, is logos, they are not brands) is being presented as something its not. It’s reducing the value of actual design and its process.

I am not taking credit for your skills away from you, or any member of the site. If anything, your participation in the site is taking away credit from yourself.

Darrel_

I don’t even think it sounds good on paper, in fact, I think it’ll probably make money at some point, and produce some copycats.

David_

You question my objectivity? I am an outsider, not connected with the site in any way, you on the other hand are part of logopond, a site that I think isn’t doing any harm (and I actually enjoy), but is, at this point, connected pretty tightly with IncSpring, considering a lot of cross-site logos/user migrations. I have nothing to gain by criticizing (or praising) the site. You mistake objectivity with the idea that I should be nice, instead of honest. I am also fairly positive this article is labeled opinion.

I have already said what I needed to in relation to the target of my ‘attacks’, and I realize it was probably taken personally. I have not taken anything here personally. Wes was being extremely feux-genuine in his post, I just felt it was important to point that out, and realize I understand he would act that way.

Most of the “accusations” I make in my post are in fact, very accurate. Since we’re not bothering with details, I will just point out, that the people defending the site, and pretty much the ONLY people defending the site, are connected with it. Objectivity? Nothing to gain from defending the site? Hardly.

I make no claims of knowing what’s best for design. This was based on hearing and interacting with some of the most important, respected designers in the industry, its based on my study of graphic design history, and on my education. This is not arrogance. I am not saying I know what’s best, I am saying I know what has been shown to be the best by those who are the best. If someone tells you something Tiger Woods does to golf better, you don’t call him arrogant. You listen.

Lachlan_

I do not think IncSpring or 99designs will actually be capable of ruining graphic design, no more than I think Paris Hilton will ruin TV. They are just unfortunate parts of a greater community.

That being said, I think it’s important to point out when things are lowering standards.

And as I think I’ve made clear, I’m pretty good and over myself. It was a long breakup, but I can finally move on.

“you on the other hand are part of logopond…but is, at this point, connected pretty tightly with IncSpring, considering a lot of cross-site logos/user migrations”

Ummm so… that has no relevance what-so-ever, tons of my users participate on digg.com also doesn’t mean i have a stack in that site ( I wish :) …

I’m trying to figure out how you gather that logopond is in any way associated with inspring or has any involvement outside its users participating which logopond has no control over, you are making a really big and really wrong leap there. If anything Logopond is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that incspring is trying to become, no? What can a new born do for a gorilla or vise versa :)

I’m not ‘taking up for the site’ I’m saying that even in opinion there needs to be objectivity, if i called you a retard instead of saying you are intellectually challenged, they both mean the same but one is clearly more inflammatory (outside of being politically correct that’s not what im getting at, there are more intelligent ways of calling a skunk a skunk), but makes for more ‘reads’. I understand that, but int he long run this type of ‘opinion writing’ will wear on your guess.

“If someone tells you something Tiger Woods does to golf better, you don’t call him arrogant. You listen.” who are ‘these people’ I know who Tiger woods is yet you have a bit of cloak and dagger /deep throat going on with the ‘people’ you have spoken too.

Honesty and polite negative critique I do realize it’s your blog, so good look.

David(+d?)_

I may have been off about your involvement with IncSpring, I thought someone had said that the site owners had been working closely together, I guess it was just a handful of users. The person here, who was so adamant in espousing the benefits of IncSpring on this site and other forums, was the first to sell a logo on the site. This is what I was referring to as to the “objectivity” of some of the comments here. They have stake in it because they want to sell on it. I was mistaken about your direct involvement though, apparently.

I don’t think IncSpring is any challenge to logopond, I think its taking what logopond does, and is trying to exploit it for monetary purposes.

I admit some of my word choices may have been a bit expressive, but not to the scale of inaccuracy that you are comparing it to in your example, and certainly not to any sort of inflammatory level, I don’t believe.

And, as mentioned already I think, the people I am referencing are in the sidebar as “interviewees/contributors”

[...] Visit Source. [...]

I must admit I didn’t read all the posts, but it is cetainly an interesting debate, and something I’d like to revisit once the site gets out of beta.

My own personal opinion is that, I favour this more than ‘competitions’ and spec work. It doesn’t replace bespoke design & branding, and I’m not sure if I would feel comfortable submitting any work to this site.

My main concern however, and something I don’t think the site admins will be able to deal with in a truly effective way – is theft.
What if someone uploads a ‘brand’ that is basically stolen from another designer? unless that designer is well known or someone happens to twig it, there is no way the admins will be able to spot that, then if a company purchases this brand, who is in breach of copyright once they use it?

Lilly…

I just wanted to tell you that your site is really awesome and is of a fantastic quality. The content is great and I will be returning….

It always amazes me how pretentious designers can be. I guess I’m garbage because I don’t have a design degree and I’m not as elite as you, right?

No no no no no no no. It has nothing to do with degrees “frustrated”

It has to do with graphic design business as a profession/practice/calling. This site claims to be “branding” while in reality is selling identities and mistruths.

Its not a matter of having a degree, its a matter of knowing what goes into a quality developed “brand” and the lack of honesty in the way IncSpring is marketing itself.

[...] from FillSlashStroke showed his brawny opinions on imitation trademark designs in his article One Man’s Trash is Another Mans… Trash cod to the fact that imitation trademark designs modify up on sites much as IncSpring. [...]

Look at it like art (which logo design is NOT, in my opinion). Suppose an artist is commissioned to paint a portrait of some dusty old queen, but in the end the finicky old broad decides she doesn’t want the finished canvas. It makes her look old. So what’s a starving artist to do? Burn it? Sell it at a car boot sale? Keep it around for reference? He sells it, of course!
Poor analogy aside…I fully agree with your sentiments that incSping is based on a faulty business plan that is “ruining” (sort of) the industry of coroporate identity design and the like.
I wonder if incSpring bought one of their featured orphan designs and applied it to their own logo? The original is atrocious!

[...] from FillSlashStroke showed his strong opinions on fake logo designs in his article One Man’s Trash is Another Mans… Trash due to the fact that fake logo designs end up on sites such as IncSpring. “IncSpring is a [...]

you cannot “buy a brand.”

a brand is the public’s/consumers’ view of your product/company/etc.

a logomark or identity mark is not a brand. a name is not a brand.

sure, you can definitely try to shape and mold your brand with your identity, advertising, product offering, etc . . . that is the entire point of design and marketing, right? but in the end, a logo and domain will not create a brand. period.

that being said, maybe i will see if i can sell some of my “outtakes” on this site. haha. bypasses that whole “networking” thing to get new work, which i suck at.

[...] you’re a long time reader you know of my disdain for the self-misrepresenting Incspring which claims to be a “branding” website, but is in fact nothing more than a logo site [...]

Fill/Stroke.com

We are

md: tumble

adria: tumble

tanner: tumble

Blogroll

Contributors/Interviewees

Login

Archives