vicfurth Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Hey, guys. I found a website where companies hold contests for designers to compete for their logo business. The website is stocklogos.comYou can also sell logos there. Has anyone here ever used that? They got some great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapshot Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Crowdsourcing, pure and simple.Devalues the industry.Have a contest to see which contractor can build the best deck, and only pay the winner. See how many would jump at the opportunity. Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mings Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Hint: You'd get a lot of Yous if you do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdougfresh Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 There's quite a few like this out there, and they're all havens for logo theft -- on top of what slapshot said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidson Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Wow, you sure get what you pay for (or far less) there, hey? Is it just me or has the work got significantly worse since these sites started springing up a few years back?I don't necessarily have a problem with sites like this. As a consumer, if you cant tell the difference in quality, or between an identity and a logo, you may as well use this sort of thing.I don't really know anything about wine, and while I know what might appeal to me may, to a connoisseur, taste like piss, I cant see a justification to not have cheap plonk available. I guess in both cases, the overall quality of product in the marketplace decreases, but from my perspective I'm not that bothered.In a way, it serves to stratify the industry. Those who would charge more, but whose whose work is't noticeably better in quality to the larger proportion of the market would suffer the most. So what you may be left with are the bottom feeders who crank out 20 designs a day for sites like these, and the people who can justify an order of magnitude increase in pay for their services.Happy and interested to hear why I'm totally wrong, but I think I dont really accept the rationale that a client should have to pay more 'for their own good' (and for the quality of their brand) if you see what I mean?Unfortunately, due to the popularity of design and the prevalence of hooky software, anybody can be a 'designer' these days. I suppose Im kind of happy that sites like these soak up some of the industry dregs.Having said that, if I were in college or just an amateur, I would spend every spare moment knocking out stuff for these sites. As the quality is so bad, you have a pretty good chance of having your stuff selected and reused. I have friends who did stuff like this in their youth and still get hundreds of dollars a quarter for it.Anyway, like I said, interested to hear others refutations of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I agree with you 100%, Fraser. Portfoliobobschultz6' class="bbc_url">@bobschultz6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandMooreArt Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Wow, you sure get what you pay for (or far less) there, hey? Is it just me or has the work got significantly worse since these sites started springing up a few years back?I don't necessarily have a problem with sites like this. As a consumer, if you cant tell the difference in quality, or between an identity and a logo, you may as well use this sort of thing.I don't really know anything about wine, and while I know what might appeal to me may, to a connoisseur, taste like piss, I cant see a justification to not have cheap plonk available. I guess in both cases, the overall quality of product in the marketplace decreases, but from my perspective I'm not that bothered.In a way, it serves to stratify the industry. Those who would charge more, but whose whose work is't noticeably better in quality to the larger proportion of the market would suffer the most. So what you may be left with are the bottom feeders who crank out 20 designs a day for sites like these, and the people who can justify an order of magnitude increase in pay for their services.Happy and interested to hear why I'm totally wrong, but I think I dont really accept the rationale that a client should have to pay more 'for their own good' (and for the quality of their brand) if you see what I mean?Unfortunately, due to the popularity of design and the prevalence of hooky software, anybody can be a 'designer' these days. I suppose Im kind of happy that sites like these soak up some of the industry dregs.Having said that, if I were in college or just an amateur, I would spend every spare moment knocking out stuff for these sites. As the quality is so bad, you have a pretty good chance of having your stuff selected and reused. I have friends who did stuff like this in their youth and still get hundreds of dollars a quarter for it.Anyway, like I said, interested to hear others refutations of the above.thats what i did when i was in college. if theres one good thing i can say about the crowd sourcing sites its that it made me better really quickly. its a chance to work with a "real" brief/project, forces you to do it quickly, and you get to see how others approach it and what their ideas are like. so theres plenty to learn from post contest. and there may be some portfolio pieces in there tooi guess after i realized how it hurts the industry and how much of that time i spent learning and getting better turned into wasted time (doing work for nothing) i stopped. and at that point, i didnt have to go find clients, they started to come to me. i can see it from the other side where Jim's Bait Shop just needs a logo, something his customers can identify and really shouldnt spend $1,000 on it, and the sites are good for him. seeing huge brands like the New Orleans Pelicans, Dictionary.com, DISH network, etc is pretty frustrating though GRAPHIC ARTIST BEHANCE / MEDIUM / DRIBBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_Fryman Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 As an amature I find these sites interesting and have only viewed them when a link was posted. I have never really thought of attempting this and wont reading how it effects you guys who do thus for a living. I can see a huge difference in quality but as stated I can understand how a small company can benefit greatly from this. Always good to see the Greek God of designs point of view on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelayedPenalty Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I've put a few logos on Stocklogos before, things that we're rejects from other projects, or things that I just whipped up in my spare time. I've sold one logo through them, but I've never entered any of the contests, dont have the need to do spec work like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicfurth Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 The part that is a little frustrating is how minimalist the designs are. How can you justify spending $5,000 for something that may include only four squares:Another "industry" has taken up the same trends: Churches. Everywhere I see churches going to very modern, corporate-style designs. These designs are usually done by someone in the congregation who knows how to open PowerPoint and piece together a logo. (Google image "church logos" to get an idea) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeraTrouro Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Spam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDesign Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 If you're justifying payment by how many polygons something has, I don't think you understand design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdougfresh Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 While all you may see is squares, think about how much time, energy, and history went into that logo. Target is "just circles", Chase is "just an octagon", but a lot went into the design work for those brands. Honestly, I think less of more complex logos in most cases (especially corporations), because it takes a lot more to represent a brand with a simpler shape -- and complex logos are less practical across various applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDX Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 I think Fraser sums it up quite well, if someone wants to use a site like that and are happy with the results then fair play.My biggest arguement against them is the amount of rip offs that appear and then get picked up by unsuspecting punters. Unfortunately there is no real way to police it so I guess it's always going to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicfurth Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 If you're justifying payment by how many polygons something has, I don't think you understand design.It was a tongue-in-cheek comment that got misused. I know what stuff like that is worth. What I was alluding to is how others think, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicfurth Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 While all you may see is squares, think about how much time, energy, and history went into that logo. Target is "just circles", Chase is "just an octagon", but a lot went into the design work for those brands. Honestly, I think less of more complex logos in most cases (especially corporations), because it takes a lot more to represent a brand with a simpler shape -- and complex logos are less practical across various applications.That's actually my style of art. Most of my stuff is fairly simple and clean. Again, it was tongue in cheek rather than how I really feel. I'm amazed when designers can convey all that in simple shapes and I strive to have my design impact in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 If you're justifying payment by how many polygons something has, I don't think you understand design.Why do we pay Stephen King so much money? He's just re-arranging 26 letters around. And don't even get me started on Picasso and Monet - all that fuss for three lousy colors? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mings Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Mark Rothko just used splotches of color. I can do that .LeCorbusier used concrete. I can do that .I'm a :censored:ing master./sarcasm. I wish I could do what those masters have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.