The Reflex Blue Show, Season 4, Episode 12: Is AIGA Wrong About Spec Work?
Spending almost an hour being made to feel like a Fox News flame-war anchor, I admit, may have gotten me into a feisty mood when it came to naming today’s show (the graphic, though, is just me being a dick because Donovan left me off the last podcast’s artwork).
The breakdown:
Barack Obama‘s campaign holds a poster contest that doesn’t maybe crosses a the line from grassroots community builder into KILL-IT-WITH-FIRE Spec Work. AIGA overreacts and/or overcompensates writes a letter. Nate and Drew who may be thankful his name actually didn’t make the show title? spar while Donovan tries to make Nate feel like an idiot for even bringing it up tries to make Nate feel like an idiot for even bringing it up.
THE FINAL VERDICT MAY SHOCK YOUno it won’t.
Download The Reflex Blue Show, Season 4 Episode 12 or, click here to subscribe to The Reflex Blue Show from the iTunes Music Store.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I have to say I didn’t enjoy that show. I felt like Drew was more interested in stonewalling about spec work than having an open conversation about it, and I felt like Donovan was just there to mock me for even asking the question.
I think if we’re not asking tough questions like “Is this really spec work, is this really something to be angry about”, then we’re wasting our opportunity to elevate to conversation above the rhetoric. I’m not interested in being anyone’s mouthpiece, I think AIGA’s standpoint or No!Spec’s standpoints are just that: points of view that bare further reflection and dissection, not the law of the land and certainly not representative of all designers. I think designers ought to be making up their own minds, and I think it is dangerous territory to force any point of view onto someone else without giving them that opportunity.
In general I think that the idea of Spec Work is a boogeyman that designers use to put their own failings on. “Oh Spec Work is the real problem, that’s why I’m losing jobs, not because of me and my own failings.” Replace Spec Work with “immigrants” or “Obamacare” and you can see, at least, why it seems so familiar to me. It’s a lightning rod issue that people can rally around, but I don’t care about it because in three years of working for myself Spec Work never damaged me once.
And being made to feel stupid for feeling that way just shows me how far designers have to go before people are going to listen to them about Spec.
Nate, when you word it that way, I am also unsure if I have ever lost any work because spec work exists. I do think the profession of design is devalued by spec work, and so in that way, I may be charging less than I am worth, but can not be positive either way. There is a reason I don’t enter any spec competitions though, they never make sense in the long run.
You are also right that this was an uncomfortable show, even re-listening to it this morning. Next time we will speak all rainbows and puppies I hope.
Nate,
Thank you for having me on the show. I think that you may have a mistaken understanding of the term “stonewalling”. My thought was that we were having a lively debate on the topic, and I feel I was bringing up valid points and making valuable rebuttals to some of your points that I thought were off base.
I’m certain that neither Donovan or myself were trying to make you feel stupid, so I’m sorry if it came across that way. You’re right that this is a hot-button topic, so the debate’s going to be heated. The point you make in the second paragraph of your comments suggests that we need to ask the tough questions and let designers make up their own minds, which I believe is exactly correct. I’m not clear on how you think the discussion we had on the podcast was not one part of that debate.
Here’s a collection of links that I suggest the listeners of the Reflex Blue Show read to see more viewpoints on the matter:
http://www.no-spec.com/archives/obama-crowdsourcing-to-support-american-jobs/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/10/12/obama-poster-contest-angers-designers_n_1007868.html
http://antispec.com/hq/obama
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/obama-solicits-designers-to-work-unpaid-on-jobs-poster-20111019
http://www.thedonutproject.com/inspiration/my-thoughts-on-the-obama-poster-contest/
http://www.aiga.org/interior.aspx?pageid=3082&id=10110
Nate believes this is a “for the people” initiative, and Drew believes this is a “self-promotional” initiative. But in this case, I think it’s impossible to tell the difference.
Jobs are great, but when Obama’s campaign says that (and asks for posters saying that), it’s immediately a self-promotional initiative.
As evidenced by AIGA’s Get Out the Voter posters, “self-promotion” is one of the things that classifies this as spec work. And it’s probably the biggest reason why this contest has been so complex to debate.
A lively debate indeed. It may have felt uncomfortable to be a part of the conversation, but as a listener, it seemed like a great back and forth discussion on this topic, where two different sides were both heard.
As a designer who is new(er) to understanding the definition and effects of spec work, I found this episode very enjoyable, and I’m even more interested in seeing how this situation plays out in the upcoming weeks.
Nate, while you may not have enjoyed the show (the debate did seem uncomfortable for those participating), as a listener I thoroughly enjoyed it. And because of the points you made, I found myself questioning my opinions on this. Yes, the contest, especially with its ironic subject matter, is worthy of some level of outrage. But yes also, it is just a poster contest, which one can choose to not enter. Bravo for sticking to your guns while under some well-articulated fire. (Drew, you probably kicked ass in debate, didn’t you?)
Von, nicely articulated response. While I agree that Nate is not the best debater, I will argue that his points are also worth discussion. That having been said, your next-to-last paragraph brings me back to the side of not ignoring this contest, and adding my voice to the protestations.
Donovan, your point of just not entering the spec competitions, in my opinion at least, is the seed that needs to sprout deep roots. If no one entered them, wouldn’t they just cease to be?
Keep up the good work guys; thumbs up to all three of you. Oh, and please—no rainbows or puppies.
A p.s. to my response above…
Is this contest viewed as part of Obama’s re-election campaign?
The Federal Elections Commission contribution limit for an individual is $2,500. That means that whomever enters this contest must value their poster entry as less than $2,500. Otherwise, the contribution will be seen as excessive and unlawful, and must be returned. If the contribution of poster art is accepted and proven to be worth more than $2,500, it’s a federal offense.
Food for thought for those who would enter this contest.
This is simultaneously one of the most profound and most humourous episodes I’ve listened to in ages. I actually quite enjoyed it.
Unfortunately, I mostly agree with Drew. Mostly. There is no doubt that an open contest with a measly payday is definitely a form of spec work. But Nate’s point comes through strong that the whole thing is framed differently because it’s not a book publisher or a burger chain, but a political campaign. The usual argument of “if the end client profits, I should profit” doesn’t apply, because we the designer-supporters of Obama (myself included) seek to “profit” from the posters success. Our goals are aligned beyond money, which is how it works with most commercial clients.
I agree with Nate that campaigns are good at getting donated stuff — food, printing, hotel rooms, column-inches, etc. — but Drew is right, they don’t hold a contest or audition for those goods and services, they just use ’em straight away. That does change the game.
There’s a scenario that wasn’t explored in the discussion about whether or not the campaign created this project with malice. We don’t know if this was a genuine accident, where the person who created it wasn’t aware of how perverted a practice it is. Maybe Ric’s letter (and the arguments made by everyone else) actually got through, and they came to realise the error of their ways. That’s one potential reason why they didn’t publish a mea culpa press release or change the rules. (Plus no one wants to look weak politically.)
I wrote about this on my own blog, including the irony of the Jobs subject matter, but I didn’t have the caustic tone of the original Rolling Stone article, or of Drew on this podcast. That goes back to the non-commerciality of it. Make a poster or don’t, in this case it isn’t that big a deal. Don’t spend too long on it, of course, because the chance of winning is slim.
I actually had a good idea, but there’s very little chance it would win. Too cheeky and subversive — this sort of endeavor is definitely aimed at the mainstream who is not amused by unemployment.
Comments are closed.