hy don't you have lawyers providing legal services, doctors diagnosing illnesses, engineers solving critical systems, architects designing buildings on Crowdspring?
Crowdspring exploits creative people's insecurities for their passion and business naivety. The companies using Crowdspring need a creative embargo by the creatives visionaries. With the goal for more compensation for every creative people.
Why does't Crowdspring make a compensation fund to all 67,000 participating, pay or "award" each participant with ownership of the their creative work, companies may have first right of refusal to license the creative work. Until the rights of creative Intellectual property is protected Crowdspring should hold thier head down in shame? Crowdspring should consider adding a category for manual labor and have special "awards" for exploiting children, and women.
Let's repeat the past instead of evolving to a better future.

Does anyone know of an email address where Mr. Samson can be reached?

@ Professional Artist

"Wow! Sounds like the status quo crew really does not like the democracy model of designing."

Not sure where you studied political theory, but a whole bunch of people submitting their unpaid to one individual who then lords over the proceedings, doesn't square with democracy as I was taught it. And if thinking that anyone (designer or not) should be paid for providing services to professional entities makes me part of the status quo, I'm happy to be a member.

"But as a craftsman that occasionally needs design work for web or print adverts, and has come up against this "we are professionals and deserve top dollar" attitude, I enjoy seeing some competition."

You've obviously misunderstood the issue, so here it is again. It's not about 'deserving top dollar'. It's about paying people for their work. Surely, you're for that concept, no?

So, you have to innovate, create better work than the copy cats, and try to build a name worth collecting. You will always deal with new art school grads and trust funders willing to do expensive work for less. Now lets look at fellow craftsmen that take designs to China to be made! Cutting the rest of our throats and creating the "but why does yours cost so much more?" question.
So, if you have been in an art profession that has managed to keep a closed door on the free market cut throat nature of our society, yippee for you. But as a craftsman that occasionally needs design work for web or print adverts, and has come up against this "we are professionals and deserve top dollar" attitude, I enjoy seeing some competition. If you are that great, you have nothing to worry about. But gee, some of those "kids" have some fresh ideas.. boo hoo for you guys. The craft trade has dealt with this issue successfully for years, get over it.

Wow! Sounds like the status quo crew really does not like the democracy model of designing. Well, welcome to my frickin world. As a professional craft person working in my field for 15 years I have dealt with having to come up with designs for clients to look at and say yay or nay my whole career. Do they take the design elsewhere and have it made? Yes, sometimes. Do I have clients that bring me images of more well known artists and ask me to make something "in this style"? All. The. Time. I say no because that's lame. They then go to others who say, "you bet, how many and what color?" Now lets look at the gallery game. You design, do the R&D, make the product and put it out for everyone to see and judge. And if its popular, it gets copied.

Absolute and utter garbage from Mike Sampson. Emulating the Elance model eh?
Except their members number in the millions.
The "benefits" of the 99 that walk away, being reuse, reselling, portfolio pieces — what rubbish.
ALL his answers infuriated me. I am a professional graphic designer. If someone comes to me and says, I am a small operation, I can only afford $300 or $500 dollars, I will work for them. We are not all huge expensive design firms, but I spent 7YEARS in art school and if this idiot thinks anyone can design a logo he needs some design education. I have seen the fifty dollar logos coming out of Elance and they are JUNK.
And there one doesn't even need to produce a sample. We designers and writers have to work hard to get good clients who understand that good writing and design ADDS VALUE and hold on to those clients and give them fabulous service and avoid these crowdsourcing clowns!

I think this resource is definitely the most insulting and damaging to the field of design.
If someone proposed this resource for plumbers or mechanics or nurses or accountants, people would simply laugh at the prospect of doing work in a sweepstakes environment. For some reason Americans, as they are generally uneducated about discipline of design, think designers should perform for free and hope they get paid. Really frightening! Perhaps the beginning of the end of working ethic that has served this country well thus far. Why not ask people to bid on projects. hey crowdSource, please reconsider your model.

Bob,

I urge you to revisit this topic. It appears your goal was an interview that also looked at the controversy behind spec design work.

And it simply seems perhaps some perspective got lost along the way, in the end resulting in a puff piece that raised several controversial issues and then glossed them over with a commercial for the interviewee.

You were happy with your experience contracting spec work through this company. Please take a moment and consider how spec work applies to all facets of life. Why not have a dozen photographers, discreetly placed, shoot your wedding, and then pay for the one who took the pictures you liked best? Or perhaps have five general contractors vie for your work by each remodeling a room in your house? The contractor. whose work you like best gets paid, the rest get experience and pictures of the work they did on your walls to show their client.

Think about why you would not do these things. That is the breadbrumb leading to your followup story.

I went to the article that David Airey above recommended at The Logo Factory. I also would like to endorse it. I think some of the comments posted here keep getting caught up in arguing about the design quality/cost and away from the real issue. The article sums that up nicely at the end with this:
"...it’s not about ‘amateur’ vs. ‘professional’. It’s not even about whether work designed through crowdsourcing is ‘inferior’ or not (that’s another argument entirely, but directly tied into my next sentence). It’s about paying people for their work.

Up to now, a fairly basic principle in supposedly civilized societies."

Read more: http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/index.php/spec-work-crowdsourcing-crowdspring-npr/#ixzz0thLLAC5x

To Bob Garfield: Please go read the above mentioned article.

Interesting timing. My story on crowdspring lookalike 99designs ran that very morning. Those interested in this might want to take a peek.

Forbes.com link -

http://bit.ly/diBQ99

I concur with most previous posts. Crowdsourcing propagates amateur solutions and inept branding. It is also horribly rationalized exploitation. Shame on Mr Garfield too, though he must live with his godawful $300.00 book cover solution.

If you've made it this far through the comments, you'll be interested to read a designer's n in-depth take on the interview, where much of what Mike Samson says is made to look quite different:

http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/index.php/spec-work-crowdsourcing-crowdspring-npr/

There are several sites operating under the auspices of "freelance" whereby I, as an experienced professional in my field, can bid on jobs that once would have netted me at least mid-five figures which are now being offered as "perfect for students" for $300. Or less. What used to be delivered --by me, at least-- was fully rendered video, motion graphics and animation and now what these clients are satisfied to get are what amounts to slide shows, or worse: the motion-version of Bob's crappy book cover design. But like Bob, these clients simply DON'T CARE ONE WHIT that they're getting exactly what they're paying for, and not one iota more; while I can legitimately ask why these clients don't care, the fact remains that most simply don't. If anyone cares to spread this argument wider, into "tragedy of the commons" territory, dive right in. But we are in a market where the Poop McMeal outlet is open for business right next to your gourmet venue, and increasing numbers of clients are happy eating at the trough.

Part of my comment [32] was cut off at the top for some reason.
I was adding a thought after reading Dave’s post above and considering the idea of licensing some of the other design professions to add value and accountability to the work that is already there at some levels but under appreciated, not clear, etc.
Other than architecture and related fields like interior architecture/design, planning, etc. no other design professions are licensed in the U.S.

Need a designer? Just like with an architect, they have to be licensed. Then you are ensured of at least a bare minimum of value and have accountability. This would have the dual effect of reducing the number of design education programs - eliminating the bad ones basically - and bring design to the level of importance on par with professions like architecture.
People get that architecture and good architects are important for society and business. Most professional designers know good design is an essential tool for businesses, organizations, and people. With digital media and new technologies reliant on good design, interface design, information architecture, typography, industrial design, etc. it has become as essential to our society as architecture always was.
The design professions *are* as important for everyone as licensed architecture.

Many design customers, some 22.5 million small business owners, are primarily driven by cost and do not necessarily see a huge difference in the levels of design sophistication offered by established professionals and design newbies. This environment has created fertile ground for the establishment of design companies like crowdspring who compete on cost and work off of a “spec” model. Detractors of these services point out that they devalue the design profession, and that they are not in line with professional design standards. But ultimately, most customers care little about designs professional standards and will engage with whoever offers the best value-to-cost ratio.

Instead of railing against firms like crowdspring, designers need to ask, “how do clients value design?” The subjectivity of design is as much an issue in this discussion as anything. The ideas of “good” and “bad” design are only meaningful if there is a understood criteria that they are judged against. If Bob’s book sells a million copies, was the cover good, or bad?

If the design profession would spend more time thinking about quantifying the value of their work, instead of focusing on the beauty pageant, we would not be having this conversation. It all boils down to one word – accountability. Doctors, plumbers, and Air-traffic controllers have it. But the design profession does not. And because they don’t, they are vulnerable to a market that values their service based on subjective criteria.

www.the-strategic-designer.com

http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=4407

“No one has nailed the ludicrousness of this practice as accurately as creative director Andy Rutledge, who has put forward the following hilarious analogy:

I need a partner with whom to have a serious relationship but I don't want to invest any time or effort in finding the right woman; I shouldn't have to. I'm a great man and any woman should be proud to be with me, so I'm holding auditions. I'd like for all interested women to visit me and show me your "wares." I'm definitely looking for someone with a hot bod, and not afraid to show it off. Extra points for staying the night and letting me sample your attentions and enthusiasm.

One lucky winner gets a $400 wedding ring and the prestige of having me for a partner ('cause I look good). The rest of you just get screwed. Awright, who's with me?”

http://vimeo.com/13114483

AIGA Metro-North panel between advocates and opponents of speculative branding and design work.

Moderated by New York State Supreme Court Justice Colleen D. Duffy, the panel included:

• Ric Grefé, Executive Director, AIGA
• Brendán Murphy, Senior Partner, Lippincott
• Jerry Kathman, President & CEO, LPK
• John Gleason, Founder & President, A Better View

One of the most overused promotional statements from spec websites is how the client gets to choose from 100 designs (give or take).

The thing is, and where design is concerned, it's exactly this level of choice that seriously hinders the quality of outcome.

I've learned the hard way not to present my clients with design ideas I'm not 100% happy with. Why? Because it's Sod's law (or Murphy's law) that if I present four strong options alongside one that's poor, it'll be the poor one that my client favours the most.

Now imagine the scenario on spec contest websites where 97 options out of 100 are bad.

I'm not saying great designers won't produce poor ideas. They will. The difference is that these designers have the experience to keep such ideas away from the client, leaving only the most effective to see the light of day.

I agree that Bob's book cover says it all.
Listen Bob, I'm sorry to have to break it you, but your book cover sucks. I also found the winning design for the OTM t-shirts very underwhelming.
On the other hand, the winning design of the TAL t-shirt contest was great. But TAL is a recognizable brand now, much more so than OTM, and I think that more talented people were willing to work on that project because of the cool factor and prestige. That's definitely not the case with most other projects.
I like OTM a lot, but I think you guys need to take advice from professional designers about this stuff, because there's clearly a disconnect between the quality of your work as reporters and the quality of the designs you've chosen.

The jury is out on crowdsourcing and FREE for that matter. If you read and follow Jaron Lanier or Douglas Rushkoff, you can clearly see where things are going (and where they came from). A must-read for people not familiar with this issue is an article by Rushkoff which starts with "First they came for the musicians…." http://bit.ly/bAXkhp and you will realize the consequences of this short-term thinking. A great friend compared this to a hamster eating its young, but it's not too late to change direction -- I firmly believe that the future of the Web is in great design. Great designers do not work for free!

Grant Lyons
Co-Founder, GreenerMags

The WNYC logotype was designed by Open but NOT for spec.

http://www.notclosed.com/pages/wemake/work_wnyc.html

I see lots of comments here that read like it's a given that work coming out of an agency is professional and of high quality and that any work that is posted on Crowdspring is done by someone's "talented niece" or an auntie who watercolors for a hobby. It certainly is not this clear cut. It's been my experience that many smaller agencies hire younger people for their design staff. As professional designers they don't have a lot of experience and would benefit well from a good creative director, but they don't always get that. I've seen plenty of unimaginative design solutions that have come out of some agency. That's part of why the clients get frustrated with the process and start looking else where.
On the other hand, there are lots of experienced, talented independent designers out there who need more work and will go fishing on a site like Crowdspring. They figure they have an advantage over the amateurs and then have a chance to develop a working relationship. If the client is happy with the work why would the go back to the pool first on the next thing that they need done?

Interesting article, of which I have to agree with the notion that a counterpoint opinion should have been included - however if I'm not mistaken, aren't OTM stories usually with just one person on any given topic?

I was surprised that OTM's own crowd-sourcing past wasn't brought up in the story or comments. Particularly the t-shirt competition of some time ago. It must have been a shared public radio promotion, as This American Life ran a similar deal at the same time. Perhaps under the title of 'competition' spec work is less dirty? When I think of design competition, my first thoughts are 'students' + 'posters'. Any while spec work does have some very bad effects on the industry, the aspect of competition, in which an unknown/unconnected individual, has the potential to create a highly printed work for a well known client - is often just too sexy to pass up... hence my attempt and loss at the OTM t-shirt competition...

Design is a process. But regular people only see the solution they see at the end of the process.

Spec work is for suckers.

The creative people, like writers and designers, that work for free and get nothing, are suckers.

The clients that think they are getting a bargain are suckers. Would you want your company represented by high school students and people with little experience making the important brand decision for your company or organization (no matter how small or large)? When designers and non designers look at what is being submitted, they see a bunch of junk. Caveat emptor. You actually do not buy the "logo" you buy the designer talking with you and learning about your company or organization and then offering design solution options which the client and the designer discuss which is the best option for a final design.

The investors in these startup are suckers.

Mike Samson is in it for the money. Ironic huh?

@chris You be the judge what I bring to the table: http://kinggroupmedia.com http://patrickking.org http://typographyshop.com

I've been in the business well over 30 years. I can not and will not knock out a logo in 2 hours. Dozens, hundreds of hours are involved. I've got a reputation to uphold, pride in my work and would have to charge less than $5.00 an hour to match the rates of the hobbyists.

Comparing a travel agent's services, with all due respect to those wonderful folks, to that of a creative professional is a poor analogy. If you care to be a robot with your toys, cranking out product be my guest. If you care to grow as a creative professional have some respect for your time and your peers who bring more to the table than the crowdsourcers and O-deskers further dumbing down the visual landscape.

It all comes down to quality. Would you rather spend an important anniversary listening to a band for hours comprised of people who've just begun to learn to play music? Would you smile and say "hey, they're good enough." Or would you spend that special day instead seeing a great orchestra or a heralded jazz trio?

Anyone with an ear and taste would choose the latter. Most Americans manage to grow up with somewhat of a seasoned ear. As poorly read as we are, most who can read appreciate the difference between horrendous writing, the passable and the great. We usually respect the opinion of those who create music and literature. When it comes to things visual, we've all got an aunt who paints watercolors or a kid designing logos in his room. Isn't it cute?

But to be quick to shrug ones shoulders and deem their work worthy of museum walls, corporate logos or an important book cover is ludicrous.

@Chris,

Rex said it better than me. Your continued comparisons between use of email, use of Google, etc. and designing on spec are completely wrong. With spec, designers still do the work, but don't get paid. There isn't someone sitting on the other side of the Google homepage manually searching through websites until they find a range of options for you. It's automated. Design is a custom project that can't be completed by a robot. If it was, there'd be a ton more copyright infringement cases than those brought about by crowdspring alone.

If you hired a team to work for your company, don't you think it's ethically right that all of them get paid (and not just one in every 100 employees -- if that one is lucky, and the client doesn't change their mind)?

Have you seen my web post on this topic - it's called "Would You Work on Spec? Why Should Your Designer?" http://myshingle.com/2010/02/articles/marketing-making-money/would-you-work-on-spec-why-should-your-logo-designer-2/

Most people who use crowdsourced solutions would themselves never work for free.

That seriously is an awful book cover. That says it all, to me.

A designer's perspective certainly would've helped pinpointed Bob's queasy feeling...

To Bob Garfield,

This interview was shameful. This was sub-par work that demands to be revisited. If you are going to lay down and let the co-founder of a company expound on about his company without challenge then you need to have someone there to represent the other side of the argument. I was spitting mad by the end of that "interview". It really amounted to a commercial for Crowdspring.
Do this for me, go take a look at the website odesk.com. The business model that this site uses blows holes in every argument that Mike Samson made. It offers all of the opportunities that Crowdspring claims to be filling the void on. And it does it without ignoring business ethics. Why not interview the founder of this company and ask him to compare his business model to Crowdspring's.

By the way, my guess is that the queasy feeling you had was your conscience trying to get your attention.

To Chris,

First, your use of travel agents vs. Expedia for comparison is wrong headed. That would be a case where an aspect of the travel agent's job (price comparisons and booking travel) is now done by an internet program. Designing is not being done by the crowdspring internet program. Designing is being done by people and is posted on the site. Not the same.

Second, when you say that some business is doomed to failure because of inferior design work you have a couple false assumptions: One, that a bad logo will lead to the failure of a business (there are plenty of very successful businesses out there with bad graphics -- take a drive around your neighborhood some time and look for yourself). And two, that will will get inferior work from anyone willing to work on spec, I guess. There are plenty of good designers who are not in a financial position to stand on principle. They are trying to keep a roof over their heads.

Back @ Mike,

There's a good chance that our opinions aren't all that different from eachother. The people who do use a method such as crowdspring deserve whatever they get. If it's true that you don't use online services then good for you. I mean surely it's admirable to not use Google because you want to support libraries, don't use wikipedia because you want to support printed encyclopedias, don't use Netflixs so that Blockbusters won't have to close it's doors, and you don't use email because it might hurt the number post office employees.

All I'm saying is a service like Crowdspring has it's place. You pay less and are likely to get inferior work, but to generalize and say it's "in the hands of a teenage hobbyist" is being willfully ignorant. By your own argument there is nothing to fear from crowd sourcing since the first time a client used it they would be burnt so bad they'd never use it again. Their product/service would fail because of that hobbyist teenager compared to the quality of your design.
I'm not sure I follow why you're worried about 'senseless design clients' getting back bad work.

@Chris,

Rather than use Travelocity or Expedia I actually prefer to work with the travel agents you deem to be "poor." The service they offer can prove incredible value for money, and, believe it or not, some people like to know exactly who is getting their hard-earned money -- especially when it comes to something as important as my company's brand.

Design clients with any sense will steer well clear of these spec contest copyright-issue ridden quagmires. There's far too much bickering between so-called "designers" and theft of ideas going on. Far, far too much.

Why anyone would place their company's appearance to the world in the hands of a teenage hobbyist is beyond me.

If that's your idea of moving forward, well, I'd much rather be static.

@ Mike.
I am not, I do 3D pre-visualization full time, and freelance animations when I find the time. I get my connections because I do solid work and people want to use me again. My main point is that people can't see beyond their own backyard. Odds are you have used Travelocity or Expedia to book your trips, how much did you think about the "poor" travel agents who went to school to provide you a quality trip? Surely they can put together a better trip then you could on your own, but it that worth the extra time and money to you? Not if you've put together your own trip online.
I'm ready for the market to change and I'll change with it. I do this because I am not a static object who is upset that today isn't exactly the same as yesterday.
But hey, if you can find some miracle way of stopping to world from moving forward then more power to you. I'm not going to hold my breath though. You can spend your time trying to stop every person and company from getting something that benefits them, or you can spend your time finding a way to make YOURSELF more valuable. Try and change to rest of the world and be upset that it isn't working, or change yourself and find ways to turn this lemon into some tasty tasty juice.

@Chris....

Are you Samson in disguise?

I am of the opinion that the people who get the most afraid of change are the people who don't have much to offer. So there is another outlet for people looking for design work. Does that mean your work have gotten worse? Perhaps if you can't bring something special enough to the table then you don't deserve the work.
Where were you when the internet killed off travel agents? Maybe he had a bad feeling when established photography got hurt by the digital era and so many stock options. Now that it hits home it's boohoo woe is me.
Bring something special to the table, something new, something the "crowd" can not bring and you've got nothing to complain about. Otherwise you just weren't that good to begin with.
Things change people. Adapt.

Excellent story. Thanks for bringing Crowdspring and this (apparently) growing phenomenon to my attention. I've never used it, but I'm certainly going to give it a look.

As much as I enjoyed the story, I was surprised that Bob did not include a customer other than himself. As a person having been both consumer and provider of the services that Crowdsrping facilitates, Bob offered some good perspectives. And it was useful to have him quiz the founder from both his perspectives, but listeners like me would have done better to hear from a less “conflicted" designer who sell his services through Crowdspring and a similar buyer who purchases those services, i.e., not someone conflicted by self-interest like Bob, who certainly did disclose that fact.

The story’s strong focus on potentially negative effects on incumbents was particularly odd. Consumers don't buy goods and services in order to benefit producers and give them jobs; it's the other way around. Increased competition and greater choice is nothing more than the march of progress. It is the "creative destruction" coined by Werner Sombart a century ago, and it’s what I value as a consumer.

While compassion is always warranted, let's not get all weepy eyed for the scribes who lost their jobs when the printing press came along. Across the Potomac River from me in Washington, DC, the streets are crowded with lobbyists for those scribes, who just a few subsidies and a bit of reasonable barriers to competition so that people can't suffer too many pages too cheaply too soon. Please.

I agree with Ty - my husband (a freelance designer) and I were listening and I said, "oh, they'll probably have someone on next from the other perspective." That is one of the things I like best about the way On the Media covers controversial questions. Instead, Bob Garfield suggested there might be a controversy, but really didn't discuss why people object to crowdsourcing. I was very disappointed that no other perspective was offered.

No professionals we know will work "on spec" or participate in crowd sourcing scams. It degrades the profession and it encourages theft of ideas and work. Think about it: would you do your (non artsy) job for free, in the hope you might get paid at the end of the week? Mike Samson is self-evidently a jerk (listen to the interview) but he's also an unethical thief. And sadly, so are you, Bob. (sorry! Big fan of the show - but what were you thinking?)

Thank you for covering this issue. I really hope to hear a follow up with a representative from the design community in a future segment.

eye is valued wouldn't accept such mediocrity, but here it seems as long as you spell the words properly, it works.

Why not crowdsource the editing, spell checking and printing of the book? Were consummate pros not involved on those fronts?

A cover isn't just a dust jacket. It's your cereal box, your sole chance to jump off the shelves at the bookstore and seductively say "buy me." Kellogs might spend upwards of a million dollars designing and testing a new cereal box, so important is its impact on their bottom line.

If Bob's publisher had spent even a few thousand on the cover, choosing the right professional for the job, sales would be unquestionably higher and the minimal investment well spent. Much of the audience for the book, I'm assuming, would be Bob's AdAge followers and other media professionals who do indeed have a much more seasoned eye, their initial reaction to the cover would have been lukewarm at best. In the end, why didn't he just call Chip Kidd?

I was very excited when I first heard about Bob's book and wondered deeply why it was released with this most unprofessional cover. Now I know.

Even pre crowdsourcing, finding the cheapest designer and then asking them to further lower their fee was rampant. Both fine artists and graphic designers must constantly deal with the word on the street that artists are hungry, you can always find one willing to work cheap or for free. And these days untold thousands of amateurs and tweens are more than willing to simply for the chance of having their work seen.

I would love to crowdscoursce my medical, dental and legal needs, but the educated professionals involved aren't usually amenable to negotiation. Anyone and everyone thinks they're a designer these days. The idea of it being unfair to not include amateurs is proof that we're a visibly illiterate nation. Compare the level of graphic design one encounters abroad to that in the states. Clients raised in cultures where an educated

I've interviewed many graphic designers over the years. Some excellent designers do spec work. The *best* designers don't go near it. They don't have to or want to.
Over and over again I see people equating "fast and cheap" with "good." Too often it just leads to mediocrity and good work being devalued. Encouraging the crowdsourcing model further degrades the business community's standard of what it means to produce a quality product.

At risk of having a lynch mob of designers show up on my doorstep, I wish Bob had raised the question of whether this is a matter of the market playing catch-up. As Mr. Samson discussed, his site provides a marketplace for small design jobs, certainly not for larger scale contracts. So maybe the price of "traditional" design work - which didn't lend itself to small jobs as well as this new model - was overly inflated for quick logo designs, etc.?

As far as the labor ethics go, Bob really seemed to victimize the designers/writers, who I think certainly understand what they're getting themselves into as they prepare their crowdspring submissions. Mr. Samson's assertion that his service doesn't compete with traditional "1-to-1" models may be debatable, but no one is being forced into anything here.

I cringed when I heard Mike Samson interviewed. If you substitute the word "drugs" for "crowdsourcing" he made all the same arguments as the neighborhood playground drug dealer. "Well, there's a market out there, someone's going to meet the need, it may as well be us.

Market? For free exploitative labor? You bet! Nike did it by buying child labor in China. But that doesn't make it right.

his quote that he had 64,000 members and AIGA only a fraction is a red herring. Yeah, there are starving Bulgarians trying to make a buck, but rewarding the system just keeps them starving.

But, alas, this is the way the free market works don't it?

We're still busy, jammed in fact, with clients that want the real thing, by real professionals who come to us extremely dissatisfied with the "free" stuff they get online. Call me I'll give you the details.

Totally unbalanced look at this issue- we expect better from you folks!

Samson's faulty logic is on display when he likened the time a creative professional would take to do spec work to the time it would take that professional to deliver a proposal. Wrong! By posting a finished creative project you've given away your talents. By delivering a proposal you've done just that, delivered a proposal.

It's alarming to see this trend of asking professionals to give away their services. the crowd in the cloud is turning the creative process into a commodity

Somebody else said it better: "Spec = asking the world to have sex with you and promising a dinner date to one lucky winner."— Jeffrey Zeldman
http://www.no-spec.com/

Why was there no perspective from any designers on this show? We only got to hear Crowdspring trying to justify their exploitation of designers & the design industry by taking part in spec work, the terrible payments awarded to the "winners", and lowering bar for everyone involved. I was quite disappointed in this story.