Round 4 is in session. It is Friday the 13th, but with the new designs, I can’t help but to be optimistic.

There is something I want to share that might not have been obvious from the onset of this competition. In order for the process to be interesting to watch, I encouraged all the designers to post initial ideas and not to make them too developed. While it may be unusual to show a client (in this case STEP) your first concepts, it shows a side of design that we usually don’t share with the rest of the world. We have put it all on the line and have been rewarded and shot down at the same time. Of course we knew this would happen, but it still stings a bit. It has been a learning process. Now that we are past half way, the designs are gelling better and adhering to the design brief a little closer. While we have been instructed to make our designs “provocative” and “unexpected”, it might have been a little late for this round to see the results. We will let you be the judge of that.

TEAM 1:

After some fairly positive reactions, we’ve decided to see if some tweaks to our proud little porker will put him in the winner’s circle.

First off, we’ve shortened both the snout and the body of our goofy little champion… hopefully making him more piggy.

Second, instead of retreating from the “wallpaper” concept, we’ve employed it literally. This establishes a bit more dimensionality, without complicating it too much. A smaller pig-print on the wallpaper also creates a greater sense of contrast for our pig to pop - visually. The wallpaper creates an interesting secondary metaphor.

Last, we’ve cleaned up some alignments within the headlines.

And there’s our fourth round. We’re hoping Emily begins to like the whimsy of our happy little hog, and that Michael finds that the details have packed a punch, or maybe even a standing-eight count to our opponents.

TEAM 2:

For this round, I lost the STEP shapes and put the photos in a grid. I know I initially said that was a bad idea, but you be the judge. I wanted to make one last attempt to have “100” photos within the masthead, but this time I tried not to make the masthead invisible. I made room for the cover lines. My headline is “A Collection of 2005’s Best Design.” Hopefully the “collection” idea connects our photo collection with the 100 designs inside even more firmly. Above and below the headline I spelled out “One Hundred” with photos of each letter. For now, I used Spell With Flickr, but I would like to use photos from our BA photo pool. We need more photos, so everyone continue to add your pictures to Be A Design Group’s photo pool.

TEAM 3:

Please open our cover image from above. If you still need to read this, then we still have some work to do. If the cover sells it with no explanation, you may skip ahead to Team 4.

…

You’re back? Dang.

Okay, my teammate actually used the words “jumping the shark” when describing our last round. While we were in love with the visual style, we had, in fact, lost our way. This round is about getting Stella’s grove back.

A lot of people wanted a safe-door, which is a bit of an easy answer (safe-door/magazine cover). The idea of a simple and direct communication with the viewer stuck in my head and I wanted to find a more direct way to say lock. The simple combination padlock provided the perfect answer: A recognizable visual symbol with a complicated locking mechanism requiring multiple steps to undo that reveals something of value. A normal Master Lock combination lock has 40 digits leading to a possible 64,000 combinations (if my math is right). Our lock (as shown) has more than 262,000.

The ‘combination’ we are discussing is the combination of elements of any design project. From budgets to type and everything in between. And the secret to the cover is dialing in the right combination of elements to create a truly groundbreaking piece of design.

The lock is turned to the open pages of the magazine, “locking” its secrets (because just showing a lock on the cover serves nothing). It also makes a killer visual. We thought, “why stop there?” and devised a die-cut/fold-over front cover (see diagram) that would wrap around and actually lock the magazine when secured with “booger glue” to the back cover. It’s not that we’re locking it, it’s that we’re asking our readers to unlock it, thereby taking part in the concept.

We would move the individual cutlines to the fold-over part of the front cover in order to keep the graphic punch of the lock image at its most startling for maximum impact on the shelf. For the same reason, we’ve kept the stark black/white/red color pallet.

TEAM 4:

I knew that the only way we were going to get our trends cover to be understood in three seconds, as a comment from Eric mentioned last round being the first of the three magical threes, was to write a great headline. In the process of talking to a copywriter that owed me a favor, I had to first explain what the entire magazine, and the Design 100 was about—then it struck me—why are we focusing on the secondary story about trends in this issue, why not focus on the greatest selling point of the Design 100, that they actually interview everyone who gets in the Design 100? This is why I would buy this magazine over the award issue from someone else that is right next to it on the shelf.

The comments had been positive about the colors of the first two rounds and the spiral shape, so I brought them back, but as a background element. The focus is now all about the fact that “Design 100 Speaks! (are you listening?)”. And as a warning to my teammate: if you bring back Rosewood in round five, I will remove it in the final round.

Comments (29)

JonSel said:

Team 1: I like this cover for its whimsy. That pig is kinda cute and funny. Who wouldn’t want to take that home? I like the little touch of the peeling wallpaper on the far left side as well. I keep looking at all the little tiny pigs to see if there’s anything hidden in there. I don’t know if there should be, but I keep looking.

If I had anything negative to say on this one, it would be that it’s not really telling us much beyond that it’s the Design 100 issue. Maybe that’s not so wrong. I would think an annual would be an easier sell. I know, personally, that if I’m only going to buy a magazine 2 or 3 times a year, the annual is always one of those issues.

Team 2: I’m afraid you’ve lost your way here. Visually, it lacks the mystery and intrigue that previous versions had. Is there a way to regain that while still allowing some room for cover lines? Have you tried ditching the 100 theme altogether and found another image or images that might be better? I think you had a great visual that just needed to be pushed to bring in a tighter concept.

Team 3: Back on track here. Instead of focusing on production tricks, I’d think more about the choice of copy in the lock itself. I think there’s great room for some humor to be thrown in. Think of all the things designers try, thinking, “Ah, this will make it an award winner!” Big type! Letterpress! Rosewood! (Sorry, team 4…I had to.) Fancy die cut! There are many numbers on a lock, but only 3 of them actually open the thing. There could be a similar parallel drawn. I also really like the red palette. It’s quite striking.

The downside is that the cover seems rather passive. There’s no movement and it feels somewhat flat.

Team 4: I see the previous round as a last gasp to salvage a concept that wasn’t going very far. Good to recognize when it’s time to eat it and refocus. I like putting a focus on the fact that every winner is interviewed. I’m not sure if I love the execution yet. The copy lines aren’t fitting very well into the speech bubbles. Is the orange spiral necessary still? I think this bears some more exploration now.

Posted on January 13, 2006

Team3, Member 1 said:

Oh yeah, Rosewood’s on there. We’ll work to finalize the copy for next round and post it in a readable format. But yes, Rosewood and weathered textures (and kittens!) are definitely on there.

Stephanie said:

Wow..Now this is more like it. You have all stepped up to the challenge. I looked at where they started and where they are now and I can’t wait to see where they are two more rounds from now.

Team 1: Nice use of piggy wallpaper. I showed my husband this one and he almost laughed out loud at Design Chops. What pms colors are you working with? I’d like to see what the actual salmon color looks like.

Team 2 : This is much better. Having the “100” photos within the masthead is a lot more readable. Though it still feels a bit cluttered and it is really hard to know what to look at. I like the spelling out of ONE HUNDRED but again it gets lost in the other pictures.

Team 3 : I love the die-cut/fold-over front cover. Interaction with design is almost always a winner for me as long as it is done well. I just hope it is within budget to do something like that. The only other thing is I didn’t see the image as a combo lock, I saw it as an eye.

Team 4 : I wonder did you take the aeon flux comment seriously? I like this new fast sketch look. I almost feel like it is actually moving and that it wants to talk to me. It says open me I have lots to say. Now that you have changed the teal to be a background color with texture it is not as bad. I’m not sure if the (Are you listening?) comment is in direct response to, The Design Speaks comment. Maybe you can make them relate to each other better. It also seems redundant to have the text above and below say it interviews all 00 design winners.

Eric Heiman said:

And in a mid-to-late surge, Number 3 pulls neck in neck with number 1! I like the idea of the die-cut, though the wrap around might be enough. (Does it actually WRAP around the whole magazine? I also hope you are talking to Masterfile about crowding their back cover space!) Even if you can’t get the wraparound cover, the idea is a good one. Not so sure about Trajan? Hoefler text? all-cap, knocked out of a process build little type, if you really want people to read it. (I think you do.)

Number 2 still doesn’t do much for me, but to each their own. It certainly has some clever/formal appeal, though this current incarnation still needs a lot of work, and not sure about the one hundred being spelled out. Feels a little desparate and ends up diluting the original idea.

Number 4 is a good concept—the designs actually “speaking”—but the execution leaves little to be desired at this point. But bully to you for knowing when to move on to a new idea.

You’re a brave bunch to put these out there and let us dissect them.

As presented this round, the excess area from the front cover would fold inside the magazine and contain the cutlines in red and reversed out on black. Only the die-cut “lock” would wrap around to the back cover.

mamachristy said:

Ding! Ding! Ding! Team 3: THIS is what I was waiting for. I thought you’d lost your way the last round, but you have redeemed yourselves!

Team 2: I was sad to see the STEP design removed from the cover completely but I really like the photos inside the masthead type.

L-Fo said:

I agree with some of the comments here. Team three is the leader for me but only by a nose (or snout) over team one. I like the much simplified straight forward approach of the lock and the wraparound is quite interesting, but maybe too labor intensive for mass production and Eric makes a good point of losing back cover ad space.

Initially I liked the idea from team 2 but I think it is losing steam. I still do not think the STEP logo pops like the other submissions. Team 4 has made a good decision to go a different direction, but this seems a little Dr. Seuss-ish to me. Maybe it is still in sketch form and will be rendered differently, which may possibly help.

Overall this has been an extremely fun post to follow the progress. Keep it up!

Gus Venditto said:

I believe that I posted my comments about round 3 about 2 minutes before this final round was posted.

I really like the tipsy trophy as an illustration but have doubts about whether it says the right thing for the cover. While I still love the little pig, I would need to see some stats about other covers doing well at the newsstand before this one flies.

After a short glance, I am inclined to stick with my picks from round 3 — team 3’s decoder ring and team 4’s swirly timeline. But I wait to hear what Emily and Mike think. And I always take time before making a decision. I try to never go with the first impression. Even though the first goal is to get someone’s attention, you also want them to follow through and pony up the cash. So it has to be more than just an attention-grabber.

I am sorry I came in late and only with such visceral reactions. While I didn’t intend it to be this way — I suppose this is pretty much typical of a real world selection process… somewhat haphazard and always a little uncertain at the very end.

Gus Venditto — editor-in-chief, Jupitermedia Corp.

Michael Ulrich said:

Before you read my comments if you haven’t read Gus Venditto’s [ the final post of Round Three ] please do that now.

Team 1: In my Round Three post I asked if there were any other pix that would drive the concept home better. This pig makes me laugh but appears unfinished.

Team 2: I agree with JonSel. I think you’ve lost your way. Perhaps because my Round Three post was vague. I liked your Round Three design—except it needed a strong concept cover line in the upper LEFT corner. Round Four looks like you gave up.

Team: 3: What happened to “Unlocking Design Secrets” and the cover lines? Plus this doesn’t look like a lock dial to me. Too complicated—too many things on the dial. As Gus stated in his Round Three post to Team 4 “It [ puts ] a burden on the text; once readers start looking at it, you want them to feel they can’t put it down “, and I stated in my Round Two post to Team 4 “the pay off has to be in what you read” . We need an image that is engaging [compells the newsstand browser to pick it up ] and text on the dial/decoder ring that hooks them. I don’t think a statement of the obvious like “local client”, “regional client”, etc. is enough.

Team 4: I like this, but I wish you hadn’t given up on Trends. It was a different concept from the others, and it had potential. Simply stating WHAT the reader will get [ 100 winners ] isn’t enough. Every design magazine has an annual, so tell the newsstand browser WHY they need to buy this magazine—trends is a vaild hook. I really liked the spiral too, it was visually interesting. But as Gus stated eariler “It [ puts ] a burden on the text; once readers start looking at it, you want them to feel they can’t put it down ” As with Team 3 stating the obvious won’t work.

To all the teams: To use a really [ really ] bad fishing analogy; The cover image is the bait. The cover lines are the hook. Just as bait has to appeal to a fish, the image has to appeal enough to our target audience that they pick our magazine out of hundreds, and just as the hook has to be sharp and strong enough to not let go of the fish, the cover lines…blah, blah blah. I told you it was bad.

[ P.S. the editorial content is the line and pole ]

ChrisM70 said:

TEAM #1: I think I like the look of Round 3 better. The previous design felt like the big piggy had been deemed “the chosen one” from all of the other pigs (the ones behind him).

Now, the pigs behind him aren’t pigs at all - they are just a pattern on a wall - what’s the significance of that? Plus, I think the blank area in front of the wall is awkward.

Even with all of that said, this design is probably still my favorite.

Like with team 1, I preferred your design from the previous round. The new design is too boxy, and doesn’t have the energy that the other design had. I know that you have to find room for cover copy, but perhaps their is a way to create a odd shaped space in between the STEP letterforms where the copy could fit?

TEAM 3: I really like this new design - a HUGE improvement over the last round, and has the energy of the original pencil sketch. I like the transparent gears, yet how clean the design is - personally, that’s what draws me in - that, and the red color scheme. However, copy will need to be added, correct? Hopefully, if you can keep that simple modern look, this could still be a winner.

For whatever reason, this design doesn’t click with me. I did like the orange/aqua colors from round 2. I do like the idea behind the cover - because that’s what would sell the magazine to me too - the interviews. Is the illustration just a rough sketch, or is this it? If this is the final artwork, I don’t care for it. I think the ugly teeth and scribbles make the trophy unappealing. I do like the concept A LOT - and if you could “class it up” then this could be a strong contender.

I hope that my comments are constructive and that this helps in some way.

Keep going!

Jake said:

First of all I just want to say that you guys are doing an amazing job with the STEP cover designs. The way you are posting about this is exactly what I love about blogs and I wish more designers would do this. I mean myself included. You have taken the brief and broken it down. Each team is doing a great job of explaining their directions and why they are heading there. I think EVERY designer that has a blog should be reading this blog. This series is powerful stuff and really does amazing things with discussions. Keep up the great work and boy I wish I had paid attention to this earlier.

Now for what I think about the covers…

T1 - I think you guys really improved on your message. I know a lot of people were not sure about your message regarding competitions but I think it’s a VERY IMPORTANT message. One that we can’t talk enough about. The pig is definitely eye catching and I agree that illustration will make it even more so. With so many covers out there, this one is sure to grab attention.

T2 - I love your involvement of the graphic community in your cover. I always find these type of photos compelling. I guess it comes from my love of the part of the game Cranium that has the photos and you have to figure out what they really are. I was doing that on your last cover. This one is not so much that way but it still does a great job of giving a community feel. The graphic arts community need to stick together and grow strength. This does a great job of saying that. Honestly this one is my pick and has been since round 2. Great job Team 2!

T3 - I think your concept is really good. You convey the complexity of design with that idea. I just don’t know if having to absorb that much info right away is working for me. I realize you do have to do that with T2’s cover but for some reason I think the photos sink in faster. Maybe because I don’t have to read as much. I still think its a great cover. However I think it would be more compelling as a poster. Where people can stand there and really absorb what it is saying. There is a lot to it. I am just not sure covers are looked at long enough to make this design really make a visual difference. I do think your color choice is good. There is just something about locks that seem dark. Maybe it’s the fact that they are “hiding” something.

T4 - I think you guys did a great job with the title. It works great. The visual impact of the illustration compliments it well. I think, just like T1, the illustration will just make people more aware of it on a shelf of all photo type covers. I think the illustration is a bit rough for my taste but that just a very personal opinion. I think it “speaks” loudly the message you wish to convey.

Posted on January 14, 2006

Kathy said:

I know this comment is a bit late, but I feel the need to express my disappointment with Team 1. When I first saw the illustrated pig cover, I liked it and thought it was cute. Until 5 minutes ago, when I saw the exact same illustration for sale at istock.com for $5.

FIVE DOLLARS.

Are you kidding me? What does this say about the state of illustration today, when a $5 royalty-free image is considered OK for using on the cover of a major design magazine? Don’t get me wrong—I’m not criticizing the illustration itself. I’m just wondering why professional designers whose last podcast criticized working on spec, think it’s OK to pay $5 for an illustration that graces the cover of a magazine that will be widely circulated and garner a lot of attention.

Nowhere was credit given to Simon Oxley for his work ( http://www.idokungfoo.com/ ). I had originally assumed that the illustration was created specifically for the cover. Obviously I was wrong. Here’s what I want to know—Is it OK for designers to take someone else’s illustration, add a few details (like a blue ribbon) and call it their own?

In the initial STEP-OFF post you stated: “The design blog world (BADG included) has been pretty harsh on STEP covers, and I think it is time we throw something original into the mix instead of just criticizing (not that we won’t do that as well). We hope you enjoy this process and we think that it will be an interesting process to watch.”

Hmmm… you’re right. It is VERY interesting to see what passes for originality these days. Designing a cover for a magazine like STEP is a rare opportunity. It should be valued enough to be worth the extra effort it takes to design something truly unique, always keeping in mind giving credit to those who deserve it.

Posted on March 8, 2006

Adrian said:

I did a little searching to find the illustration Kathy is referencing. Here is a direct link to it: http://www.istockphoto.com/filecloseup/how/styleanddesign/illustrations/904798piglet_vector.php?id=904798

Bennett said:

Kathy, Thanks for the comment. I need to get all the facts from Drew before I make any judgment on this situation.

Here is a link to the illustration that I think she is referring to.

Posted on March 9, 2006

I am referring to the image Bennett posted. I should have linked to it in my original post.

Nate Voss said:

STONE.

COLD.

BUSTED.

I’d just like to point out that my team’s losing cover was 100% original, homegrown artwork. And we still lost.

Nate, You beat the cover we are talking about, so I’m not sure what this has to do with you “still” losing.

No sir. Just the first losers over here.

Anyway, fine, here’s what I’m talking about: Having original art didn’t make our design more fit than Team 1’s to be on the cover. They both were not selected. So stock image or original image makes no difference in the end product in this case. It’s the idea and the execution. And if a part of the execution is stock (‘good’ stock) or not, what difference does it make to the end viewer? Spotting stock images is fun for designers, but to the guy on the street it’s just “haven’t I seen that someplace before?” Sorry I wasn’t more clear, I just thought it was funny.

Have you rendered judgement yet?

Drew Davies said:

This issue hardly feels like it requires explanation, but I’ll note my thoughts here to make it clear that we’re not hiding anything or running from anything.

I, Drew Davies, selected the pig illustration for the third round of our STEP Off cover. It is indeed stock illustration, done by a very good illustrator, Simon Oxley. It was selected because it perfectly conveyed the conceptual and visual feel that I was looking for. There is nothing wrong, inappropriate, unethical or unoriginal about what I did.

Using stock imagery is a regular, common, completely acceptable practice. Do I wish that every project had the budget and timeline to hire professional photographers and/or illustrators? You’re darn right I do. I know a lot of great illustrators I’d love to give thousands of dollars for original creations. But all of us know that doesn’t always happen.
I wasn’t aware that the only judge we now use for the quality or value of something is the price. The fact that this piece of stock illustration only cost $5 is a reflection on the budget of the project (zero), not on the quality of the final product. (Simon Oxley could be selling his work for a lot more than five bucks.) But, keeping that in mind, I’ll be sure not to evaluate the next piece of design I see until I hear what the final bill to the client was.
Nate Voss suggested that his team’s losing cover was 100% original homegrown artwork. But if you look back at their Round 3 submission, you’re going to see something different. What’s the difference between found woodcut clipart and stock illustration? One’s out of copyright, so it’s free. There’s no other difference. Both of these are completely acceptable avenues, so long as they’re appropriate to the goals and audience of the piece.
You can rest assured that Simon Oxley would have been given more than appropriate credit had our cover won. I believe very strongly in giving credit where it’s due. Indeed, all of the pertinent information on Simon and the illustration was given to STEP even for the publishing of the thumbnail of our cover.
Kathy, I have no idea how you’re drawing a connection between using stock illustration and my discussions on spec work. But I’ll continue to engage in lively debate on either if you care to clarify your thinking.

Posted on March 10, 2006

Drew, I don’t doubt that you believe you did nothing wrong, but I am still disappointed to learn that the pig was stock. I wish you would have explained that it was stock when you first put him on the cover. It would have been interesting to hear what everybody thought about it, then. Obviously, not every designer is as comfortable with stock images as you are. If I were STEP, I would avoid using stock images on the covers at all costs. But, that’s just me, and I really try to avoid stock images whenever possible. When I do use stock images, it is usually a last resort, and I almost always feel guilty about it.

Drew, No you didn’t do anything illegal, but I still wish you would have let everyone know during the process. One major point of this experiment was to share our complete process with the world. That was my goal anyway. I for one, feel a little bit fooled into thinking that you illustrated the pig. Even if you don’t think you did anything wrong, it might help to think about how your actions will be perceived next time. Sometimes it’s not about what you can and can’t do, but what you should do.

I know you are very ethical in your business and your design life. I don’t think you are a shady character. I still feel that using stock in this case was a missed opportunity to show off your own illustrating and design skills. On this issue, I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

What’s the difference between found woodcut clipart and stock illustration?

Team 3 (Nate & Paul) illustrated with clipart on Round 3 (obvious to everyone) and you used an almost intact stock illustration (no one knew). It is the difference between sampling from other music or just doing a remake of someone else’s song. Neither are necessarily wrong, but there is a difference.

Except that sampling music without paying royalties is wrong. In this case, however, I’m sure Drew paid his $5. Also, Adrian, with all due respect man, I would choose Drew’s stock art pig over your nipple photo.

Bennett and Adrian,

I’m sorry you feel misled. But designers are using photography and illustration constantly to make their work more effective, some of it custom and some of it stock. I’d say it’s dangerous to assume in any case that a photo or illustration you see on a particular piece was created by the same person who designed the piece. Indeed, I would venture a guess that more often than not, the designer did not create the illustration or photograph.

Also, Bennett, your assertion that this is different than Team 3’s use of illustration is flimsy at best. Theirs is different because it’s “obvious to everyone” that it was stock? Just because you recognize something as stock makes it okay to use? I might argue the opposite. Theirs was okay whereas ours was not because they altered their source more than we did? Could you tell me where that line is, so that next time I can stay on the right side of it?

Finally, I take great exception to your suggestion that this was a “missed opportunity to show off my own illustrating skills”. I’m sorry, but I actually thought it was an oppotunity to present the best solution to a problem, not to show off. We are designers, not illustrators. Many of us have some illustration skills that may work in certain instances; but we all need to have the wisdom to understand when our skills are not right for the situation. The style in which I personally illustrate was not appropriate for this scenario. It would have “shown off” my skills, but would not have been the best solution to this problem.

I love it when people think that just because they say “with all due respect” they can rip on somebody without it being an insult. Nate, with all due respect, I will let it slide because you are (insert counter insult here). Anyway, back to the real issue…

Back to the real issue … We could argue the finer point for days, but I think this boils down to one issue. Transparency. This was a process and not a finished piece. The STEP Off was about sharing the process with the viewing audience. You left everyone out of one of the biggest decisions of the process … The decision to go with stock illustration. I’m still not sure why you didn’t share this with everyone, especially since you have nothing to hide.

I also don’t assume anything about a finished piece I come across. You shouldn’t assume that I assume about every piece just because I made one assumption about your design. That is also dangerous. This was very different than experiencing a finished piece of design. I think the BADG reading audience should feel a little cheated that they didn’t really experience the entire process you went through. At least Kathy, Adrian and I do.

heidi Mihelich said:

Here’s what I think the real issue is: y’all liked the piggy cover just fine until you found out that it was stock. i think that sounds a little snobbish.

Drew, For the record: I don’t have a big problem with stock photography or illustration. I do use it at times, and for me that wasn’t what this was about.

Let me just say that this isn’t a big deal and I’m sorry if I blew it out of proportion. I do believe you that this was never an issue for you and I respect that. It didn’t sit well with me and I had to make that known. This isn’t a huge issue, just a disagreement. That is what blogs are all about. This was a weird situation and one we will most likely never encounter again. Maybe the fact that I never had a doubt that it came from your hand shows that you did an excellent job of picking out the illustration.

I agree that using stock photography and illustration is perfectly legal, ethical and common practice. My complaint was never the quality of the illustration itself. I liked the pig, and still like the pig. I do, however, think that there should have been a mention somewhere in the process that gave credit to the illustrator.

The situation raised a lot of questions for me. I was curious if there was any communication with Simon Oxley about the project. As an illustrator, I would like to know if one of my illustrations was being considered for the cover of STEP. Maybe he would have liked to make the modifications to the illustration himself? Then, if that cover had then been chosen, it would have truly been a representation of his work. I’m not sure how I would feel if I walked into my local bookstore and saw a modified version of one of my illustrations on the cover of STEP. Most likely, I’d be jumping up and down screaming with excitement, but I also think I’d be just a little resentful that my input hadn’t been considered. Who knows? Maybe Simon Oxley may have had an idea for a new illustration that would have fit your concept and, if used, would not be made available as stock. Would it be more expensive? Maybe. But it would be worth it.

It’s also possible that the illustrator might reduce his standard fee. After all, you were willing to work on the cover for no pay in the hopes that your design was chosen.

My problem with the royalty-free stock in this case is that it could show up anywhere. As a reader, when I pick up a STEP issue featuring top designers, I expect the cover design to be something fresh, new and unique. In my opinion, that includes the idea and the imagery. I buy design magazines to be inspired. Other people feel differently and that’s fine.

Now, let me explain the connection I made between spec work and stock. In this, I am referring specifically to istock.com. With istock, the illustrator makes an image without any compensation in the hopes that someone will choose it for use in a project. The illustrator only gets paid if someone downloads the image for a price of 1, 3, or 5 dollars. So if you spend 3 hours on an illustration and no one downloads the image, you get no money. Isn’t this the similar to working on spec? The image we are talking about has been downloaded 5 times at a cost of $5, making a total of $25 (not sure if istock.com takes a percentage of that). If he spent 2 hours (could be more or less) working on it, that would be $12.50/hour. How much do you as a designer charge for your hourly rate?

Of course, the decision to sell on istock.com is completely voluntary, and no one can blame designers for taking advantage of a great deal. I’m just personally frustrated by the fact that, even when designing for an audience of designers and illustrators, you chose to go the $5 route instead of paying a price that would more adequately compensate the illustrator’s time. But now I’m drifting into a completely different matter for debate.

Posted on March 11, 2006

Be A Design Group

Be A Design Group

BE A DESIGN GROUP is an invitation to all people to participate in design. It is a place where designers can test new ideas, share observations, and comment on cultural trends. Our definition of design is intentionally broad so that the subject matter of our posts can be diverse and unlimited.

STEP Off: Round 4

by Bennett Holzworth, (29 comments)

TEAM 1:

TEAM 2:

TEAM 3:

TEAM 4:

Sponsored by:

Comments (29)

JonSel said:

Team3, Member 1 said:

Stephanie said:

Eric Heiman said:

Team 3, Member 1 said:

mamachristy said:

L-Fo said:

Gus Venditto said:

Michael Ulrich said:

ChrisM70 said:

Jake said:

Kathy said:

Adrian said:

Bennett said:

Kathy said:

Nate Voss said:

Bennett said:

Nate Voss said:

Drew Davies said:

Adrian said:

Bennett said:

Nate Voss said:

Drew Davies said:

Adrian said:

Bennett said:

heidi Mihelich said:

Bennett said:

Kathy said:

Post a comment