LogoWorks and the Inherent Value of Design

For those who aren’t aware, LogoWorks provides “custom” logo design for extremely cheap prices. The “custom” designation has been challenged since it was discovered that not all logos from LogoWorks are original – some have even infringed on copyrights. It’s not because I think they steal clients away from hardworking design firms – I don’t believe most firms would want the clients that LogoWorks attracts. It’s because a business model such as LogoWorks’ seeks to destroy the inherent value of design, intentionally or not. In doing so, they devalue the product and service of design, devalue the designers they hire to produce that product or service and ultimately devalue the needs and aspirations of their clients.

Whoa. That’s quite a bold statement. Let’s evaluate each of these observations in more detail:

Devaluing the product and service of design.

What is the inherent value of design? First we must understand what design, and what logo design in particular, aims to achieve. A company’s brand is its most valuable investment the logo design is the iconic embodiment of everything a company’s brand promises. It represents and communicates the values, vision and mission of the brand to the intended audience. A logo design intends to do nothing less than absolutely capture the mind of the viewer and demand loyalty to its cause.

In order to confidently design a logo that accomplishes this successfully, one must understand as thoroughly as possible the nature and goals of the brand being communicated as well as the predisposition of the intended audience. This presupposes years of experience and an understanding of the subtleties involved in effective visual communication. It also requires a good deal of research on the part of the design team to ensure that the elements involved in the brand identity come together to communicate effectively.

Like most specialized professions, work of this nature is valued higher than the actual time (read: hourly rate) involved to complete each individual project. This is why most design firms will have a fee based on the individual project specifications and final deliverables, rather than an hourly rate. A market price has been determined by the inherent value of the design, agreed upon and adhered to by the producers and consumers within this system of capitalism. A business with serious aspirations understands this intrinsic value and sees logo design as an investment in the mind-share of its intended audience.

Brand identity design (specifically logo design, in this example) requires such thought, research, creativity and well-honed skill, that to offer such a service for one-tenth of the market price or less assumes that:

#little to no thought, research, creativity or well-honed skill is applied to produce the end product, and/or #the value of the product is not worth contributing or acquiring such skills in order to produce it.

Devaluing designers.

With just a little simple math it is easy to determine the designers who produce for LogoWorks or similar outfits are not getting paid well for their work. It is also easy to ascertain that the designers who are employed (or more accurately, “awarded” -_ see next paragraph_) by these organizations either do not have the skills or experience necessary to create successful logo designs, and/or they have little understanding or respect for what a logo design means and how important it is to a company and their brand.

For example, LogoWorks charges customers between $300 and $800 for a logo design. Their designers (any number from 5-12 are assigned per project) compete to receive $50-$70 if their logo is chosen. Be aware, that price is on the high end – only awarded if you receive the honor of being in the “top tier” of LogoWorks designers. Many only get $25 if their logo is chosen. In the world of design, this is slave labor.

Granted, the designers are just as guilty of devaluing themselves for accepting to work for such abhorrent compensation. So what quality of design “professional” does such a service attract? As a former contributor to LogoWorks, jboy says the following:

“[LogoWorks] is pretty much fully comprised of college students like I used to be just trying to make some cash to pay the bills while getting something in their portfolio at the same time.”- jboy

This makes perfect sense, although many designers attracted to such work are not likely to be in it for the money at all (because there isn’t any money in it – not really). They are likely only interested in building a portfolio of work and will jump at any opportunity to prove themselves in the world of design so they can one day become a successful designer.

LogoWorks’ web site claims that they work with “only highly qualified and experienced designers,” however, in order to be profitable, a business model such as LogoWorks’ cannot afford authentic, skilled working designers because such professionals simply don’t work for horrendous wages. Knowledgeable and honest designers recognize the value of design and realize that contributing their work to “logo farms” only harms the industry as a whole. Secondly, although LogoWorks claims to use in-house designers, the vast majority of their designers are freelancers working through a back-end system called “Arteis” (also purchased by HP). LogoWorks is simply the public face of the logo design engine. Perhaps when they say in-house, they are referring to the college kids in their dorm rooms, trying to earn enough to buy some more Top Ramen.

A model such as LogoWorks’ breeds unethical practices amongst its designers. Again, this is simply economics and math at work; it is a systemic outgrowth that is easily predictable. Designers that are competing for work and only awarded a maximum of $50-70 for their time and skills are naturally prone to take shortcuts. Allegations have been raised, and rightfully so, over LogoWorks’ designers appropriating existing logo designs and subtly modifying them for the use of the assignment. To my knowledge, LogoWorks has no effective system in place to check submitted logo designs for possible copyright infringement and there are numerous instances of logos being accepted that are strikingly similar to previously existing designs for other companies.

By offering such miniscule compensation for a highly valued knowledge and skill, LogoWorks ends up filtering out those designers with well-earned experience and skill in favor of those without. Granted, some of their designers may have talent, and a very few may actually have experience, but the question remains – would you put your company’s brand identity in the hands of a group of designers, of which only one will get paid up to $50 for his/her time, and most of which are probably woefully inexperienced? If you feel uncomfortable with that idea, then you may intuitively understand what I mean when I refer to the inherent value of design.

Devaluing the needs and aspirations of clients.

LogoWorks and similar organizations target a specific market – small business owners and/or individuals with very little capital and little to no knowledge of Branding (I’m referring to the architecture and structure of a brand, how a brand differentiates itself from other brands, in addition to the visual components used to communicate the brand identity). Whether they realize it or not, this market is as much in need of the inherent value of a successful brand identity as any of the global corporations we interact with everyday.

“A good brand versus a bad brand isn’t a brand you love versus a brand you hate. The opposite of a good brand is a meaningless, undifferentiated brand – an empty shell without idea or substance. A weak and ineffective brand.” - Bill Schley and Carl Nichols, Jr.

Of all the tools used to quickly communicate the essence of a brand and its promise, the logo is probably the most important. If a logo is “an empty shell without idea or substance,” an audience will recognize this and brand the company or organization accordingly. Organizations such as LogoWorks disservice their own clients by placing the responsibility of designing such an important element of a company’s brand in the hands of the inexperienced. The end result can be devastating and costly.

What is most interesting to me is how LogoWorks itself isn’t completely immune to its own systemic faults. By failing to recognize the inherent value of brand identity design, they have unleashed a Pandora’s Box of unforeseen consequences. Designers recognize LogoWorks’ folly and struggle ever harder to educate the public about the importance of thoughtful, strategic brand design. Meanwhile we (meaning designers as a whole) see many dissatisfied LogoWorks clients come to us for help in redesigning what has turned out for them to be that “empty shell” we tried warning them about.

The other side.

It is only fair to recognize, in this admittedly one-sided blog post, that LogoWorks has a good number of happy customers under its belt. It wouldn’t be in business, and HP certainly wouldn’t have taken enough interest to acquire it, otherwise. A few of these clients may find long-term success with their new, cheap logo. The numbers allow for a few people to get lucky, and not every LogoWorks designer will miss the mark entirely. For the rest, I wonder if their satisfaction is akin to the amateur aviator who builds a plane and for the first test flight takes off from a high cliff. As he soars through the air he exclaims in delight, “I’m flying! I’m flying!” for at such a height it is hard to perceive how fast the ground is approaching.

Posted on December 15, 2007 by Michael Olson in Logo Design, Design Ethics.