Wednesday, September 1, 2010

common design crap

i recently came across this little bit of news via twitter (gotta love the whole tweeting thing) about iStock soon-to-arrive stock logos. are you kidding me, iStock??? how is the whoring of commercialized logo design a positive direction? not only will this give clients/business owners even more credence to purchasing cheap logos in lieu of good valued logos designed from a reputable graphic designer, but it cheapens our field as a whole. so what else is new?

as if we don't have enough to worry about, this just only adds a whole new dimension of people wanting to belittle our field even more.

i've never been against the internet, in fact, i love it. i love the whole social networking idea as a whole—as long as it's not taken out of proportion (mafia wars, anyone?). and i admit, i have even used stock photos for ad campaigns out of sheer urgency and of course, when i can't as a freelance designer, afford to hire a professional photographer myself.

but stock logos? come on. as much as i'd love to admit this is the same thing, it truly isn't. there is a huge difference when needing to hire a photographer for photos and setting up a whole photo session than hiring a graphic designer to design a logo for you. so i ask, how is iStock going to pull this off? will they submit homogenized logos that can be interchangeable and requested by the purchaser? obviously not everybody has the same business name, so how will this work?

apparently iStock will only sell these logos as a one-time gig. meaning quite simply, that once a customer purchases a specific design from their website, that particular logo will no longer be available and will be listed as "sold." ummm...ok.

but here's the catch, for the designer that created the logo, they have to adhere to iStock's copyright policy in order to sell said logo. so for the graphic designer who is creating the logo, how is this a good thing?

seriously? and the customer actually thinks this is worth it? oh, and i forgot to mention that according to iStock's website, they will be selling these logos for a lot more than their average vector or photograph—their reasoning of course being that since it's a one-time deal, it's supposedly unique.

i'm still trying to figure out how this is advantageous for the business than just finding a good, talented graphic designer to sit down and go over your needs for your next logo project, and having that personal creative touch to your logo? no strings attached.

please, someone enlighten me here.

as anybody could imagine, i'm having a really difficult time accepting this new 'trend.' it's bad enough i have been unemployed for several months now due to the economy and let's face it, a saturated design field, but now i'm competing with stock logos online???

this definitely will bring a whole new dimension to graphic design. will it be for the worse or the better? only time will tell, but i'm afraid it won't go away anytime soon. as long as there are customers out there willing to spend money on this shortcut design, then it'll continue to flourish.

for now, i'll just continue to plug away and hope that my clients appreciate good, authentic and personalized graphic design instead of this common design crap.

No comments: