Crowd-sourcing 2.0

Smartcompany’s recent interview with Alec Lynch at DesignCrowd shows a welcome change in direction for the crowd-sourcing model that has been growing in prevalence within design circles.

Shifting from a traditional “design competition” format where designers pitch ideas to client organisations (ie. competition hosts), Design Crowd has introduced a new (optional) model where specific designers can be invited to submit concepts and be paid a small fee. From a professional designer stand-point, this is a step in the right direction.

It’s my view that if a business needs design work done, they must pay a designer to do so. All we have to sell is our time – so why spend it on work that has no guarantee of financial reimbursement?

Less experienced and younger designers can fall into the trap of pitching free (or close-to) concepts in the hope the client will notice them, and possibly contract them for more work. This does a disservice to the designer and the design profession because it embeds an expectation within client organisations that design is of little or no financial value – when in reality, good design can contribute substantially to business growth, strategic success, profitability and sustainability.

Yet, Crowd Sourcing 2.0 is not enough. Companies like Design Crowd need to completely discard the original “1.0″ version of crowd-sourcing because it undermines the very reason companies seek professional design in the first place. Why should a professional designer try to help a company expand their business, update their brand or otherwise provide design assistance if they themselves cannot grow their own business or put food on their own table?

Entrepreneurs wishing to harness the power of professional design need to understand it’s real value and learn how to apply design strategically to their business. A company that invests intelligently in professional design has the potential of tapping into virtually limitless opportunities within their markets. The proof? An RMIT study in 2008 showed that over 75% of Australia’s Fast100 start-up companies used professional design to fuel their growth and achieve their strategic aims.

(By way of clarification, Design Crowd appears to focus on the graphic design / branding / logo area of design, whereas I am personally more interested in product design. Admittedly, these areas of design are very distinct and at this time, I’m not aware of any significant efforts in the online community (other than perhaps Elance) to utilise crowd-sourcing 1.0 within product design. That said, the impacts of crowd-sourcing have the potential of affecting the livelihoods of all designers).

It’s understandable that companies want to minimise their risk and financial investment through the use of crowd-sourcing and other free-pitching models. For them, there is no guarantee that their chosen designer will have the expertise or experience, and the crowd-sourcing approach may also feel like a “quick and easy fix” to a design problem(s) that the company doesn’t have the time or resources to solve or manage.

However, taking a hands-off approach to design is perilous to say the least. Companies need to remain focused, in control and responsible for the outcomes of their design investment, just as their chosen designer must push themselves to the absolute limit to provide solutions that address their client’s needs.

I’m all for a world where more designers are involved in helping companies succeed in their chosen markets. The more that Design can be used to solve problems, improve functionality, reduce costs, optimise environmental impacts and increase profitability (any much more), the less we (as a society) will have to deal with unwanted, wasteful, poor quality products which frustrate users, choke landfills and deplete our natural resources.

If Crowd-sourcing 2.0 provides the first step in achieving these goals – great! Let’s just make sure the designer’s skill, talent and financial value is acknowledged in the process.

Please share your thoughts below.