I'm sorry we freaked out a bunch of people in the design community by running a contest to redo our homepage. There might have been a right way to do this thing, but we didn't do it the right way.
The discussion that unfolded on QBN and elsewhere brought out a lot of strong feelings and raised a number of issues. I'm still sorting through them, but the one that's gotten to me is this:
While some people don't like us and never did ("i've always hated Aquent" was one profanity-free way of putting it), there are a number of people who view us as a company that "gets it" and, at least to a certain extent, as a partner who is on the side of designers and the profession. These folks were more than let down by this contest - they were hurt by it. In their eyes, as they wrote, it was a "slap in the face."
To those people in particular, I apologize.
A wise man once said, "People care more about bad feelings than they do about bad outcomes." I believe that the discussion this has generated, and our response to it, will ultimately have a positive effect on the "outcome" front.
I'm hoping that this apology is a step in the right direction on the feelings front.
Matt,
If Aquent is interested in saving face... I would hope that someone there is at this moment thinking of ways to engage with their talent pool in a meaningful way that refreshes the relationship beyond a bit of dodgy damage control on the internet forums. Maybe a contest to see how Aquent shows their appreciation to designers? I bet a lot of people would weigh in on that.
Thanks for the comment on my blog here's one in kind :)
I fear that for the QBNers the damage may already be done, however if needs must I'm sure many hungry designers will still use your services.
The issue of Spec' work - which your situation has fallen under, is often raised and many people seem to think its part of how we work, however the other 50% of people (myself included) will continue to campaign against such processes as ultimately for small companies, it can quickly become a massive drain on resources with little financial gain.
While I understand that "damage" has been done, I also believe that this damage is not irreparable and, in fact, it seemed that stopping the contest was viewed fairly positively.
I'm not convinced that "spec" work was the real issue. I wasn't and we don't advocate spec work and I am well aware of the AIGA's position on it. I think that contests like this fall in a grey area, and that in fact there are ways to do them that would not have seemed so provocative. I was sorry that I ventured into that grey area and that people read so much into our decision to do so.
I think that one of the primary issues is that the design community feels beleaguered by changes happening in the industry (as they have since the advent of desktop publishing), that some considered Aquent an ally in this struggle, and that they then viewed this contest as a betrayal of that alliance.
It was not our intent to betray or threaten anyone. That I did not anticipate people feeling that way, is one of the missteps I made in this thing.
Spec work has no place in the design community, just as it would have no place in interior design or plumbing or hairdressing. I feel a contest can be a grey area, and in this case Aquent's intent was clearly not to get design work done for nothing, but rather to allow someone to create work that would gain recognition throughout Aquent's considerable network in the creative, marketing and advertising field.
If you really want to get angry and indignant, check out this new company: www.crowdspring.com. They are intentionally aiming to have designers work on spec, post their work for the world to see and shop for online. This is a terrible idea and the AIGA and other professional associations should be condemning them.
you say you don't advocate spec work, but your words on the aquent facebook page come across much differently.
"Second of all, I question the AIGA et al's opposition to spec work. "
(http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=25232810527)
Matt- I have been a long time recruiter and in general advise talent to avoid "contests". If it is an artwork contest, rather than company promo, cool. Also, perhaps Judi should disclose she works for Aquent?
Fair enough. I understand that the AIGA has a stated position opposing spec work. I was wrong to call that opposition into question, though I do not believe my statement amounts to an advocacy of spec work.
In any case, I stand corrected.
Fair enough, it's not an explicit advocacy of spec work. I'd be curious to hear you expand on what it is you question about AIGA's opposition to spec work. Is it purely your perception that responding to an RFP is like spec work?
If so, I disagree. While an RFP *does* take up time for the designer/company to create a response, it does *not* give the client any actual design they can use with no compensation. A response to an RFP is supposed to prove to the client that you are capable of doing the work, not give them actual work that they can then decide whether or not to use and whether or not to pay you for.
Greg - I was comparing RFPs to spec work since, as you know, RFPs are work and, when they are not successful, it can be frustrating.
I agree with you, however, that the comparison is not fitting if the main commonality is "work for which you are not compensated." As you correctly state, the problem with spec work is that your are giving a client work they could actually use. Though some RFPs may contain something like this, the main thrust of an RFP is to prove that you can do the work and to try and convince the client that they should engage you to that end.
Of course, when responding to a design RFP, someone could include usable comps that demonstrate their ability. In fact, this can mean the difference between winning the business and not. If you will excuse my ignorance, is this also considered unethical within the design community?
With RFPs, you use past performance to demonstrate the ability, not comps of designs for the work requested in the RFP. For example, if the RFP asks for web design, you would show them sites that you have done that had similar requirements and, if possible, for a similar industry. You would showcase specific things you had done in the past that would satisfy specific requirements in the RFP.
You guys represent talent, but don't ask anyone that you represent to redesign your homepage?
What were you THINKING? WHO was thinking this? Is this the way that Aquent does business, or is this just a really bad idea from one individual?
Unbelievable.
So you're sorry you "freaked out" designers, the folks Aquent claims to represent? The only thing not surprising about this whole story is that you're in marketing, Matt. Go back to marketing, and leave design for the folks who understand all that good design entails. I am a top designer in my field, I always had a decent impression of Aquent, and Aquent was always my backup plan (should life take an unexpected turn), but no more. I'll find a recruiter that respects the profession (and particularly the talent and skills of its best designers).
While I would ask that you not tar everyone at Aquent with the same brush you apply to me (I am, after all, a marketer and not a recruiter, as you rightly, though somewhat disparagingly, point out), I would also strongly encourage you to work with a recruiting organization, should you need one, whose experience and perspective best meets your needs and goals. In spite of your disagreement with me, Aquent may indeed be that organization. If not, I wish you nothing but the best.
Matt