The problem with the City’s offer isn’t just that it devalues the idea of ideas — our stock in trade. It’s that it publicly, loudly, and across an “average 1.8 million external visits and 640,000 internal visits every month” (as the contest RFP says), reinforces and legitimates that idea, making it that much more difficult to get other clients to value what we do and pay us a living wage to do it. The act is bad enough; the precedent it sets is worse.

And we simply can’t let that mindset set any harder. Everyone who’s worked in design for more than a minute or two knows that one of the biggest hurdles we face is the notion that “ideas don’t have physical substance and seem to happen instantly, so they aren’t worth anything.” Sure, we can (and do) argue that creative ideas are critical in driving actions and products in meaningful directions — that ideas are the propulsion that sets those physical things on the right course to their destination — but for many people used to paying by the pound, it’s tough to wrap a mind around. “You sketched the logo in a few minutes, so at $100/hour, I owe you $4.99 plus the cost of the sheet of paper, right?”

That’s clearly what the City’s thinking here, too. And who can blame them? They’ve got plenty of company thinking ideas are free. Add to that a shrinking tax base due to the economy, and a procurement process dominated by taxpayers’ demand for quantifiability, it would actually be surprising if the City didn’t try to get a site design for free.

But in the end, the City can make any offer it wants. Any client can ask for the essence and driving force – the design, the propulsion – of a new site in exchange for a measly link. Heck, it can require that the design be created on an etch-a-sketch, in Illustrator 3, or with sticks and bits of string. It can even say we have to pay to design it. Why not?

But that doesn’t mean we have to comply. The City doesn’t owe us anything, but that works both ways: our true power in this equation is in not taking the bait. If all designers with experience and chops refuse to work for free, clients trying to “crowdsource” work they ultimately profit from will probably still get a response, but it will be from the second, third, fourth string. And from there, the marketplace will judge, and probably not kindly.

But that’s only if we don’t break ranks. Together, we win; divided, we all lose.

City of Portland, do what you need to do: you’ll get a site of some kind. But if you want your core gateway to act as a true beacon, its ease of use, elegance, and effectiveness mirroring the city at its best and drawing the best and brightest to its banks (to say nothing of increasing the City’s tax base, clout, and flexibility to do good and nurture its citizens) — well that, my friend, can’t be bought for a link. At least not from anyone with the skill and experience to deliver it.

Design is a “a small, but essential, piece”?

I see.

First off, disregarding the fact that I’m unsure if something can be both essential and yet ’small’ as those seem to be oxymoronic to me, you are basically stating that design is a small piece (of a site.)

No wonder the community seems to be up in arms over this – you are devaluing what they do. I could tell you that industrial design, interactive design, print design, user experience design, information architecture design, etc actually are not small pieces of their perspective mediums. But let’s not belabor the fact. The point is this – you just stated that design is a small piece of a project, but then you ask those very same designers to essentially do what they do for you for free.

A tip in communication design – insulting people’s work is not a very good way to get them to then do work for you. ;)

-Sharon Greenfield

I would like to add, as I stated on SF, that there are many ways to engage the Portland community in contributing to the site once it’s launched AND those solutions would allow them to continue to participate in a meaningful way as often as they like. Forums, photo galleries, mashups, you name it. Present web technologies, and the flexibility and portability thereof, present nearly endless opportunities to create ways for people to share their experiences. An experienced web team could (and would) incorporate these features into their solution resulting in a much more accessible (not everyone in PDX is going to feel qualified to participate in a design contest), meaningful and long-lasting solution than the design contest offers (by a long shot).

I would like to reiterate what Adam said about the website representing the city. While the website serves the Portland community, it also represents them to non-PDX site visitors — tourists, potential future students, potential future residents, potential future businesses. They may have never been here before or know anything about it. The website is your “greeter”. A greeter the Portland community cannot speak out to if they get the wrong impression. It’s important (very, very important) to put your best foot forward with this freestanding representative of our fair city. The solutions I mentioned above would allow for a constant flow of Portland personality and voice to be a tour guide of sorts for site visitors (even PDXers learning new things about their city). This kind of participation would allow the website to grow, shift and evolve with the city over time. Much more valuable…and representative.

Roy and others involved with this contest (and the RFP process outlined above), I think it’s time we all came together to discuss this matter openly (and professionally). What may seem like sheer resistance on the surface is actually an intense love for and pride in this city and what we do (and could do for it). We all want the same thing. Actually, I think we might want it more.

There are potential plans under way, being led by AIGA, to pull people together in an open forum to discuss this matter further. I think we’ll all come out better for it. It’s time to get off the blogs and meet face to face.

Best,
Heather Dougherty
AIGA Programming Chair