Impending doom of graphic design or another thing to ignore?
Breaking News!!!! iStockphoto.com will soon be selling stock logos for a few hundred iStock credits a pop… with a $5 dollar bonus to boot! I thought I would share some of my initial thoughts on this with you and encourage a civil discussion on the topic. Read my thoughts and the official statement below and feel free to sound off in the comments! *UPDATE* Also check out the announcement email that was sent to istock authors.
My Thoughts
I think its interesting that my gut reaction was to be angry about iStockphoto.com selling stock logos. I wrote a post a while ago on why logos should cost more than $300 that sums up some of my feelings on cheap logo design. Logos are a particularly difficult aspect of graphic design because they require you to summarize a company with a symbol and text. Logos involve a lot of back and forth with the client. A cookie cutter solution seems totally inappropriate!!! But then I remembered that I purchased a stock photo from iStockphoto.com this morning… and thought… hmmm hypocrisy?
Graphic designers purchase stock photos ALL THE TIME. (or at least I do…) By purchasing stock photos we are doing the very thing that we get angry about to photographers. I’m not trying to make the argument that we should spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on photography and illustration. But I think we need to reconsider our gut reactions to this. Sure it makes me angry that clients would go for this, but I think its our job as designers to explain to clients the value of our services. We need to let them know how the process works and they will realize the value in custom design.
Here’s the official statement from iStockphoto:
We’re excited to announce a whole new product coming to the iStock collection. Clients will soon be able to download a unique logo to brand their business or organization right here at iStock. This is a huge opportunity not just for existing iStock contributors, but for our community of designers as well. If you’re a designer, you’ve probably created hundreds of different logos over the course of your career and we’re offering you an outlet to start selling logos to the world’s largest community of creative buyers.
If you create one of the first 10,000 approved logo designs by January 1, 2010, we’ll pay you $5 per logo and another $5 if we reach 10,000 approved logos by that date. So fire up Illustrator to create some amazing logos or dust off all those much-loved logos that never made it past the third round with a client.
Vector files – iStock logos will be downloaded as fully editable .eps files. If you’re interested in contributing, hang tight; we’re almost done the Logo Training Manual.
One-time use – iStock logos will only be sold once. After a logo is purchased it will be indicated as “sold” on the site.
File exclusivity – Unlike other files on iStockphoto, logos can only be sold once and therefore need to be exclusive to iStockphoto. Once your logo is on iStock it will remain for sale for a minimum of six months.
Pricing – Because each logo will only be sold once, they have a higher price-point, ranging from 100 – 750 credits. When designers upload a file, they will set a recommended price and our inspectors will then make the final pricing decision based on that recommendation.
Royalties – iStock will pay a base royalty rate of 50% per logo design for the first 6 months. We’ll give advanced notice for the rate going forward after that.
Upload limits – There will be no limits for the first six months. Go nuts.
Fonts – If you are submitting a logo, you can only use fonts if:
– you own the copyright (in other words, you created the font yourself)
– you licensed the font with commercial rights to use the font for a logo for resale. Remember, there are many ‘free’ fonts that cannot be used in commercial applications.
The font itself will not be included in the file that the client purchases – it will only contain the vector outline. Fonts must be converted to outlines before the file is uploaded.All-new content – Any logo submitted to iStock must not be in use or have been previously sold. It also cannot feature existing elements (including content from your iStock portfolio). These requirements allow our clients to confidently apply for a trademark on the logo purchased from iStock. Remember, your regular files are uploaded with the restriction that they cannot be used in logos and that still applies.
Read the forum thread here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=119471&page=1ock
Are designers in the right to be angry about this? Are logo designers being short changed? Or should we breathe a sigh of relief because cheapo clients have another place to turn to after low balling us? Leave a comment and let me know what you think!
Guaranteed pass HP0-J33 exam using up-to-dated 199-01 and free 70-236 tutorials available on Testkings.
Share This Article
64 Responses to “iStockphoto.com Now Selling Stock Logos… Your Thoughts?”
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from iStockphoto Will Soon Start Selling Stock Logos, Too
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:22 am[...] stock logo sales through its online marketplace. The announcement got the designer community to speculate whether this is a good thing or not, but the jury is still out on [...]
-
Pingback from iStockphoto Will Soon Start Selling Stock Logos, Too | Macarne`s Blog
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 am[...] stock logo sales through its online marketplace. The announcement got the designer community to speculate whether this is a good thing or not, but the jury is still out on [...]
-
Pingback from iStock opens can of nasty worms | Logo Design Love
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 am[...] iStockphoto.com Now Selling Stock Logos… Your Thoughts? [...]
-
Pingback from iStockphoto.com Now Selling Stock Logos | Brunello Creative Blog
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 am[...] design community seems to be having mixed reactions to this announcement. What do you think? Feel free to share your thoughts in the [...]
-
Pingback from The Far Edge » Blog Archive » iStockphoto Will Soon Start Selling Stock Logos, Too
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm[...] stock logo sales through its online marketplace. The announcement got the designer community to speculate whether this is a good thing or not, but the jury is still out on [...]
-
Pingback from BlogLESS : Four Design Links: September 24, 2009
September 24th, 2009 at 3:39 am[...] Big news this week from iStockphoto: the site plans to offer logos for sale in the near future. Commenters on their forum seem to favor the deal, while designers are (not surprisingly) much less enthused. [...]
-
Pingback from The end of graphic design? Probably not. « Hedoesdesign’s Weblog
September 28th, 2009 at 2:04 pm[...] [comment link to Design O'Blog] [...]
Benek Lisefski says:
I’m not angry. I opened the email from them announcing this and wasn’t surprised. It’s the next logical step for them.
I don’t design many logos but even if I did I can’t see it affecting me much. I’m never going to try to compete for a client who’s happy buying anything in template form for cheap on the web. I design bespoke stuff, conduct my business in a very professional manner, and am very knowledgeable about what I do. That’s what client’s pay for.
However, for those who are busy competing for the lower end of the market (and there’s already a huge market for quick an cheap logos) I can see them getting upset by this. But if they are taking advantage of that market it’s unfair of them to think that istockphoto can’t also take advantage of it.
Ho Hum. Another hop topic for designers to complain about that doesn’t really matter.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Kish says:
I really don’t think this is a smooth move.
I can see where you’re coming from – especially with the stock photography. But $5.00 logos?
What next – $20 style guides – with Verdana not Futura.
Or maybe “make your own brochure kit with Word”.
How are they going to monitor the submissions?
I feel like design + photography is looking more and more similar across the board, and this is going to make it worse.
Its a free society. There are pros and cons.
But – what are designers doing to get their pros across? Create a logo after 20 hours and submit it for $2.50….
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Renee says:
iStockPhoto should know better—their target market is designers/creatives. Right? My gut reaction was, “Well that’s really odd…”
I’ve always been a firm believer that stock is OK in MODERATION. As long as a stock image/graphic isn’t the focal point or more than 40% of your design it’s ok. I purchase stock illustrations at times to save time and budget. Sometimes it’s nothing I wouldn’t make myself anyway. However, I think a full stock logo is crossing the line. Not only will more than one person own it, but it’s the focal point of a business. How embarrassing to have the same logo as hundreds of other people. Definitely not a way to stand out in the crowd.
Having said all that, at the end of the day there are plenty of clients to go around, and no one wants a client who is interested in templated logos anyway. I know I don’t. iStockPhoto can have ‘em.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
chad engle says:
I agree that we should think of how the photography industry has it.
However, does one photo represent your entire brand? Does that same one photo have to work in 1 color, B&W, 4 color process? Does that one photo go on business cards, annual reports and websites? Does that one photo have a style guide and particular to do’s and not to do’s? Does that one photo have specified pantone colors or specific CMYK values it HAS to be printed at for brand consistency?
I am not trying to devalue photography… I date a freelance photographer so I am well aware of how stock photos are like stock stuff is to us.
However I feel that a logo, a brand, a mark encompass the entire brand experience and I just don’t feel like you will get that entire experience from a stock logo that’s pre-made. Will I put some old logo’s on there that are sitting around and collecting dust on a harddrive? I could…. However, I am not helping us stand by the guns of being a “valued industry”.
I think that explaining to clients that these are cookie cutter designs would be hard if it is something they like for very cheap. What stops other firms from buying logo’s and then x5′ing the price and giving them to a client as a “Custom creation”? Do these logo’s come with color palettes? Creative rationale? Explanation on how to use them? I can just see so many brandingfails coming from this from a consistency standpoint and a meaningful brand standpoint.
Just some thoughts.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Benek Lisefski says:
You guys didn’t read it carefully. They will sell for probably $100 to $500 and they will be one-time exclusive use. Not $5 logos that everyone will have.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
chad engle says:
@Renee,
They are only selling the logos once so no one will have the same per say….
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Niki Brown says:
@kish
Actually I think its much more than just $5 – thats just the bonus per logo as a start up promotion. I think we are talking 100-300 istock credits here which probably equates to a few hundred dollars.
I’m also not advocating cheap logos either. I just thought it was interesting to point out that we do the same thing to photographers. For every photo that is marketable and sellable – how many photos were taken before that or thrown out? I’m not exactly sure the exact amount of work goes into taking photos, but I wouldnt argue that its more or less than a logo. I think it depends on the situation.
I think what it boils down to is that logos just arent suited for cookie cutter solutions. Companies have personalities and specific niches that they cater to and the logo needs to take that into consideration… and no logo designer can ‘predict’ that out of the box.
Thanks for the comments guys!
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Mig Reyes says:
Logos require research, conceptual thinking, dialogue and time. iStockphoto selling “stock” logos removes all of that. You’re left with generic clip art.
Thumbs down.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Kimberly Beaven says:
My gut reaction was of disappointment and “here we go again” sentiment. I have had quite a few exchanges on Twitter about my stance against spec work and devaluing the creative community. I have purchased stock images — mostly because there was a certain photo a client wanted (gettyone.com) or photos that have been submitted because someone wanted to actively share it, but I truly believe that stock logos is a step in the wrong direction.
Branding or identity that is identifiable and locked to a company presence does not come from surfing through an online catalog of logos being sold for “cheap.” Defining a visual representation is a thoughtful, vibrant and collaborative process that goes back and forth from client to designer, honing down the right message, look and connection. This is like ripping a pair of jeans off a rack and telling someone to fit into them without it being the right size or preference.
Honestly, I think iStockPhoto is looking in the wrong direction for their own brand, Stating that “others” are doing it therefore I want my piece of the pie, is always the regrettable choice. Make a statement, take a stand, defy what others are doing and stand up for design and the valuing of the creativity, blood and sweat that goes into the work.
Definitely disappointed.
Kimberly
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Jason Lerke says:
While I see this as a way to devalue the design community, it’s not something that will detriment the experience a client gets to be a part of if they hire a designer to design their logo and/or branding specs.
Sure, this approach iStockPhoto is taking makes it possible for businesses to fork out money from their petty cash to get a logo in five minutes (and not a week or greater), but let’s face it; there’s plenty of businesses out there who have the willingness to pay for our efforts in giving them a corporate identity that encompasses what their business stands for. Try and see if you can get that from these stock logos – chances are you won’t come close.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
creativereason says:
To the people who never understood what a brand is (and that it’s much larger than the logo), buy away, we won’t miss you.
Sadly though, this will end up being a resource to the unoriginal “designers” out there who want to cheaply produce work for smaller clients. After all, these are EPS files that need editing and that isn’t a skill every business owner has… Nor is knowing to go look at istock for photos / vector work.
Just like spec work some people do not value the creative process and the time, effort and skill that goes into properly branding a business / service or product. We just have to hope those people are the minority and that smart business owners continue to get it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Brandon Cox says:
I’m again’ it! I agree with several of you who have brought up the fact that a logo ought to be personally researched and thought out. The essence of a brand must be represented by more than smooth graphics.
On the flipside, arguing against my own feelings, I do think that this is a much better alternative than most design contests and “crowdsourcing” options which devalue the role of designer altogether. I do commend them for charging a fair amount for possibly smaller projects and for making each sale exclusive. It’s just hard to imagine the “next big thing” impacting the market with any kind of stock identity.
Right or wrong? Not sure, but wise brands, and brands begun with passion and conviction will most likely stay away.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
chad engle says:
@Brandon,
Right there with you. But my problem lies with a brand that has passion and conviction but is a startup. If they only have X dollars why would they hire a designer when they could gobble a logo and buy faster computers or something?
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Joni Mueller says:
I think it’s odd to shift marketing focus away from creatives (who would never have a need for a stock logo). But everyone fancies themselves a web designer these days, so iStock is just getting on that bandwagon.
Yet, there’s something disconcerting about someone looking for a logo for their company. Instead of creating a logo to fit a brand, they’re shopping for a logo to fit their brand, it’s bass ackwards.
And whoever said Microsoft doesn’t already have a way for someone to create a brochure with MS Word hasn’t browsed the Microsnot templates lately.
Someone else said it better: Clients who would go shopping for a $200 logo aren’t my kind of clients anyway so it’s just one more way to separate the wheat from the chaff, the signal from the noise, the serious buyer from the tire-kicker.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Benek Lisefski says:
I think everyone will agree that a stock logo can’t possibly portray the personality of a brand as well as a custom one can. And businesses who realize that a brand is more than clipart will see that, and they won’t buy logos from istockphoto.
But there will always be small businesses out there who want things as quick and cheap as possible, and there will (unfortunately) always be people who are willing work quickly and for cheap. It’s smart of istockphoto to take advantage of this market.
Which doesn’t make it smart for businesses to use it. But that’s not istockphoto’s concern. The same businesses who are happy to buy generic website templates and have Kinko’s design their business cards will probably be happy with these logos as well.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Niki Brown says:
@chad @brandon
I’ve worked with startups that had passion and drive, but still ended up hosting a logo design contest…
Needless to say they got FLAMED by the design community (not the most appropriate response)
In the end we ended up working out a deal with them. I think we need to communicate VALUE not PRICE to our clients.
Thoughts?
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Toledoh says:
Is it the same situation as free / cheap web design templates?
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:31 pm
chad engle says:
Benek Lisefski,
You have made some very valid points. I am loving your work, kudos to you.
Niki,
Value = such a better way to portray them. Through value comes engagement & emotion.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Jean-Sebastien Dussault says:
No, Toledo, as a logo is meant for a single use and for a particular and focused to represent a unique client, while templates are meant to be sold over and over for as many people as can be.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Brandon Cox says:
@Chad &… everyone else…
I see that point. In fact, we who design should probably have a better understanding that often, clients don’t have a clue what “spec work” is or why we might not favor design contests. They’re just being smart business people. Nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps it’s all the more reason for us to be great writers, bloggers, and marketers in addition to being great designers to say, “Hey, we’re out here to help you.”
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Herne says:
Hey, if someone wants to buy a cheap-looking $20 logo, then you’re not going to stop them. There are literally hundreds of websites out there selling “professional” logos for $20. I’ve all but given up on trying to reason with bean counters who only see the bottom line.
If someone wants to buy a cheap, un-researched, not very well thought out logo, then they get what they deserve. iStockPhoto is doing what a lot of businesses are doing these days, closing their eyes and selling the public what they want. This doesn’t mean that we, as designers, have to buy into it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Liz says:
Ok… well, i can’t say i’m shocked. iStock are doing smart business, there is a need for cheap logos and they are filling it.
Now, would i ever suggest this solution to a business owner? Of course not! I’d let them know, Your logo and in greater perspective, your brand is one of your companies most valuable assets. An “off the shelf” never going to meet the targeted needs of YOUR business, and if you have real passion for your business, you don’t want your brand to be the kind of brand who would buy a logo off a stock site. Your brand is unique! YOU are unique and your customers/client/audience is UNIQUE. You are NOT an “off the shelf” brand, your logo has to reflect that.
There is a time and a place for stock. If you’re a business owner who could listen to what I just said and argue, then maybe a stock logo *IS* for you.
I have a similar attitude where photography is concerned. It’s one thing to throw a stock image of a dog on your latest blog post about dog park ettiquette. However, if you are a business owner who sells high-end dog accessories in a trendy pet boutique — it’s not appropriate to your brand to use stock images as the main focus of your collateral materials!
I dunno, this news doesnt worry me at all – cause I am not competing for price shopper clients. But yes, i think we all should think about stock in a serious way, the effect it has on the industry (be in design, photog, illo) and the implications it has about the brand who is using it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Jose says:
Not feeling it at all.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Marie Poulin says:
I do agree that there is a time/place for this type of market. And it certainly wouldn’t be any of my clients. But as Liz said, the same goes for Stock Photography.
I think there will always be clients that will look to cut costs and cut corners in different ways, and ideally any clients I am working with will understand the value that a unique, well-researched, well-executed logo development and brand can offer them. If they can’t see the difference, then we probably aren’t meant to work together, and I wish them the best of luck.
I’m not worried that designers will go out of business because clients will be snatching up cheap logos. There are stock solutions for everything from photos, to audio, to websites, etc.
I haven’t seen a decrease in web business because of it… As Liz pointed out: “I’m not competing for price chopper clients.”
If you are a professional, experienced designer with sweet sweet design skills, I really doubt this will affect you in any serious way. Until I start getting clients coming to me with their stock logos, I’m not too concerned.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Kendol Mason says:
Design without Process is like Reason without Logic.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Dan Collins says:
We (designers) have nothing to worry about. Good photographers are still thriving even though stock websites have been selling images for a next to nothing. Their clients realize that their products and services are worth it.
Continue to be a be a good designer. Show your clients how you add value to their business. Be a partner and an advocate for them so they realize that you are more than just someone who “provides graphics”.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Aaron says:
I really don’t see this as competition for designers. There are a lot of idiots who want designers to churn out a logo for them for $100 bucks and professional designers turn them down.
Now these idiots can buy a logo with no thought out, personalized brand without bothering us.
Thumbs down to the logos and thumbs up for getting these chumps off our back.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Bruce DeBoer says:
It’s all part of the new economy; it’s inevitable. Crowdsourcing is a bigger threat but also inevitable. I have a few blog posts about it myself.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Neil Brown says:
Interesting to say the least. Maybe you could sell the logo on iStock for $100 and charge $900 to change the name? #sarcasm.
Who else envisions the problem (among many others) of a client purchasing a stock logo that was designed to “fit” the name the designer used, but then, lo and behold, it looks awful when they insert their name?
What a horrible idea, for both clients and designers.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
JPW says:
For those that feel that a brand can’t succeed with a generic, off-the-shelf stock logo, say hi to the Twitter bird.
I’m sure plenty of companies will get good value out of this kind of thing. Not every brand needs the cadillac treatment.
This kind of marketplace reflects the reality that “logos” really don’t have much value compared to having a strategic brand partner…. and not every brand is at the point in its life where it needs that kind of work.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
chad engle says:
I guess I am reading deeper into this than others or maybe I am off my rocker. (I am kinda tired)
I use stock. I see when there is a time for it and when it helps you because you don’t have the time to make an illustration. Not that you can’t… but you don’t have time.
I also see how everyone says “I am not competing with bargain shoppers”.
If this trend continues everyone might have to deal with the bargain shoppers. Which would not be cool… Clients need to be educated on why design is not a throw away commodity. This is not helping them further their education which will be making things harder on us in the future.
Who is going to check to see if that logo is copyrightable? Who is to say the client is getting something they can even use? I just see a ton of what ifs involved with this.
None the less I can see it having repercussions on the design industry as a whole later on down the road. Especially in the age of the internet where crowdsourcing and stock art is all over the place.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Felix Groenewald (RSA) says:
“Any logo submitted to iStock must not be in use or have been previously sold.” How would iStock control this? Anyone can download logos from Google ™ images and claim it to be their work. This would mean that we as designers will have to monitor iStock to ensure our logos are not used. How would we proof we own the artwork? I am with Niki on this one. No..No. I have no problem using stock only if I am sure that it is legit.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Paul says:
This is the retailification of selecting a logo. So if design shops are eqiv to higher end clothing boutiques with dedicated staff and tailors to mend and adjust perfectly, then istock must be the WalMart of creative. Price is king, not service or quality. Welcome to the eventually self-defeating Capitolist model. Welcome to our brave new world of design.
Smelling blood in the water several years ago is why I started to diversify my skills away from this often misunderstood (simple on the outside, complex on the inside) artform.
One of the problems with startups is that they don’t know where their brand can/will take them tomorrow, and rarely think past that shiny business card stage. It’s unfortunate but understandable. Better to go after brands that have grown and in need of a refresh. They’ve removed the training wheels and are more capable of not only seeing the larger picture, but are more eager to pay a pro to guide them on a more wholistic creative path.
Cheers
Paul
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 am
Jean-Sebastien Dussault says:
Wrote this on their forum:
___
For designers who say there is no real threat to pro designers with such a “service” as iStock proposes, because it would clear the bargain shoppers from their potential clientele, please consider this:
In a normal logo process, there are several concepts presented, at various stage (thumbnail, mockup, etc). Normally, unchosen logo propositions are a private part of designer-client relationship. Unchosen concept stay private, and are kept with the creator.
iStock’s proposed service, in some way, brings the conceptual phase out in the open as it proposes, (yet) unchosen, unsolicited concepts. If the service takes flight, it is very likely that there will be several creations posted, and serious profesionnal designers will have no choice but to go through this higly increased volume of risk to see if there isn’t a *similar* logo.
Sometimes “similar” lies in the eye of the beholder, which ends up being a judge in a court of law because the iStockphoto poster finds your “different enough” to be “similar enough”. All that costs money: in time spent researching, in possible legal fees—even if the logos are found to be different enough—, in punitive damage if found “similar enough, and eventually in professional insurances costs, as risks higly increase.
I can easily imagine “logo parkers” just waiting to make a lot of money with that side of the equation.
It is bad in all aspect for the profession. It is bad for eventual posters to the service, as they won’t be safe from another poster finding his/her logo too similar. It is also bad for serious business choosing custom made logo which will find creation cost going up for all the reasons listed before.
Aside from design I also do scriptwriting, and I’m aware that, in TV, there is such a thing as unsolicited scriptwiting that you send to shows in the hope to be chosen. This could lead to serious legal pursuit from unchosen scriptwriter seeing a show with similarities in a broadcasted script, so the WGA demands that any unsolicited scripts be sent in a sealed container, clearly specifying it is an unsoliceted script. If a producer opens an unmarked container with a spec script inside, he trashes it immediately to the WGA, which bans the writer in return (ie impossible to get work in that field). If the producer decide to review a spec script, he must conclude a contract with submitting writer BEFORE opening the container (contract is usually full of rejection clauses and a minimal fee if ideas get taken, right away or later. usually done after a season is over, and before new scripts are written).
Without talking in their name at all, I can very well see professional associations (ICOGRADA, AIGA, GAG, GDC, SDGQ…) taking legal actions on this if a system preventing from infringing an unused logo creation isn’t put in place (in the spirit of what the WGA has), because this time it’s not only a question of “how the design profession is perceived in the public eye”, but it’s an economic concern, and we all know the dollar seems to be the measure of today’s society.
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:24 am
Sara Bonds says:
I think some commenters missed this part of istockphoto’s statement:
“One-time use – iStock logos will only be sold once. After a logo is purchased it will be indicated as “sold” on the site.
File exclusivity – Unlike other files on iStockphoto, logos can only be sold once and therefore need to be exclusive to iStockphoto. Once your logo is on iStock it will remain for sale for a minimum of six months.”
I think it’s a great idea. I am a custom blog designer, but I don’t do custom illustrations. My clients mostly purchase their illustrations for their design from istockphoto. However, right now with social media taking off, bloggers are really looking to brand themselves. They are wanting something different, and totally unique to them. Many of them don’t know how to design their own logo, and have no idea where to go. Istockphoto is alreay well known. Now people, like my blogger clients, can go to istockphoto for their very own logo that WILL NOT be sold ever again in order to brand themselves. It is very convenient. It might not be as unique and personal as a logo that is 100% conceptualized for them, but it is a quick alternative that I think many will benefit from.
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 am
Mark Collins says:
I was pissed when I got the email from iStock this morning. Whilst iStock having a bargain bin full of reject logos that someone can reach into doesn’t bother me personally, the principle does.
iStock exists today because of the relationship it has with designers, and now it has put itself in the position to take work away from small designers that work with low budget companies.
What’s next? Web templates?
iStock have now contributed to the devaluation of design for their own greed. Shame on you.
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 am
J. Pedro Ribeiro says:
I agree with #15, isn’t this the same case as buying templates for websites and blogs instead of hiring a designer/agency?
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
Herne says:
Regarding the Twitter bird–I think it was more of the brand changing to fit the logo rather than the logo fitting the brand. It was convenient for Twitter to adopt the bird and the “fail whale” because the images caught on from Twitter’s “infancy.” It was a lucky coincidence.
If you have an established company or you are trying to establish a company within a marketplace that already has competitors, then it’s a lot more difficult to find a stock solution.
Who was competing against Twitter in the beginning? Nobody.
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 am
Brad C says:
My gut reaction was very different from a lot of the other commenters here. I thought about all the old unused logo concepts I could dump on there and get some money for.
When I design a logo I do a lot of sketches and then bring them into Illustrator to clean up. I might do 5 or 6 clean logos but I only show the 2 or 3 best ones to the client. Sometimes those unused logos find their way into other logo projects down the road but usually they just sit in Illustrator unused.
I think people are making some great points about the value of our work and why a logo should be more than just a graphic, and I totally agree. But the market for quality design isn’t shrinking, it’s growing. For good or bad, the market for crappy cheap design is growing as well. My best clients are the ones who have started buying a cheap site or logo and found out later that they got what they paid for.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 am
Kris says:
This is like buying a prescription from a Voodoo rather than a real Doctor. Tsk!
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:47 am
awesomerobot says:
Ah Getty, who can’t you undercut?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 am
awesomerobot says:
Also, just a side note – iStock will be paying royalties of 50% for the first 6 months. Which appears to be the equivalent of $70-400 per logo.
Lets say they drop that rate down to 35% after those first 6 months. That’s about $50-$280 a logo in your pocket. A logo that if you were able to sell yourself you’d get $140-$800 for.
iStock is shooting for 10k logos by January.
Getty is essentially taking 50%+ of the profit from any designer who would charge $500-$800 for a logo. Sounds like bad news for anyone who works on the low-end of the spectrum.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 am
meredith says:
I only read about half the comments so far, so I’m not sure what anyone else said after about #30.
Here’s a couple things I am thinking.
Is a business owner going to log onto iStockphoto.com, purchase AND implement a logo all by themselves?
If yes, then they haven’t got a clue, and would probably be miserable to work with had they hired you to design a custom logo.
If no, then… they still have to hire you to implement the logo. Even if they go to istock, see a logo, tell you that’s exactly what they want… you’re still hired, and since you still have to implement and essentially brand the logo, you’re probably able to charge them the same as if you’d designed the logo yourself.
Since you can buy stock logos online as it is, then the cheap stock logo-buying people already exist. We’re not going to change that. There will always be business people who don’t understand and therefor don’t value the concept of design.
Just think- if NOT for companies like istock selling stock logos, cheap people would just be using actual clip art. Potential clients might actually be presenting you with ideas based on their Print Artist clip art collection. There will always be people like this.
I just don’t see this as a terrible thing, it’s rather a non-event. There may be many brandingfails as Chad puts it, but there may also be logos that work really well with how a designer implements them, and therefor are a brandingwin.
That was a long comment. Apologies if you made it this far.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:55 am
kim smith says:
In my best announcer/sales pitch voice:
For the low-low price of $____, you too can be an owner of a crappy generic logo to represent your company’s brand! Click on over to http://www.marketingplans-R-us.com and select the plan you want to implement. Yes, YOU can launch a business without ANY forward thinking whatsover! For an additional $9.99 we’ll throw in the financial plan as well!
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Dan Spencer says:
There are so many valid points here in this thread I dont know where to start. From my point of view (a designers point of view) I could really care less about istock selling logos for a few reasons. You get what you pay for! The person that will buy a logo from istock is not going to shell out the money for a professionally designed logo anyways. So that person is not or never would be a potential client. I buy stock photos for projects all the time. I will buy from istock if im on a tight budget, but if I have a decent budget I might go to veer which has much better stock IMO. It all depends on the $$$$$. I feel no threat from these spec sites cause all they deliver is subpar work and I like to think my work is far above subpar and worth the extra penny or two.
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
B. Ehinger says:
This sums up my thoughts.
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Concerned says:
They should have hired a real marketing company to do a study for them with designers (buyers) instead of posting such a hot topic in the public forum. The days of using the forum to dampen the flames prior to launching something that will obviously cause a heated argument, are over. That fire is gonna burn…baby burn…them right in their backside. Maybe they will do the right thing and put this in the ash bin before a good deal of buyers really walk away or their contributors feel the pinch of being rejected by buyers for submitting to the logo program.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Liz says:
having some time to sit on this… and reading through the other comments, i think the issue with this is the promise to the client. The business who may go onto iStock and purchase a logo may have limited budget and will act on the promise that iStock will give them a professional quality logo at a low price. Sounds darn good!!! …This is a shame when, (like clients i have seen who invested in template websites, and the like) when they realize it ISN’T so easy, and that this quick solution doesn’t fit their needs…
September 24th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Jean-Sebastien Dussault says:
awesomerobot (#42)
“Lets say they drop that rate down to 35% after those first 6 months. That’s about $50-$280 a logo in your pocket. A logo that if you were able to sell yourself you’d get $140-$800 for.”
Sooo, If your creation was hot enough to get picked early, you’ll have less than the crappier logos which will get the cake?
Everything is wrong with that plan.
As as said in #32, even great designers not using this “service” will have no choice but to deal with the site, just to make sure their ideas isn’t already being used in a parked, still unsused logo.
Since doing logos out of the blue, for no one in particular, is way easier and faster to do than doing real corporate identity, there will be tons more of logo designs in the open—all suceptible to be infringed on copyright—, making the work of graphic designers doing actual corporate ID really, really tough and very risky.
What iStock is proposing is brings the fight (spec) to another level than the logoworks of this world has brought.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Jean-Sebastien Dussault says:
[...]what I meant in #34 [not #32]
September 24th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Judy Kirpich says:
Designers have a voice and we have power. Boycott istockphoto.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Jason Kilp says:
So then I am assuming that this means the person who purchases the logo will have to name their company based on what the words in the logo say, correct? That’s really scraping the bottom when your company has no choice in the name because you want to cheap out on a logo. Oh well.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Jason Kilp says:
…or I guess the logo might say “Your Company” but in the press release they mentioned not giving the typeface to the buyer if it’s not free for commercial use. Which would mean the buyer couldn’t change the name with the original typeface. Unless when they say logo, they just mean the symbol. Very interesting.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Jessi Miller says:
There are so many issues surrounding this venture, I think we could write a small book on it. It’s obviously a good idea for iStockphoto, but it’s obviously ominous at best for real designers who use process.
http://blog.littleblackmask.com/2009/09/designer-cannibalism.html
September 24th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Jerome Iveson says:
Terrible idea, badly thought out business models like this devalue the whole graphic design industry; istocks core market. Logos are not t-shirts.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:52 am
John says:
Having this service (like spec work, stock and one size fits all pre-made design/web/etc.) actually does the design and marketing community a favor – by getting rid of possible clients that will only be a headache to RFP or in the future.
It is possible they will learn.
If I take a drive down to HomeDepot, buy bags of concrete and lumber, watch a few HGTV shows, then build my front stairs. I will soon learn when the neighbor takes a header and breaks his neck. Then again, maybe I won’t, and like I said – it just saved you a headache.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Colleen says:
Calm down people! Aren’t most of the logos you see TOTAL POO anyway? I’m including logos “custom designed by professional designers” in that pile o’ dung, too, btw, including a slew of mine.
Getty is just making it easier and cheaper to buy a crap logo. That is what technology is supposed to do. Cheaper. Easier. The businesses who want ‘em can have ‘em. And I’ll have somewhere to send people who want a logo for cheap instead of doing trade out for something I didn’t want in the first place. Or worse, donating my time.
BTW, mom, your Embroidered Potholders-R-Us logo is coming right up. Hurry up iStock!
September 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pm