Not my words – this is coming from a panel discussion (posted below) at March’s SXSW Conference in Austin, Texas.  The debate was surrounding the issues relating to speculative (spec) work, which we’ve written about previously (here’s a blog that Denis wrote last year on crowdSPRING.com).  For those unfamiliar, sites like crowdSPRING allow individuals (or companies) to post a project to be created, list a price to be paid to the winner, and then choose the winning project from a series of submissions.

Denis used crowdSPRING to design the logo for his chTONGUEeek website, and discussed his experience with them in this blog.  For his purposes, crowdSPRING was great – he received 69 logo submissions, the opportunity to collaborate with the designer whose proposal he liked the best, and of course, got the logo he needed.   All for $150.

So, this brings us to the issue up for debate among the SXSW panelists (in the video below).   Does spec work (in creative) devalue an industry of designers?

From the perspective of workers within the industry, it’s not surprising that established designers and creative firms would be opposed to spec work;  one panelist discussed a possible industry blacklisting of workers who engage on sites like crowdSPRING.  For more on this perspective, see the NO!SPEC website, where you can read their “Ten Reasons” against spec work, or the article Why Speculation Hurts.

On the flip side, there’s a good argument to be made that sites like crowdspring tear down barriers and facilitate entry into the profession for the young workers looking to build a resume.  As an aspiring young designer, it can be hard to build a professional resume and get your first job (this applies to most professions).  To these workers, there could be a lot of value in gaining experience through crowdspring (and other spec sites).

The panel at SXSW did a great job covering the issues of spec work in design and creative.  But what if we apply this spec work model to other industries?

Continue…