Spec work has become the go-to demon of the design industry. Through countless outreach campaigns, various groups have demonized its practice in an attempt to educate the profession about fair work for fair trade. David Martin wrote a well-intended piece entitled Crowdsourcing Fucks us All In The Ass, And Here's How". The website "Anti-Spec" does a pretty good job breaking down the various aspects of spec work right before asking you to submit spec work (look under "Things I need to do, can you help?).

However the most outspoken entity in this regard would probably be the AIGA, a group I've long found to be well intentioned though slightly mis-guided, out-dated, and kind of pedantic. For a brief overview of their take on the matter, read "What is AIGA's Position on Spec Work and How are Ethical Standards Determined?" A more recent application of this thinking can be found here where the AIGA writes a letter to GAP after their kerfuffle with crowd-sourcing. Just this week the debate reared its ugly head again when the Huffington Post held a contest for a new logo. Naturally the AIGA flipped out. While I agree on their reasoning behind their "just say no" message, I think it's ultimately a disservice to the industry to take such a hard-lined approach to the issue.

No better example of this attitude exists than the AIGA's pre-written spec work rejection letter. You can download it from the AIGA site here just in case you were too lazy to write up your own rejection.

I appreciate the AIGA and other organization's attempt to lay out simple reasoning behind saying no to spec work, and by all means if it's something that's relevant to you then please continue to use it. There is nothing wrong with educating people about the typical pitfalls of this kind of project. What is wrong is telling other people they should categorically reject this work as if designers are not capable of making their own decisions as to whether or not a project is a good opportunity for them.

In the same way that the AIGA pre-fab letter is a cut and paste response to very delicate question, The AIGA statement on spec work provides a blanket response to a very nuanced situation. Sometimes as designers we have to jump through a few hoops, and like it or not it's healthy. Competition is healthy. Making decisions quickly and assertively against a clock is healthy. Working outside your comfort zone is healthy. And in the same way the right project which might be considered spec work could ultimately be very healthy.

I know many jobs that ask applicants to complete a sample project before being considered for a job. Technically this would be considered spec work. I could think of at least six people off the top of my head that would be jobless had they followed this rule. Let's say you really want to work with that cultural institution down the street, who is the AIGA to tell you that it's wrong. Besides, when did we get so egotistical to think that we can't spare a few hours here and there to do something without pay every once in a while?

I think in 90-some percent of the cases that the AIGA deals with they're probably right. The situation being presented is likely predatory and it's good for them to stick up for designers. They should continue to peruse those cases. However, I think the vast majority of designers can see that coming from a mile away and really don't need an organization to spend their membership fees fighting this kind of low-rent work. Take a look at any of the submissions from these spec projects lately. They're obviously getting what they paid for.

I'm just going to stick to what I said yesterday:

Update: Friend and designer Dylan Lanthrop wrote a nice article for GOOD about the recent Huffington Post scandal. Give that a read here.