Eriskay Associates has closed its Survey Monkey design competition after it decided it ‘doesn't sit well with a number of people’, following an article in The Drum.
The competition asked around 100 design and branding agencies, found via Yell, to come up with ideas for brand names for a new product by Gael Force Group, with the possibility of receiving £100 if the group thought the idea was helpful.
Mark Taylor, director of Eriskay Associates, said it was his idea to approach the procurement process in this way and that he thinks it helps to “provide a perspective on the breadth of design talent available and gives us some pointers on those that might provide a 'best fit' with the client company”.
He told The Drum: “Whilst it was suggested that this approach would not suit everyone, the overwhelming response was very positive - the fact that we have had over 50 responses to the survey tends to support this view.
“I feel this method demonstrates a serious approach to procuring design and has so far given us a good feel for the range of skills and approaches available from different Scottish designers and I believe this will result in a fair and effective selection.
“Please also be assured that I fully respect the views of those that are opposed to the approach we have taken - I have to tender for all my projects too - However, the volume and quality of responses received surely supports what we have done.”
Comments
comments
I can recommend LinkedIn as a fantastic tool for sourcing suppliers and crowd-sourcing ideas.
comments
I can understand the logic in having a competition to find young talent. But don't understand this approach of a client paying an agency fees for expert advice in launching a new product, and for those ideas to come from the 'general public' for a token gesture. I wonder if the client was aware?
comments
All I can say is that its good they stopped this ridiculous competition, degrading and embarrassing and cheapskate. £100 for your ideas, send 'em in!!!!
comments
My company isn't a creative agency (and we were approached) and I have to say I'm with the majority on this one.
What really makes me curious is the strategy behind this plan? If the only plan is to get the cheapest work possible (and possibly pinch some ideas) then sure, this could work.
But, speaking as someone who has commissioned a lot of different companies to provide our clients with creative work, this approach clearly shows a lack of understanding - not only of the value of good work but of a general strategic approach to brand development.
I can't see a serious approach here. Possibly an approach by people who are playing outside their areas of expertise.
Mark's a decent guy, so hopefully this isn't representative of the majority of their work.
comments
Glad to hear that this competition has been, we also declined, although if I had known that 100+ agencies had been invited my decline would have been a lot less civil.
What make me really angry is that the SurveyMonkey page is full of images of high quality developed product designs, each and created at some considerable cost, so why not spend a similar amount on choosing the brand name?
The disclaimer would probably not actually assign any copyright as Eriksay suggest it would.
Are Eriskay Associates also working for Gael Force for a discretionary award of £50-£100? No did not think so.
comments
Hi Everyone,
I take on board your comments here and accept that this approach has not been agreeable to you – so my apologies for that.
I have spoken to a number of designers over the past couple of days, and whilst many have appreciated our attempts to take an innovative approach here, going forward we will stick to the more conventional methods of procurement using DBA guidelines.
We are currently finalising the brief and budget and will invite an appropriate number to submit tenders, from whom we will invite a short list to pitch for the work.
Whilst we will not use an open competition approach again, there were a couple of points I would like to clarify here:
1. The aim was to provide an opportunity to make the short list to pitch for the project (fully briefed and budgeted). The purpose of offering small cash awards was a thank you to those who put forward some good ideas but did not make the short list. 2. When we piloted this process, a number of people came up with some interesting and credible initial ideas for product names within 20 minutes – I believe this is far less arduous than other initial procurement processes which invite companies to submit lengthy, time-consuming documents at a very initial stage. 3. We were at no point asking people to work for free, simply inviting those who wished to participate to provide some initial thoughts that we could use to help create a short list (the pilot suggested that this was a reasonable request) 4. I accept that there is often contention around the right to use ideas. However, the phrase ‘without further remuneration’ was included in case a number of other people submitted the same name ideas as the successful designer. 5. My first experience of procuring design in Scotland was in 1996 and the designer I selected went on to build one of the most respected companies in the country. Since then, I have worked on projects of various sizes with around a dozen client companies, helping them shape their proposition and then engage appropriate designers and related service providers. To the best of my knowledge, most of these relationships are still in place (and I can certainly think of one that has lasted over ten years).
I hope this clarifies the situation but please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments.
Best wishes,
Mark 07515 580520
Write Your Comment