I manage to simplify a bit more i think looks better somehow.
Perhaps I didn’t understand what you’re saying, but UpWork isn’t a contest site. Clients choose designers they want to work with based on their portfolios, work histories, and proposals. No design work is done for free or before a contract is signed. I don’t know about Dribbble or Useme since I’ve not looked into them. I suggest staying away from the contest sites and the clients who use them. You can’t earn much money there and the so-called clients will be nothing but trouble.
Even on UpWork, the better jobs typically only pay a fraction of my usual rate. However, in the past, UpWork has provided me with filler jobs during slow periods. Some of those jobs turned into good longterm clients that do pay my usual rate.
I understand about needing to find work, even when that work isn’t for the best clients or under the best circumstances. I also understand how many of the things mentioned in this thread don’t necessarily apply when working for remote clients who aren’t willing to pay for top-quality work. A client who is only willing to pay €50 for a logo cannot expect the same level of quality and thoroughness as a client willing to pay €2000.
For example, I previously mentioned your logo having too many colors to be practical for spot color work. For a well-paying client, I’d make sure the logo or a version of the logo would work using spot colors. For a lesser-paying client who likely will never use spot colors, I might not concern myself with it. For a well-paying client, I’d stay away from the easy clichés and obvious solutions. Low-paying clients, on the other hand, are unlikely to appreciate such things. I’m not suggesting that low-paying clients should get sloppy work. Instead, I’m suggesting that catering the work to the clients, their expectations, their tastes, and their budgets is the most practical approach.
With all that said, I wouldn’t overthink your magnifying glass logo. For an ignorant cheapskate client hiring work off a contest site, they can only be expected to get what they’re paying for and what their level of understanding permits. Give them a cliché with a dozen different colors — that’s probably what they’re looking for and you won’t have a chance to explain the options to them anyway.
Again, I’ll suggest staying away from the contest sites if you must work for remote one-off clients over the internet. Upwork is better, although not perfect. Save your most thorough and best work for those clients who you can work with directly and who are willing to pay for the many long hours it takes to produce the best work. If I were you, I’d refine the magnifying glass logo that I previously said I liked and be done with it.
Yeah, just stick a handle on the C, drop some color and call’r done. Then move on to the next exercise in futility.
Just don’t use it in your portfolio. I wouldn’t hire a designer that overburdened a client on colors because that was the easy way out. Set this idea aside and explore other options, since you’ve already put far more time into this than you’ll ever get ‘paid’ for on a contest site.
Contest work doesn’t count as experience. Any art director these days knows them for what they are, and at the end of the day, it isn’t talent that gets those logos picked. It’s the whim of clueless clients. I might actually be more interested in someone who didn’t win just because they put more thought into a logo than these types of clients expect.
Of course it is. A design brief may be poorly conceived, and there could be poor art direction, but nevertheless good design execution by the designer that produces what’s asked for. You can have a bad concept and great execution or a great concept and bad execution.
I suppose that depends on how one defines talent. If successfully catering to the whims of clueless cheapskate clients can be considered a talent, yeah, I suppose so.
Were you not just describing how you occasionally do UpWork for a fraction of your usual rate. Are those clients clueless as well as cheap?
Sometimes, yes, they were a bit clueless, even though I was careful about who I worked with. I’d always check out their companies prior to signing any contract and insist on either a video or phone call, just as I would with more conventional clients. Most of the Upwork clients I dealt with contacted me directly through Upwork messaging rather than posting their jobs publicly. Those clients were typically more realistic when it came to fees.
My previous comment about clueless clients, however was aimed primarily at the contest sites and the clients found there.
The resentment is understandable, but that’s no reason to throw reason out the window and pretend that no talent exists on crowdsourcing sites.
I wasn’t clear. I’m hurridley typing on my phone tonight. Yes, there are some talented people doing crowdsourcing work, but what tends to count more on those sites than design talent is the talent of catering to the whims, tastes, and bad ideas of those sponsoring the contests.
Let’s face it, the true answer to this is there are too many “designers” out there and not enough meaningful work for them. About 15 years ago, entry level in the design industry was a 4-year degree and 2 years of experience, which you could get if you hustled during your junior and senior year. And that was just to land a most junior slot in any of the still existing studios and agencies. Now most of those slots are gone, as are the smaller studios, and there is a tremendous glut of designer students out there casting about for work in whatever pond is left open to them. And more of them every year. They don’t get training, they don’t get any meaningful feedback, and they don’t get any real world experience before actually trying to practice on paying clients.
It’s a sad reality.
I’ll probably retire long before any designer on our company list does. I want nothin to do with having to select the next batch.
As for talent on crowdsource, sure, it’s there.
But
The business model is flawed. It isn’t always talent that gets paid.
Buying into it shows poor judgement by all parties involved - except the site owner.
I’m talking the purely contest-driven sites
Perhaps it is bias. I don’t care, really.
I print. If I see an eight-color logo, I ask ‘why’
I cannot tell you how many times the ‘online only’ logo has come to me when the company grew large enough for a physical presence.
Let’s go back to this:
This logo is for a company that makes research of color with multiple menbers of difrent nationalities.
The target market are scientists designers aritist people who study psycology and marketing.
If you are wanting to engage this audience, especially people in the upper echelons of marketing and design, would you saddle your client with an unmarketable logo? Even if the answer to “why” is “Crowdsource,” that don’t fly.
1 Like
Are you saying good designers should always make sure their crowdsourced work does not saddle crowdsourcing clients with problematic solutions? Perhaps you weren’t saying that, but I’ll answer anyway. 
I think any competent designer should take pride in their work and do the best work possible within the circumstances of the job. However, as you’ve said many times, there are times when you just need to push to button and print whatever junk the client sends.
A $××,xxx logo warrants close attention to the bigger picture and whatever it takes to do everything right while making sure the client understands the issues and is on-board with the solutions.
A $xxx logo doesn’t warrant that level of diligence. Good designers always try to do their best work, but that work must be done within budget. When clients create obstacles or push back with bad ideas on these low-paying jobs, from a business perspective, the equivalent of just pushing the button and printing it is often the best choice.
Despite that, I wouldn’t initially propose an eight-color logo to clients. But if they insisted on it, even after I explained the problems, I wouldn’t spend much more of my time and money on low-budget jobs trying to convince them otherwise.
One always has the option to take the high road and refuse work that is not morally print-ready.
I don’t see it as a moral issue – just a business decision about what kinds of work one wants to take on and who one is willing to work with.
You’re right, though, turning down a job is an option. So is firing a client who won’t listen.
I’m going to say this as gently as I can …
Knock off the pedantic BS. Enough is enough.
You know exactly what you are doing and so do we.
It’s called bust’n balls. It’s a guy thing.
I don’t care what you call it. Knock it off.
Last warning.
I’m thinking this place wouldn’t be such a ghost town if y’all let up on the breaks a smiggen.
I guess what I meant by this was, the company that is looking for a logo is a color research company, why on earth would a poorly marketable logo appeal to them. This is a contest after all. I guess you could argue why such a company would use crowdsource, but if you want to win the contest, and if these guys are legit in their abilities, they aren’t going to consider an 8 color logo. Or at least, one would hope.
Cuz if they show poor color management in their own logo, who would hire them?
2 Likes