OTOH, I don’t know very many people who ring up grocery purchases or manage corporations or law firms as a hobby, whereas I know many people who produce art that way.
No doubt professional artists with specific talents/training/experience in logo design produce a much higher-quality product than hobbyists do, of course, and do best not to participate in these sorts of contests at all. Even if it’s for charity, presumably a professional artist who can command higher fees does better to spend their time on better-paying contracts and donating the money instead of donating their time.
But if a client decides to go with a lower-quality cheaper product (and save themselves the effort of trying to evaluate ahead of time which artists would do the best job on their particular project), what’s wrong with that? There are lots of areas where I forego premium products/services because I don’t feel the need for the benefits they offer.
Admittedly, perhaps clients who crowdsource are insufficiently aware of the additional value they’d receive from a contracted professional, in which case it sounds like a marketing effort is in order.
I think your points are good ones. I would note though, that:
Even if it’s for charity, presumably a professional artist who can command higher fees does better to spend their time on better-paying contracts and donating the money instead of donating their time.
isn’t necessarily true when the thing they are donating is their professional work. The reason it’s better to hire a good professional is that the professional is going to understand things about design and communication better than the person trying to get the logo designed, including things like how to craft an overarching brand that sends a unified message rather than a single cool looking logo.
I realize it’s hard to tell how good a professional is though, and I don’t have any advice on that.
I don’t know very many people who ring up grocery purchases or manage corporations or law firms as a hobby,
Not a “law firm” exactly, but the prosecutor’s office in Long Beach, California is looking for volunteers to prosecute criminals for free. This economy is rough.
Don’t most people work pro bono as defense attorneys or for non-profits trying to fight for some cause? I’ve never heard for a lawyer volunteering as a prosecutor.
You’re right. Traditional pro bono work generally is undertaken on behalf of parties who are unable to pay steep legal fees, or else in order to advance civil rights or some similar purpose.
Prosecuting low-level crimes is considered one of the ordinary functions of government, or at least it has been until now.
In the modern context, I don’t think there’s necessarily a principled distinction. The Long Beach city government is probably being pretty smart. Still, in a historical context, this is a big change. In the English-speaking world, standing national armies are relatively new, and government-paid firefighters and police forces are even newer. But employees of the state (or the king) have been prosecuting crimes since (checking Wikipedia)...at least 1243 .
Yeah, that’s my impression as well. Then again, most of what I “know” about the actual practice of law I learned from television shows, so I don’t take it too seriously.
OTOH, I don’t know very many people who ring up grocery purchases or manage corporations or law firms as a hobby, whereas I know many people who produce art that way.
No doubt professional artists with specific talents/training/experience in logo design produce a much higher-quality product than hobbyists do, of course, and do best not to participate in these sorts of contests at all. Even if it’s for charity, presumably a professional artist who can command higher fees does better to spend their time on better-paying contracts and donating the money instead of donating their time.
But if a client decides to go with a lower-quality cheaper product (and save themselves the effort of trying to evaluate ahead of time which artists would do the best job on their particular project), what’s wrong with that? There are lots of areas where I forego premium products/services because I don’t feel the need for the benefits they offer.
Admittedly, perhaps clients who crowdsource are insufficiently aware of the additional value they’d receive from a contracted professional, in which case it sounds like a marketing effort is in order.
I think your points are good ones. I would note though, that:
isn’t necessarily true when the thing they are donating is their professional work. The reason it’s better to hire a good professional is that the professional is going to understand things about design and communication better than the person trying to get the logo designed, including things like how to craft an overarching brand that sends a unified message rather than a single cool looking logo.
I realize it’s hard to tell how good a professional is though, and I don’t have any advice on that.
Not a “law firm” exactly, but the prosecutor’s office in Long Beach, California is looking for volunteers to prosecute criminals for free. This economy is rough.
Pro bono legal work (not in any way affiliated with U2) predates the current economic downturn.
Don’t most people work pro bono as defense attorneys or for non-profits trying to fight for some cause? I’ve never heard for a lawyer volunteering as a prosecutor.
You’re right. Traditional pro bono work generally is undertaken on behalf of parties who are unable to pay steep legal fees, or else in order to advance civil rights or some similar purpose.
Prosecuting low-level crimes is considered one of the ordinary functions of government, or at least it has been until now.
There are two implications here I’m not entirely certain of.
The first is that enforcing laws is not a “similar purpose” as above.
The second is that the government soliciting volunteers to perform a task constitutes no longer considering that task a function of government.
In the modern context, I don’t think there’s necessarily a principled distinction. The Long Beach city government is probably being pretty smart. Still, in a historical context, this is a big change. In the English-speaking world, standing national armies are relatively new, and government-paid firefighters and police forces are even newer. But employees of the state (or the king) have been prosecuting crimes since (checking Wikipedia)...at least 1243 .
Yeah, that’s my impression as well. Then again, most of what I “know” about the actual practice of law I learned from television shows, so I don’t take it too seriously.