Chris Brogan posted a question on Twitter (as he so frequently does) that garnered a lot of attention (as they so frequently do). He asked if anyone liked 99designs, and a couple of designers thumbed their digital noses at it.

In case you’re unfamiliar, 99designs is a place where you can launch an online contest to make designers compete against each other for a monetary prize you agree to supply. And for the record, I’m not a designer. I’m a converted journalist. So why am I commenting? Don’t worry: everything will become clear in a minute.

I can see the objection here, though I don’t agree with it. It comes from the concept of doing work “on spec”. For those not in the know, writing an article “on spec” means you’re agreeing to do work without the promise of being paid for it. Usually you are asked to do this kind of work only when you’re just starting out, as an editor has no way of knowing that you’ll produce quality work.

It’s not an ideal agreement for the content producer, but it does serve to protect the interests of the publication. Freelancers don’t like this kind of work, because there’s a chance they could be wasting their time researching and writing an article that an editor won’t subjectively “like”.

Of course, as a freelancer, there’s nothing that says you have to take this kind of work.

Still, there’s a prevailing attitude that publications that request this kind of work from authors are somehow damaging the industry. There’s no way of me knowing for sure, but I’m guessing that this is true of designers, as well. Yes, the creative work that journalists and designers do is worthy of payment. Yes, if you want a designer to do work for you, you should do your research and pick one that does good work.

But if you’re not looking for ultra-high quality work — or if you’re looking to give an upstart creative a break — what is wrong with running a contest? In the first place, 99designs lets designers pick the level of reward they would like to submit for, so designers who think their work is worth more are free to submit for higher-paying gigs. In the second place, as I mentioned before, this isn’t the only way for designers to get work. Freelancers are, by definition, free to pursue only those jobs that they want.

I hated doing work on spec. It was nerve-wracking waiting for that email that said I was going to get a paycheck for all the work I did. But if I hadn’t done it, I wouldn’t have built up my portfolio to the point where I could begin a career in journalism. (And then subsequently abandon it for a career in marketing, which I much prefer.)

Is “on spec” work a necessary evil? Do contests rob other designers of opportunities? Or is this a case of may-the-best-man-win? You decide.

UPDATE: An awesome conversation about this topic is happening over on Chris Brogan’s blog right now. Go be a part of it!

Chris Brogan posted a question on Twitter (as he so frequently does) that garnered a lot of attention (as they so frequently do). He asked if anyone liked 99designs, and a couple of designers thumbed their digital noses at it.

In case you’re unfamiliar, 99designs is a place where you can launch an online contest to make designers compete against each other for a monetary prize you agree to supply. And for the record, I’m not a designer. I’m a converted journalist. So why am I commenting? Don’t worry: everything will become clear in a minute.

I can see the objection here, though I don’t agree with it. It comes from the concept of doing work “on spec”. For those not in the know, writing an article “on spec” means you’re agreeing to do work without the promise of being paid for it. Usually you are asked to do this kind of work only when you’re just starting out, as an editor has no way of knowing that you’ll produce quality work.

It’s not an ideal agreement for the content producer, but it does serve to protect the interests of the publication. Freelancers don’t like this kind of work, because there’s a chance they could be wasting their time researching and writing an article that an editor won’t subjectively “like”.

Of course, as a freelancer, there’s nothing that says you have to take this kind of work.

Still, there’s a prevailing attitude that publications that request this kind of work from authors are somehow damaging the industry. There’s no way of me knowing for sure, but I’m guessing that this is true of designers, as well. Yes, the creative work that journalists and designers do is worthy of payment. Yes, if you want a designer to do work for you, you should do your research and pick one that does good work.

But if you’re not looking for ultra-high quality work — or if you’re looking to give an upstart creative a break — what is wrong with running a contest? In the first place, 99designs lets designers pick the level of reward they would like to submit for, so designers who think their work is worth more are free to submit for higher-paying gigs. In the second place, as I mentioned before, this isn’t the only way for designers to get work. Freelancers are, by definition, free to pursue only those jobs that they want.

I hated doing work on spec. It was nerve-wracking waiting for that email that said I was going to get a paycheck for all the work I did. But if I hadn’t done it, I wouldn’t have built up my portfolio to the point where I could begin a career in journalism. (And then subsequently abandon it for a career in marketing, which I much prefer.)

Is “on spec” work a necessary evil? Do contests rob other designers of opportunities? Or is this a case of may-the-best-man-win? You decide.

UPDATE: An awesome conversation about this topic is happening over on Chris Brogan’s blog right now. Go be a part of it!

It begins with The Sigh.

The Sigh is that point that every marketer reaches at some point where they wish other marketers would just say what they wanted to say without making their audience jump through hoops to get at it. It’s a result of call-to-action burnout:

“2010 Web Trend Benchmark Report – Sign Up to Download.”
“Register for our webinar, ’10 Things you Must Know About SEM’”
“The Social Media Expo Extravaganza! Buy your tickets now!”

Sigh. You see these kinds of things every day. Sure, some of this content has value; everyone loves a good benchmark report, after all. But at some point you just get sick of filling out forms and logging into webinars, even if they offer something of tremendous value.

There has never been a good answer to The Sigh. It’s always been one of those things that you grit your teeth and get over. But you shouldn’t have to. These kinds of things should be freely available to everyone.

That’s why I started this blog. First and foremost, I can’t believe we have trusted for so long the survey data collected by companies who have a vested interest in seeing a particular set of results. “Buy Forrester’s Video Benchmark Report, sponsored by Video Company X!” That’s not market research. That’s just marketing.

More inherently trustworthy are the observations of everyday marketers like you and me. Sure, we have our opinions as to what might be the right or wrong way to do something, but more often than not we are willing to talk about our experiences in an open and honest way, and to help others achieve some modicum of success on our backs.

Secondly, because this blog was created without agenda, I will never require anything of you to access the information it generates. The conclusions that we reach here — yes, I said “we” — will be reached through honest and open debate. I will not fabricate them and hide them behind registration forms, nor will I allude to “research” that is not universally and freely accessible.

This blog is not sponsored by anyone. It does not run ads. It does not generate revenue for me or any company with which I am or might in the future be associated. I am not beholden to anyone, am not driving a business venture, and at this point I have no interest in securing either speaking gigs or book deals. I’m just a fan of marketing — a second-generation marketer, in fact — and I believe that this is the right thing to do.

What I’m trying to say is that Open Source Marketing is all marketing that is freely available from a trustworthy source. In this case, that source is you. I just aggregate it and spur a conversation.

Do you have what it takes to be an open source marketer?

Sure you do. All it takes is a little bit of honesty. Separate yourself from your brand for a minute, and join in the conversation. What do you think it means to be an open source marketer?

I really shouldn’t complain so much about this, but I spent a lot of time this morning reading threads on LinkedIn Answers about how social media is a sham. This one in particular got me:

Is it my imagination, or is everyone a “social media marketer” now?

Let’s look beyond the fact that the author of this question blames joblessness on social media. Let’s look beyond the fact that the second “clarification” ends in a sales pitch on a social media networking site. And let’s look beyond the fact that calling oneself a social media marketer is not akin to calling oneself an expert in social media.

Instead, let’s look at the problem as stated by the author: that people amass a large number of followers for a brand and call it “marketing” when in fact there is no clear marketing objective to it.

I agree, Shaun O (if that is your real name). People who amass a large number of followers and call it “marketing” are sadly mistaken. However, people who amass a large number of followers so they can  use social media portals as distribution networks for PR and content marketing most certainly are marketers. The best kind, in fact.

As for the quick uptake of social media, on the surface it seems you have a point. I would raise an eyebrow at a gas station attendant, too, if I found him on Twitter claiming to be a social media guru.

But the wonderful thing about social media is that it is entirely possible for such a scenario to occur. If, for example, that gas station attendant had managed to build a substantial following online, used social media as a way to promote deals and specials, and got more traffic at his store, then he’s doing something right.

Does the fact that he is a gas station attendant mean he can’t also be a marketer? What qualifies him as such? Years of experience?  Level of education? If he is expert in the practice of using social media to increase revenue, does that not make him a de facto social media marketing expert? Does it matter what he was doing last year?

Maybe I’m a little sensitive about this because a year ago I was a freelance journalist and a dining section editor at a smallish monthly magazine. And then I parlayed my journalism skills into a B2B content creation gig and increased traffic-to-lead conversion rates by 53%, increased monthly lead generation by 90%, and increased our social media reach by 133%, thanks at least in part to social media. And all in four months.

(Not to toot my own horn or anything.)

So I agree with you, Shaun O., that marketing is based on results. But let’s not be too quick to assume that everyone who calls himself a social media marketer is blowing smoke. I’m sure there are many for whom this is true, but let’s not write off social media entirely because of a few bad apples, shall we?

And for the record, I wasn’t aware that there were self-described social media marketers out there that didn’t have blogs, and who didn’t believe that blogs drove results. I mean, I believed people like that existed — at least in the same way I believe there are still people who voluntarily listen to Devo — but I’d never actually encountered such a person before. Huh.