The Blogosphere—Open Discussion or Affirmation and Argument?

Over the past 7 days, I’ve been called a few less-than-friendly names in a series of blog posts and forum discussions. According to the post comments, I am a:

Racist. Liar (in a backhanded way). Drone.

I have character flaws. But I am not a racist. I do not lie. And I’m not a corporate drone.

The story:
I work for a company called Logoworks. We specialize in the creation of high-quality logos, websites, brochures, and other design. Our business model uses a combination of in-house designers and a dispersed workforce to create the art we provide for our customers. Our clients receive a wide variety of art and a very competitive price. It’s a disruptive business model that has affected pricing and expectations in the marketplace.

And we had a hiccup along the way. Without going into too much detail (details here), we inadvertently placed 3 logos in our gallery that were not original. When this was brought to our attention, we admitted our mistake and immediately removed the artwork from our website. More importantly, we terminated our relationship with the designers who provided the artwork. None of the artwork was sold to a client. We also strengthened our oversight policies to help ensure it wouldn’t happen again. And so far, it hasn’t.

At the time we also engaged in the “conversation” on the forum where our mistake was first reported to try to explain what happened. But rather than an open discussion about how we were addressing the issue, we found that most of the participants were only interested in affirming their previously held, negative opinions about us. We even invited a couple of critics to visit Logoworks’ headquarters, at our expense, to meet our design team, but were rebuffed, then mocked.

More recently, we created a corporate blog to share the truth about some of these issues, which still come up from time to time. This has apparently stirred up the hornet’s nest again. As a company, we welcome honest feedback, debate, even criticism of our business model. But rather than engaging in a conversation, the critics accuse us of being racist and lying about our intentions. And now I’ve been called a corporate drone for trying to share the other side of the story.

I don’t intend to discuss the good/bad of Logoworks’ business model or design practices here. That debate is raging elsewhere. Instead, this is a comment on the state of the blogosphere. We live in an age of rage. But it strikes me that criticism and feedback is more acceptable when it’s not laced with name-calling, vitriol, or worse.

For the record:
#1: Logoworks does not pursue racist outsourcing policies as we have been accused of doing. Yes we have a dispersed work force. But we pay our designers in Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, and elsewhere exactly the same amount we pay our designers in the United States. We are one of the few companies in the world with a dispersed work force that does this. Most people would call this egalitarian, not racist.

#2: I did not lie or dissemble when I wrote in a blog comment that our inspiration for the myths came from various sources. They did. I was involved in the process.

#3: I believe deeply in Logoworks’ mission to help small businesses look great. We’ve created a company that is unique in its ability to help small businesses that couldn’t afford design services in the past. It’s a model that has worked for hundreds of talented designers and thousands of happy customers. I also believe that no one in the design industry has addressed the issues of plagiarism as well as we have. Are we perfect? No. Will we make mistakes in the future? Possibly. Will we address any problems in the future and make it right for our customers? Absolutely.

Trying to defend a company against disinformation and other inaccuracies does not make one a drone. Repeating the same tired criticisms in forums and blogs without regard for the truth or open discussion, well, THAT might.

Ironically, in one of the forums, a designer wrote about finding a Logoworks ad link on a website. She wrote the webmaster to share the above story (although I assume from a less than neutral angle) and the website took our link down. Fair enough. Another designer wrote in response to that post: “Wow, I'm impressed. I really respect people who listen to the advice/complaints of others...and really consider whether it might be valid.” Apparently that only applies to those who listen to and believe our detractors. Others, who listen, then agree with us, are denigrated and harassed.

So why are people so upset? As I said above, Logoworks is a disruptive company. Because we can create a high-quality product that customers appreciate at a lower price, we are helping to change an industry. Some designers (not all) who can’t offer a better value to their customers are threatened by this. So, they lash out, rather than adapt to the new reality. As a highly visible, well-funded company, we take the brunt of the criticism.

Last thing: I understand that not all designers feel this way about Logoworks. Some have been fair in their assessments and criticism. Some have even approached us, after reading the criticism, and asked to work for us. These few generally seem interested in a real discussion. Unfortunately, their voices are often drowned out by the shrill criticisms of the mob.

We listened to criticisms and made improvements to our system. Will our detractors notice? Only if they’re interested in a real discussion, rather than a flame war. In the mean time, let’s keep the debate rational, the volume low, and the personal attacks to a minimum.

Comments

[Von Glitschka]

"We listened to criticisms and made improvements to our system. Will our detractors notice? Only if they’re interested in a real discussion, rather than a flame war. In the mean time, let’s keep the debate rational, the volume low, and the personal attacks to a minimum."

There has never been any personal attacks. I pointed out Logoworks clear stolen artwork both of the Zerox mark and a logo design done originally by Mark Fox. You can see those here:
http://www.baddesignkills.com/logoworks/

Jeff Kearl of Logoworks however did level personal attack on me.

If you want to see the evidence I can forward you his emails to me personally where he admits that they did copy other artists work and where he calls me a liar then in another email admits I was correct.

No one questions their right to run their business, we do however question their system which continues to rip-off other designers. That can be seen here: http://forum.howdesign.com/tm.aspx?m=154198

I'll glady debate LogoWorks any day of the week on this topic. That assumes they are willing to open up their entire portfolio for an audit.

Do they have a right to run thier business? Yes. Do they have a right to use art derived form other designers work? No. And that is what put them on the radar screen to begin with.

[Robert Wurth]

For the record, I never called you liar -- in a backhanded way or not. I simply pointed out that your comments on my blog did not mesh with what was officially posted on the LogoWorks myths page. In fact, I went so far as to say that I DID NOT want to imply that you're a liar.

What others have said about you or called you in the comments section of my posting is their business. While I don't condone name-calling, I also don't censor my blog.

So, considering that I've made the attempt to make all of my official articles and blog postings about LogoWorks relatively civilized, would you care to officially clear up the connection between my blog and someone calling you a racist? If you can infer being called a "liar" from my comments, then I'm sure you can understand how not clearing up the source of the name "racist" or "drone" might imply that I had something to do with calling you those things.

Now, care to address how it is that LogoWorks' own logo fails the Stinky Logo test? ; )

[rmarsh]

Robert,

Thanks for stopping by. I apologize if my wording is indelicate. You are right, it was a comment posted to your blog that calls Logoworks racist, not you. I thought by linking to the post, it would be obvious to anyone who clicked through. You are also technically right when you say you didn't call me a liar. However, juxtaposing a phrase like "I don't want to call him a liar" with a second phrase that starts with "but" or "rather" is a backhanded way of saying, "but he is, just look at why..." It may not be what you intended, but it certainly reads that way. It's a bit like saying, I'm not calling him a child abuser, but his kids sure have a lot of broken bones. The inference is clear.

I was serious when I commented on your blog that I appreciated the way you approached the LW debate--mostly fair, though I believe still wrong on many of the facts.

Obviously this topic is polarizing--proven again by Von's reciting many of the same, wrong criticisms about Logoworks designers and pay (based in India, paid only $45 when they 'win' a project, etc) in yet another forum thread today, and linking to his ripoffs pages above--most of which are simlar concepts, not rip-offs.

Logoworks has addressed the three logos that were found to be stolen, but this is not acknowleged anywhere on Von's website, or anytime he posts the links to other forums or blogs. If he is interested in a true discussion, I wonder why he does this? Von posted another so-called rip-off today (also linked above), but other designers (including one of our most vociferous critics) do not believe this most recent find to be a rip-off. They're right. It's not.

Robert, I hope this clears up any confusion to your satisfaction. Thanks for bringing some level of rationality to the conversation. And thanks again for stopping by.

[XSpex]

For the record, I am the designer who complained about a linked ad to your company. It seems to me that you are participating in the same one-sided assumtions you decry in others. I am pasting my complaint email below so you can judge on facts rather than the assumptions you've already made. Please also keep in mind that this email was about both you and a template-resale company.

I do find it rather disingenous of you to lump my comments on the How Forum in with all others who have complained/bad-mouthed/accused you and so on. Had you been interested in going beyond sweeping generalizations, you would have noticed that these were the first and only comments I have ever made—in public or in private—about your company. Quite frankly, I think it speaks volumes that you yourself can't make (or aren't willing to make) these distinctions.

Here's my email:

"Your endorsement of LogoWorks, and the idea of off-the-shelf logos in general, is problematic for two reasons:

1. You are recommending that small businesses spend their often limited marketing dollars on an unoriginal "identity" that already belongs to several other companies (sometimes in the same field), and:

2. You undermine your own advice by recommending this option immediately after explaining the importance of establishing "how you're different from your competition."

My intention isn't to chastise you for recommending LogoWorks, but to inform you of what these companies really offer their customers-and potentially, your readers.

There's a great article on LogoWorks' practices here:
http://creativelatitude.com/articles/article_0905_wurth.html"

And their response:

"Thanks for your interest in ---, and for taking the time to write to us about our listing of LogoWorks at our site. We appreciate your diligence in pointing this out and explaining why it's a concern.
We've reviewed the article you sent along, as well as your comments, and decided to remove the link to both LogoWorks and --- from our site. We believe that by leaving it more open-ended in that section and not driving people to any one particular resource, we'll be serving
our readers better."

Lastly, I would just like to say that as a business owner myself, I completely respect and understand your commitment to trying to right this perceived wrong. I do not begrudge you your business, but I do think it brings with it certain perils, which you are living first-hand.

I think people should to be aware of the potential repurcussions of your "disruptive" business model, and I find it offensive that when I engage in a discussion (Was I vitriolic? Was I antagonistic? Was I completely unfair?) you use broad brush strokes to paint me into a corner. Sounds a little pot-calling-kettle to me.

Did it occur to you send me a message via the forum asking me about my post? Of course not. Had you done so, I may very well have edited out your company's name. But you didn't—instead you used me as an example to make your own one-sided point. Just a little ironic, that.

-Jess

[Von Glitschka]

I am listening. Post exactly what you do pay your designers for their work on a given logo project. I'd be interested in comparing that with real-world design figures.

I'll then gladly post that on the page you mentioned and in the forum posts.

The reference to past rip-offs is just that reference. You made your bed you have to sleep in it now. I am sorry that makes you feel uncomfortable.

[rmarsh]

Jess-
Thanks for your comments. I don't think my post was unfair or one-sided as you suggest. I appreciate you posting the email you sent because it proves my point. Let me explain:

Your email certainly implies that Logoworks sells off-the-shelf logos and "unoriginal 'identity' that already belongs to several other companies." This is false. Every client that goes to Logoworks completes a creative brief and is assigned a team of designers to work on their project from scratch. The designers are required to create original artwork for each project. Perhaps you didn't know that--okay, we all make mistakes. The article you linked to is also full of inaccuracies, but I don't expect you to know that either. You don't exactly read both sides of the story at the How Forums.

Please note that my reference to your email and the response it received is written as an aside. That is, it is separate from the rest of the post and makes a related but separate point. I didn't say that you were vitriolic or unfair. In fact, my exact words about what you did were "fair enough."

Try doing a search for Laura Ries in the How forums going back about 12 months. Take a look at nasty things written about her after she defended Logoworks. Calling those comments (and pictures) vitriolic is an understatement. At the time, Laura was forced to discontinue the comments on her blog. And given the horrible things that were said about her by the How crowd, I don't blame her. Others who post positively about Logoworks have endured the same treatment. This is what I meant by the shrill crowd, and the links provided in the original post will take you to two of the sites that endured the treatment I'm talking about.

I agree people can/should be made aware of the benefits and costs of our business model. But it is helpful when the person sharing the "facts" actually has the facts. Your email was very one-sided. Some might call it unfair. And it got the result you were after. Now I wonder if you will email the company back and let them know that you were wrong about some of the things you wrote?

Finally, it didn't occur to me to email you directly, mostly because it was the response to your experience (not your actual experience) that proved the irony I pointed out: Logoworks critics think it's great when people listen to and believe them. Others who listen but take Logoworks' side are villified. It's not about the listening, it's about who you agree with. Given the comment I quoted, that struck me as a bit ironic.

[rmarsh]

Von-
I am at a complete loss as to how I should respond to your comment. You say you are listening, but just today you posted untrue comments about Logoworks at yet another blog. You have refused to consider that Logoworks may have addressed the concerns raised last year. You continue to post the same falsehoods, without regard for the truth. You're certainly entitled to say what you would like (it's a great country isn't it?). But please don't call it listening. Because your actions lead me to believe that you really don't care what the other side has to say.

[XSpex]

A few points:

1.
I've read your website's copy, and I understand what you tell your customers. That's fine.

2.
You are welcome to attack the credibility of the article I posted all you want. I've read it several times, and find it to be a very detailed and seemingly well-researched piece of writing. Feel free to pick it apart for the edification of your readers, it's of no concern to me.

3.
I won't retract my initial email to the company in question for the following reason: I was raising an issue of concern to me. I presented my side of the argument. I offered a resource unrelated to myself for further information (they already had your link to get your side of the story). You have failed to convince me that your model does not produce unoriginal logos. Therefore, my initial concern with this company's endorsement of you still stands: their link to you was in direct reference to the need to produce original branding, and I think it was a poor suggestion on their part. I simply told them so, I told them why, and I pointed them to a reference. You happen not to agree with my opinion, or the choice of the company to remove your link, but that's no reason for me to retract my opinion.

4.
My initial reason for posting a comment to you here also still stands: your mention of me was not an aside. It was a paragraph leader, and it was in the context of your discussion of people's personal attacks of you. The implication is that I am a member of that group. I am offended by that. However, I posted my comment in a public forum, and you have every right to reference it. That said, don't play the game of semantics and insist that the implication isn't there. That offends me even more.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. If you have personal feelings about what I've done, I suggest you use one of the several ways you have of directly contacting me.

-Jess

[Robert Wurth]

I'm actually glad you brought up Laura Ries. I've actually communicated with her through e-mail and found her to be a very well-reasoned person who, at the time of the blog posting you mentioned, simply didn't have all sides of the story available to her.

It is specifically worth mentioning that one of the biggest reasons all of this "blew up" a year ago has a lot to do with Jeff Kearl and his handling of the situation. Posting to the HOW forum under the name of "tsheet," he behaved, shall we say, less than professional. (That isn't to say that some designers on the other side of the issue haven't also gone off the deep end, but rather that Jeff, whether officially under the LogoWorks banner or not, added considerable fuel to the fire.)

I believe that the main issue people took with Laura Ries was her seemingly blind praise for LogoWorks (and Jeff), which came during the unfortunate timing of the discovery of "borrowed" designs being promoted within the LogoWorks galleries.

Was the name-calling justified? No. Were the criticisms against LogoWorks for putting "borrowed" designs on their site, and against Laura for not researching her story beyond her Entrepreneur experience and "reading about them" in WSJ justified? Yes and possibly.

LogoWorks (and you) claims that the company has a commitment to originality and a no-tolerance policy against "borrowing" designs. I believe this. You wouldn't have lasted *this* long if you didn't. However, Jeff Kearl also admitted that the incident a year ago wasn't the first time -- it was merely the first time it went so public. With the current volume of work, and the increase the company predicts, I just don't see how it can possibly be the last time, either.

You mentioned on my blog that you don't believe that every freelancer or agency takes the time to research all of their designs thoroughly, either. Setting aside the fact that a "they do it, too" argument isn't valid, it's also important to note that agencies and freelancers not only have face-to-face contact with the clients most of the time, but they also don't have the shield of annonymity to protect them if they get caught ripping off designs, like those in the LogoWorks network do. If they get fired from you, it doesn't necessarily tarnish their name.

Also, in an agency setting, it's reasonable to assume that the creative director just might notice if the artist working under him is ripping off a design from the latest Logo Lounge book -- a luxury LogoWorks just doesn't have until it's too late.

Honestly, I'm not critical of LogoWorks because I see the company specifically as competition to my own business (in point of fact, I know from first-hand experience that there's quite a lot of work to be had from unsatisfied ex-LogoWorks customers). Rather, I see the company as potentially harmful to the design industry and to businesses who require brand development and instead fall prey to the LogoWorks hype (or worse, might possibly find themselves unwitting recipients of an unoriginal design).

Given that, I really would like some enlightenment. With a 3-day turnaround time, artists working off-site all over the world, and a stated 9,000 designs a year (tripled by next year, if the marketing is accurate), just what *is* the procedure for checking all of those designs? Does LogoWorks even do anything at all? I mean, sure, you can say that agencies may not perform these checks, but they also don't have designers scattered all over the world trying to turn in art under a tight 3-day deadline.

Also, since your marketing promises every customer a "custom designed logo," is there a policy in place to make sure designers aren't just pulling stuff out of their "reject" files and resubmitting them so they can collect their quick paycheck (as artists from the network have admitted to doing)?

-- Robert

[Robert Wurth]

I want to address one other thing very quickly.

In your response to Jess, above, you state that the article she linked to is filled with inaccuracies. Just for clarity, is this the article you are saying is inaccurate: http://creativelatitude.com/articles/article_0905_wurth.html

I wrote this article. Furthermore, I received the following response from Jeff Kearl regarding this article:

------[begin e-mail]-----------
I read your article on us. Not only was it well written but it was objective and covered the issues very fairly. Using unoriginal artwork in any form is unacceptable and wrong. We fully acknowledge this. We deserved the criticism. You pointed out that our volume creates a unique challenge with regard to this issue. We are making several changes to hopefully prevent it from ever happening again. I can’t possibly imagine how hard the designer community would be on us if it actually happened again. It was fairly unbearable the first time around.

If you ever have any questions for us, don’t hesitate to call or email.
------[end e-mail]-----------

Interesting. Note that he says it was "objective" and covered the issues "fairly." Never does he mention that it was "filled with inaccuracies." Now, I understand that policies may have chance SINCE this article was written, but that's not the same thing as saying the article was "filled with inaccuracies." Care to explain what is inaccurate?

-- Robert

[Rick]

Outsourcing of the Logo Design services of design houses has become increasingly common these days. Many design houses now choose to outsource their logo design services for more than one reason. Firstly, the outsourcing rids them of the day-to-day hassles of the whole design process. Secondly, they save on human resources as they outsource the design work. Thirdly, by outsourcing their custom logo design services to a professional design service, they can guarantee 100% customer satisfaction, as the work gets into professional hands. And finally, the customer satisfaction leads to a sharp and continuous increase in the number of customers – hence increased revenues.

[Nichole White]

Nice Article! I have passed through another site having Directory of Logo Designing Companies. Thought to share it with you..

http://www.logoblog.org/directory.php

[A Smash Hit! Trade Show Displays]

Wow! What a discussion! Although we aren't in the Logo Design biz in general we do deal with logos on a day to day basis when designing trade show graphics for our clients. I think this discussion does give insight into the challenge in creating true and original artwork of any kind. There are only so many ways/layouts to create an attractive logo (I'm sure a designer might rebuke this idea). Logo design was only originally available to those companies who had large marketing budgets, but now that every company can afford these services you're bound to have similar logos popping up here and there. If you're a surf shop and you want a logo designed you'll probably want a picture of a wave, maybe a surfboard and your company name. Hmmmm, I wonder how many designs would need to be created before different designers created something very similar. In our "sue-happy" society things don't have to be exactly the same to warrant damages or threat of a lawsuit. The same goes for Mexican restaurants or Coffee Shops. In this age of affordable creativity it's getting harder and harder to stand out from the crowd and that goes for logos as well.

On another note, why doesn't Logoworks or other Logo Design companies offer trademark registration services to protect the logo that was designed?

- Evan
President
A Smash Hit! Trade Show Displays

[Rob]

It's been a little while since I revisited the issues addressed, so it's probably time that I respond to the last few comments.

Rick-

Thanks for your comments.

Evan-

Thanks for stopping by. Logoworks does recommend that every customer perform a trademark search as part of the logo process. We have a great partner--LegalZoom--that helps those customers who are interested in this service.

Like Logoworks, LegalZoom offers a great service at a great price--having said that, it still costs several hundred dollars to perform these searches due to the fees imposed by the government. We highly recommend all of our customers go through this process.

Jess-

The measure of the credibility of an article is not how well it is written, but whether the things that are written are true. There are several points made in the article that are false (see below). Communicated well, yes, but still not true. If the argument relies on inaccuracies, should we trust the gist of the narrative? I would argue no.

Of course you won't retract what you said. I hardly expected you to. Like many others who have attacked the LW business model, you are not interested in the truth, but in only what you believe. This takes us back to my original post where I ask if the blogosphere is a forum for discussion or a shouting match. I think you prove my point.

And again, you don't seem to understand what an aside is. An aside can be an entire paragraph or even several pages. My guess is they don't teach English composition in design school, so I won't hold this against you. But please don't impune my motives based on a misunderstanding of the rules of composition.

Robert-

You seem to hold LW to a higher standard than the rest of the design world. I agree that "they do it too" isn't a defense. I am simply pointing out that the problem of originality isn't just a LW issue, but an issue that concerns the entire industry. And LW has done more than any other design shop that I am aware of to ensure copied artwork is not sold to customers.

LW does not enjoy any anonymity. If we do something wrong, our business will suffer just like anyone else's. So we have a significant incentive to prevent any kind of abuse.

There is no doubt that LW is changing the design industry. Our goal is to make design affordable for the mass of small businesses that need it. I'm not going to share our processes with the world at large any more than Coke is going to share their secret formula. It's our "secret sauce" and we'd like to keep it that way. Suffice it to say, it works. And it works well for thousands of happy customers.

I'm not in a position to defend or speak for Jeff. As for the inaccuracies in your article, here a just a few:

1. You characterize LW as a logo mill. We are a full-service design agency providing everything from book covers and vehicle wraps to billboards, stationery, websites, brochures and more. Perhaps we are a DESIGN mill? Other than our low prices, quick turn-around and unique work processes, we're not that different from any other design shop.

2. The blow-up referenced in the article included exactly two logos on the LW site that were copied. Yet, the article and other links indicate that the problem was much more wide spread. This is not true. I won't go into detail as this has been addressed elsewhere. The article's claims in this regard are inaccurate.

3. I'm not sure where the rules are that say anything in our gallery must be sold to a customer. Surely you are aware of the myriad of ads and designs that are done in the industry to show a particular skillset. Many of the designs we show in our gallery were created for a particular project, but not ultimately choosen by the client. We show them off because we think they are examples of good design. We created them. We are proud of them. And we believe they show our customers the broad range of design we can provide.

4. You misrepresent both the LW process and how much a designer is paid (which can be much closer to $200 per logo). This information is available at ARTEIS and has been widely published (see for example The Wall Street Journal article on our website). Your article is inaccurate in this regard.

5. We have always been upfront about our model and how it works. Your article indicates otherwise.

I could go on. You get the idea. The article is full of inaccuracies, as I wrote above.

I am closing comments on this post, as it feels like both sides are talking to each other. We have listened to the designers who have pointed out ways to improve our processes. LW made changes. But so far the other side doesn't seem to be interested in dialog or admitting that LW is something more than a logomill. I for one am interested in continuing a dialog, but not very interested in participating in a shouting match.