Getty Images’ iStockphoto is moving into new territory. In a statement sent out last night and relayed on the official forum, the company announced that it will soon start facilitating stock logo sales through its online marketplace. The announcement got the designer community to speculate whether this is a good thing or not, but the jury is still out on that.
Basically, iStock wants to make it possible for clients to buy custom logos for their companies or organizations on its online marketplace the same way it facilitates purchases of stock photography, audio, video and illustrations. The company is looking to tap into its vast community of affiliated designers to create an offering that could match the demand, encouraging them to use iStock as an outlet for the ‘hundreds of different logos’ they supposedly created over the course of their careers but remained unused.
Here’s how they pitch it:
If you create one of the first 10,000 approved logo designs by January 1, 2010, we’ll pay you $5 per logo and another $5 if we reach 10,000 approved logos by that date. So fire up Illustrator to create some amazing logos or dust off all those much-loved logos that never made it past the third round with a client.
iStock is still putting the finishing touches on the imminent addition to its services, but shared some details about what to expect in the statement:
– iStock logos can only be sold once, may not be in use or have been previously sold, and cannot feature existing elements (including content from the designer’s own iStock portfolio).
– iStockphoto requires logos to be exclusive to its website. Logos will remain for sale for a minimum of six months after it has been added to the marketplace.
– The price for each logo will range from 100 to 750 iStock credits (the company’s own virtual currency). When designers upload a file, they need to set a recommended price, after which iStock’s ‘inspectors’ will make the final pricing decision based on that recommendation.
– iStock will pay a base royalty rate of 50% per logo design for the first 6 months.
– Designers need to make sure they either own or licensed the font used in logos.
Judging from the chatter about the upcoming iStock service on Twitter, blogs and comments on the forum thread, designers appear to be undecided about whether this is the best thing since sliced bread or the death knell to the entire graphic design industry.
In my opinion, this is a logical step for iStock to take, and one that will rather complement than destroy the industry. Any designers reading TechCrunch who want to share their own thoughts on iStock’s plans in comments?
I like logos.They are mad hyphy
I’m looking forward to this. Hope they’ll do things right.
I’m interested to see if they only sell pre-existing logos or if they turn into a brokerage of logo and design jobs over time. Companies looking for logos typically want fully custom logos and I’m not sure that large databases of drag and drops will work for all. I think it’ll be great for a lot of situations… but companies truly interested in branding will want to stay custom.
Another idea for all you designers out there is to start charging a lower fee that includes the price of an istock logo and some customizations as well as implementation. That way your volume can make up for the lack of duration of a given job.
we’ll see who rises up.
From someone who cannot draw and relies on iStockPhoto for a lot of content it sounds like a great idea. Logo design is always very subjective and being able to browse thousands of logos to pick one that is right sounds like a great service.
i think this is good for businesses, but for the design industry this is going to spell disaster.
I had to make hard choice to decide which path to take. Design or SEO. I am glad I took the SEO path, been a designer offers more creative freedom, but there is just no money in it anymore.
Anyway I have nothing against istock, i think their service is brilliant.
Yeh but whitehat seo is mindlessly boring.. I wish I was a designer haha!
You couldn’t be anymore wrong. I run a successful design company turning over many millions of dollars each year, so for you to say “there is just no money in it anymore” is ludicrous. Stop talking rubbish.
Can I than please work for you
As it seems to me everybody is ditching design and our environment is becoming more and more banal with the instant design solutions like the ones on logolounge and now istock logos. Maybe my environment is just too small to need anything more than those instant solutions.
There’s a lot more to graphic design than logos; so I can’t see why anyone would consider it “the death knell to the entire graphic design industry”.
It will at least take a big chuck of it. May be 50%
Ha ha sure….
not really. clients would still one on one interaction because most times they dont know what they want. and they need revisions, and multiple variations.
istockphoto doesn’t really offer anything that I mentioned. this is not the death below to the design industry. it only makes it more competitive.
Good to know. The web need a leader in this matter, because for now, there isn’t a good place to get logos…
99designs.com has been the best resource for many logos as of late. Especially with the whole “competition” factor and being able to ask designers to tweak logos – it’s awesome.
I’d rather have 10-20 designers compete to make a logo exactly how I want it, than pick an existing one.
Selling stock logos and holding ‘design’ contests are 2 different ballgames.
Would you ask the same of a doctor? lawyer?
a real designer will never waste his time on some stupid contest that offers little pay. everything in life is equivalent to what you pay for.
i been on the 99designs.com; most of the work are by amateurs who lack experieces
99designs.com is terrible business practice. You don’t go to multiple dentists to clean each of your teeth and only pay for the best one.
Same thing goes with design. It won’t take long till have those amateurs to realize they are wasting time as well.
Thanks @Patflynn
@nikibrown the doctor/lawyer comparison is fallacious….apples to oranges.
Offering services for free initially in order to attract and build relationships with clients…ie win business… is commonplace across countless industries…from public relations, to construction and yes…to legal services.
Designers use 99designs to build experience and a client base…when their talents and style match the need of a particular client…they now have a qualified relationship which they can leverage to sell their services overtime as that client moves from one design need to the next.
Clients and designers each choose to participate because they see value and opportunity.
You mean false value and an opportunity to whore their time/designs. Only uneducated, ignorant, people who think they are designers or “designers” fall into these types of businesses that offer such a “promising” opportunity. Screw them, designers don’t need these types of opportunities to make a buck. And if a business doesn’t have the funds to go to a professional logo, tough luck. Have them make their own logo, than they’ll truly learn to appreciate what goes into making logos.
Hey Pat,
These are the types of logos you deserve
yourlogomakesmebarf.com
No professional would want to compete for you!
Jason, you obviously did not realize the major downfall in 99designs when they hired you. The process of creating a respectable logo design takes months of research, evaluation and thought. Most of the logo projects on your site are treated like a brochure with a one week deadline created from a barely there brief and lackluster client communication. Because of your site, you are spreading the idea that design is a throw away industry and in turn are devaluing the creative process we work hard to maintain. Thank you, Jason, for supporting a website that completely ruins the integrity of graphic design. Please, oh please, continue to allow sites like yours to write off the value of logo design and branding, it’s so great to see awful logos every day that are clearly the product of your sites “value and opportunity.” Give me a fucking break, do they pay you extra money to sit there and lie to the design community?
In the web age, logos and icons are pretty much interchanged. For the latter, there are sites like http://www.iconfactory.com that have stock offerings, too. They may end up offering their wares in istockphoto.
It will be interesting to see how this goes. It really depends on the quality of the logos that they sell.
I think that existing logo design companies will have a much harder time once iStockphoto’s logo service launches.
Robin, based on your post, I think you fit into the category with most people on this, seeing it as a good thing. However, to anyone who actually gets and gives a shit about real design, this is the worst thing I have ever heard.
Buying a “stock” logo is like buying your “one-size-fits-all” dresses. Do you do this? NO! Why not? B/c they won’t look good or flatter your body… Why do you not buy a stock logo? B/c it wasn’t designed for YOUR company, so its not a great fit.
However, back to my original comment… I think this is a natural progression for iStock and they will make a fair amount of money from this. There will be plenty of designers that will participate, and who knows, maybe it will just further set apart the companies that get it and the ones that don’t. Undoubtedly it will cut out the lousy logo designers around the world and offer the premium designers a more fruitful market.
Is this good? Depends on who you ask. Personally, anyone I know who purchases one will lose most all respect from me though.
To follow your metaphor: did the manufacturers of ‘one-size-fits-all’ clothing ever threaten the big fashion brands? I doubt it, they play in a different league and compete with each other. I think the graphic design industry is no different.
Very well said. For any not expert/good logo designer, they need to find other types of niche or job
Robin, if you read my entire post, you would see that I said exactly that.
this sucks. watering down the industry one credit at a time.
Thanks for linking to my blog article on the subject. Theres quite a discussion going on over there. –> http://www.niki...22/stock-logos/
It’s definitely an interesting development for iStock since their customer base is largely graphic designers. Based on the comments on my article I’m guessing this will not blow over well with designers. Only time will tell how this affects the design industry.
Companies seek profits not approval.
Designers get $5 for their logos? Are “real” designers going to go for this?
As for buyers, if you’re buying stock images for your logos, you’re doing it wrong. Period.
I think you read this wrong. Designers get credits, which can amount to several hundreds of dollars. The $5 fees are bonuses for early participants.
I sure did – thanks for pointing out. Still pretty cheap, but enough that I’m sure they’ll get plenty of takers.
I’d think that any company that would settle for a “stock” logo would also consider Helvetica and Times New Roman “just fine” for their letterhead.
The bean counters don’t care what it looks like, they’re only worried about the bottom line. When your company reaches the stage where Accounts Receivable is calling the shots, then you’re in serious trouble.
After re-reading this, I thought I probably should have said “Accounts Payable” above rather than “Receivable.” Silly me.
“Dammit Jim, I’m a Designer not a Copywriter!”
I love Helvetica.
logos suppose to be unique… if someone doesn’t care that 10 other companies have the same logo then they don’t care about branding.
if someone is using the same logo as you for ‘bad’ purposes’ people will have bad associations also with other the same logos…
someone who has a serious business will pay for a unique logo…
I don’t think stock logos will ever be a good thing for anything but the smallest of businesses (with the intention of getting a proper design further down the line), but I can see it as a useful way for designers to make cash out of turn-downed logos they made for clients.
Anyway:
“iStock logos can only be sold once, may not be in use or have been previously sold, and cannot feature existing elements (including content from the designer’s own iStock portfolio)”
They will be unique.
Once logos are bought, they are removed from the platform, but i guess u gotta ask urself whos to say people wouldnt just place minor tweaks and upload there logos again
Interesting that they make a foray back into logos/template designs: Istockphoto was recently quietly dropped by Stocklayouts.com as an image partner – they now use Fotolia as an image cross-sell.
Oh and to the guy who chose SEO over design and thinks designers don’t make money – the designers at http://www.flyerstarter.com are currently doing very well.
Great. It would be much easier to make a logo
Selling logo designs at iStockphoto aims at small companies or individuals who can not afford the costs for the specific design processes including briefings, draft rounds and so on. As it happened at iStockphoto with photos a new market with new costumers will be created instead of taking too much of the existing market.
Fast food joints didn’t put the great restaurants out of business. Event if you’re doing great work there’ll always be a clientele for the cheapy solution, it just makes the good look even better.
A logo is an “identity” for a business. Logos are made to identify the business and differentiate/set the business apart from others in a similar market.
It expresses who the business is, which is designed by a true designer and not some novice who will design logos for istock (which is what will happen, I’m sure).
So, how will this concept work with “stocK” logos?
It was once said, “Just because you’re getting what seems to be a good deal it doesn’t mean you’ll get professionalism, knowledge, and quality necessary for your project. If you want a really good meal you pay for a really good meal at a restaurant than a 99 cent burger at a fast food joint where,sure, the food is cheap but the quality doesn’t compare to a good restaurant meal that offers better quality and satisfaction!”.
No true designer, I would hope, will stoop this low for istock. If you design logos or you’re starting out don’t do it here on istock. Instead, reach out to the local businesses (mom and pop shops) around you and see if they need a logo (I’m sure they will). I know that will take some more time compared to doing it on istock, BUT at least you’ll get the price you deserve and the business gets the quality and the CARE they deserve!
Hearing about this is a disappointment, upsetting and overall a spit in the face to designers, logo designers.
How are they going to moderate that the logos are not being ripped from the other $50 logo sites, OR logos being so close to another mark that a legal battle ensues. I would be very nervous using this service and certainly wont be submitting rejected marks from paid projects…
I expected this to happen, I am a designer and have moved into focusing on PRM. Designers should not despair, a client buying their logo on a stock site probably is not going to be a lucrative account.
This seems to validate an interesting market. I think Brandstack (www.brandstack.com) is the pioneer in the field.
I am curious about what the designers here think about iStockphoto deciding what to charge for their logo.
I’m all for finding logos in multiple markets, but as a developer, I’d be pissed if someone else decides what they price my work at.
This is very different than a client negotiating an hourly rate, this is iStockphoto strongarming their designers.
Plus the 50% commission seems ridiculous, when you can list your logo on Brandstack, and keep 85% of your money.
Disclaimer: I am a happy customer of Brandstack.
More competition means better business. I’m looking forward to seeing this implemented. Might buy a few logos myself.
Has nothing to do with competition, has something do with quality and originality in which you will not get.
Purchasing such logos from “istock” only shows how much you truly value your business. Not very high I’m guessing.
I agree with Jose’s comment. You get what you pay for. I just want companies to realize how much work goes into a logo. There is research involve, its not like we make it in 5 minutes. I know some companies cant afford to get it professionally done and thinks this is really great, but you are not getting a unique logo that is suited to your company.
I’m a designer. I don’t see this impacting my business at all. The kind of people who would buy a stock logo (or use a contest service like 99Designs) are not the kind of people who I want as my clients anyway.
I want a client who cares deeply enough about their brand and their company to invest real money in a logo. The kind of person who buys a stock logo is the kind of client who would nickel-and-dime me on the price, would demand an unreasonable amount of revisions, and just generally doesn’t value my time, creativity, or skill.
Let’s be clear: your company will not get a logo from iStockPhoto. You’ll get an icon, with your company’s name next to it. Sure, there will be some lucky cases where a stock icon perfectly captures your company’s brand, but those cases will be rare.
There’s a reason brands pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to major agencies for logo design. There’s a reason that the people who designed logos like AT&T, Nike, etc. are legends in their fields. There’s a reason the logo design process can takes months of creative meetings and dozens of revisions. A logo is probably the single most important branding asset a company has. You’re not going to get that from a stock icon place from a designer that was paid $5 (or even hundreds of dollars).
Google “logo inspiration” … visit logopond.com … visit SmashingMagazine or Noupe (which actually has a logo inspiration gallery posted today) … check out the breathtaking creativity in the logos you see. Those are REAL logos, crafted to perfectly communicate the company’s brand.
This isn’t about creating more competition in the field of logo and brand development, it’s about cheapening the the price structure and process that is involved. The design process is not someone clicking a mouse on a pre-fab your-company-name-here logo; this is just production>retail. Realistically, most end-users, consumers and business owners have no clue what good design is because good design is invisible. This will only lead to visibly bad design on a larger scale.
This is an interesting idea but I see a few major problems right out the gate. First of all, it seems to me they are inviting a copyright nightmare.
What’s to stop a designer from just going to a site like Logopond and slightly modifying every single logo posted there? This has already happened with at least one other stock graphics site. A few months later, the customer realizes the logo they paid for is suspiciously similar to an existing logo. Do they blame istock in that case, or the designer?
On the other end of things, what’s to stop a customer from seeing a logo they like on istock and simply copying it themselves?
Third issue I see is that the prices they mention are not realistic. 100-700 credits for a logo? Forget 99Designs, I can already get a low-end logo design for less than that from a regular design company, why would I pay $600-700 for a stock logo?
“Third issue I see is that the prices they mention are not realistic. 100-700 credits for a logo? Forget 99Designs, I can already get a low-end logo design for less than that from a regular design company, why would I pay $600-700 for a stock logo?”
This is my main issue. You would figure they would want quantity not quality buyers. There is a lot of talent designers out there that can spin these out like a spider spins a web.
While it’s a very interesting announcement that a major stock photo player is venturing into stock logo designs, Inkd just announced that we were adding Logo products to their library of stock graphic designs on Sept 15th.
Our blog post on that subject is here:
Inkd Launches Logos
We’ve been expanding the idea of stock designs along the same model as stock imagery for a while now. Ours isn’t a contest model, it’s a marketplace model.
So we see this as a natural progression for iStock, but they might be a bit behind others who have already moved into this space.
I agree with Greg S.
The one’s that will jump at this will not be professional, true designers with morals but novices who think they are “designers” trying to make a buck.
Any other business that is going down this route should be ashamed of themselves(that includes you Inkd).
Might as well add this to the “service”:
Make my logo bigger cream
http://www.yout...h?v=qgcX0y1Nzhs
People who are concerned about their identity will never buy a random logo there.
People willing to buy any logo for 5$ would never afford a graphic designer.
I do not really see any issue here.
Except client/basic marketing education, of course.
This service will be useful for small businesses, certainly.
As a designer, I actually see this service as a good thing. A good logo screams for a good site design. While this may take a small slice, the design pie is getting rapidly larger as more and more business moves online.
I quit using iStock when they were bought by those capitalist pigs, the Getty’s. A few of us tarted a local co-op of designers, photographers and videographers and we now have a collection of our own that we share, and frankly it makes the stuff on iStock look like amateur garbage.
Does everyone not see the weirdness in designers buying from designers via a middle-man, so they can then claim they did this work and sell it to a client? I blogged on Design Cannibalism but might have to delve deeper into that one aspect. http://bit.ly/f0haX
I would not be concerned at all for the quality of the work placed on iStock or the kind of clients that might use this service.
If designers and clients alike choose to go down this route they are only de-valueing the work that designers and clients as teams achieve to create long term uniqueness for their products and services.
I would however be concerned that a global monopoly such as Getty would start to own the rights to a particular style, colour, typeface or shape.
This would make design of the future a minefield in terms of copyright law in the same way that it has been nearly impossible to name a brand because all names have either been registered by existing companies or capitalists on the make.
Design is a highly skilled, problem solving, craft and communications based industry and any designer worth his salt should not take part in this at all period.
Wes Trumble / Dynamo Dublin
Where did the comments go?
Oops, nvm, Techcrunch wasn’t loading for a bit.
Finally it would seem designers are feeling what professional photographers have felt for a few years.
Your industry is about to be commoditised and sold for $5. But before you cast the first stone, how many of you have bought from istock instead of Getty/Corbis? How many loved the idea that good photography was available for $1?
Now the boot is on the other foot. I’m going to get myself an el-cheapo new logo for my site.
Thanks istock!
PUAAAAAAJJJ!!!!
This is just another reason why designers must add value to their services. With all those logos around, somebody with some design skill and marketing expertise is going to have to figure out which is the best one for the client, right?
The secret is out…
Go to iStockphoto. Type in 7876070 (File #: 7876070)
Have a look at the symbol on the bottom right.
Now to http://www.bankofamerica.com
Separated at birth?
Inspiration or perspiration?
Looks like iStock will just become a bigger scrapbook of symbols for other designers – the talent is then as it has always been to package that logo into a brand vision and sell them in to the unsuspecting global brand managers with a big invoice.
Instead of having to buy an old copy of Logos of the 50’s and 60’s’ or dare I say ‘Logo international’ by David E Carter more time will be spent online downloading (s)crap.
TTFN
30 years ago, a logo could take up to a year to complete, and would provide almost 2/3’s a designer’s salary for a year (correct me if I am wrong). Now, you can desktop-publish some MS icon clipart, call it a logo, and make a nice $200 bucks in a day. Lucrative biz op? Yes. Degrading the professionalism of our trade? Yes. Solution? Become more high-level with the ability to art direct. Lawyers consult on legal matters, so why can’t we just consult & art direct on design matters? People will always be able to use software & programs, but it’s the ability to think and conceptualize that will set us apart from the desktop publishing crowd.