@Otte – Our refund rates are historically low. The vast majority of buyers are very happy with the quality of the work and the service, but since this was a relatively new change, we don’t yet have sufficient data to be able to assess how this policy will impact feedback, quality, etc. You are of course right that we might end up paying “big time” for this without much improvement. If true – we’re always ready to make adjustments to make sure that our policies are sensible, reasonable, and practical.

Let’s see what actually happens in the projects and if we’re seeing buyers abuse the guarantee, we’ll make the necessary adjustments. We believe, however, that the vast majority of buyers will continue to be thrilled with the work and that the issues you’ve articulated are not very likely to occur.

@Otte – Our refund rates are historically low. The vast majority of buyers are very happy with the quality of the work and the service, but since this was a relatively new change, we don’t yet have sufficient data to be able to assess how this policy will impact feedback, quality, etc. You are of course right that we might end up paying “big time” for this without much improvement. If true – we’re always ready to make adjustments to make sure that our policies are sensible, reasonable, and practical.

Let’s see what actually happens in the projects and if we’re seeing buyers abuse the guarantee, we’ll make the necessary adjustments. We believe, however, that the vast majority of buyers will continue to be thrilled with the work and that the issues you’ve articulated are not very likely to occur.

If the contest holders can always get their money back, then the incentive to participate (ie, feedback ect.) diminishes. Lack of participation by the CH results in poorer quality submissions, increasing the risk of withdrawal, and it might snowball……

CS might end up paying big time for this, with little or no real improvement.

I might be thinking about this wrong, but I had always figured the thought that the contest holder wasn’t going to get his money back was what kept the contests here healthy and active.

I know, somebody has probably already said it, but I’m starting to think they might be right if they did. You can’t help but wonder about it when considering whether or not to enter a particular contest and watching it. The chance of a small reward should something go wrong might be great for me as a designer, but the lessening of the risk for the CH might backfire with CHs getting increasingly lazy knowing they can just dump it for $39.

If the contest holders can always get their money back, then the incentive to participate (ie, feedback ect.) diminishes. Lack of participation by the CH results in poorer quality submissions, increasing the risk of withdrawal, and it might snowball……

CS might end up paying big time for this, with little or no real improvement.

I might be thinking about this wrong, but I had always figured the thought that the contest holder wasn’t going to get his money back was what kept the contests here healthy and active.

I know, somebody has probably already said it, but I’m starting to think they might be right if they did. You can’t help but wonder about it when considering whether or not to enter a particular contest and watching it. The chance of a small reward should something go wrong might be great for me as a designer, but the lessening of the risk for the CH might backfire with CHs getting increasingly lazy knowing they can just dump it for $39.

As a buyer, I’m not keen on the idea of subsidizing people who don’t know how to engage on CS in order get the right results. It’s clear to me that a wealth of talent can be found on this site. If you don’t get the result you’re looking for, you probably either have unrealistic expectations, or you don’t know how to engage. CS should not be seeking those kinds of buyers, and I’d rather not subsidize their mistakes either. Better to put those extra funds towards the price of the prize.

I also think that the guarantee to the designers is actually a pretty shoddy guarantee. To do it right, the guarantee should match the price of the prize. If that’s what a designer sign up for, then that should be what they get – no if ands or buts. Otherwise CS is simply pushing the risk onto the designer. If CS was to take that risk on instead (by making good on the commitment of the full prize), then they’d be more apt to take measures to ensure that a failure doesn’t happen.

My overall impression is that this is just a new service fee for CS wrapped up in the guise of a “guarantee”. You are now in the “project insurance” business, but at very high margins.

Focus on improving the efficiency of the system instead (rather than trying to take a bigger bite out of each transaction as this guarantee attempts to do), and I bet you will find that the higher volumes in the better market will be a more sustainable path to profit.

As a buyer, I’m not keen on the idea of subsidizing people who don’t know how to engage on CS in order get the right results. It’s clear to me that a wealth of talent can be found on this site. If you don’t get the result you’re looking for, you probably either have unrealistic expectations, or you don’t know how to engage. CS should not be seeking those kinds of buyers, and I’d rather not subsidize their mistakes either. Better to put those extra funds towards the price of the prize.

I also think that the guarantee to the designers is actually a pretty shoddy guarantee. To do it right, the guarantee should match the price of the prize. If that’s what a designer sign up for, then that should be what they get – no if ands or buts. Otherwise CS is simply pushing the risk onto the designer. If CS was to take that risk on instead (by making good on the commitment of the full prize), then they’d be more apt to take measures to ensure that a failure doesn’t happen.

My overall impression is that this is just a new service fee for CS wrapped up in the guise of a “guarantee”. You are now in the “project insurance” business, but at very high margins.

Focus on improving the efficiency of the system instead (rather than trying to take a bigger bite out of each transaction as this guarantee attempts to do), and I bet you will find that the higher volumes in the better market will be a more sustainable path to profit.

@davebowman – much thanks for those words of support. I wish we were as successful as Kellogg’s…

But you’re absolutely right that we see great work in nearly all projects. We too think this is a bold move because it further differentiates us from other marketplaces and puts our money where our mouth is.

To answer your question – we will post a project comment announcing the award to the specific creative who receives it.

@DigitalBeckley – I do appreciate your point of view. We’ve spent a lot of time discussing this policy, including how some buyers like yourself might react to it. The added cost is meaningful to a buyer posting many projects, but we think that the added assurance to our community will allow us to build a stronger and more capable community. We want buyers to leverage crowdSPRING not because they can get at least 25 entries, but because we have the best creative community on the planet. As we work to further evolve and refine our business model, we must continue to find ways to support that community and to offer buyers a great product and a great community.

@hangar79 – we will look at these changes and make any adjustments that are necessary. As you know, we do our best to innovate and we’ll continue to find other ways that we can protect both parties.

We’re not yet in a position to award creatives beyond the first in multiple award projects. However, this is something we’ve discussed and something we’ll certainly keep an eye on and possibly introduce in the future.

To answer your question about LG – they made this decision to include only US citizens and residents. We did our best to persuade them to open this competition to everyone in the world. We’re amazed by the great talent on crowdSPRING and elsewhere in the world – but they declined to do so and kept it US focused.

@SUBHADIP – We’ll keep encouraging LG to open up future competitions to the whole world. We’d love to see ALL of you have an opportunity to participate.

@tygraphics – There’s much truth in your comment. Many of the failed projects do in fact result from poorly written briefs and lack of feedback. We’ve seen briefs improve considerably over the past year, and we’re seeing feedback moving too.

The suggestion to inspect projects is a good one. In fact, Audress has been reviewing every project and where we see inadequate briefs or too much scope for the amount of the awards, we act promptly to remedy that issue.

As for your suggestion to vary fees – it’s tough for us to operate a service where some but not others are charged a fee. I understand why you’ve made the suggestion, and it’s an interesting concept, but not easily executable at this moment.

@mike – Thanks for your perspective. It’s a valuable point and I hope that the designers and writers following this discussion consider it…

@Marc Hughes – Thanks for your comment. It’s very valuable to hear from buyers and potential buyers because it helps our creatives to better understand how buyers evaluate our policies (including the guarantee) and fees.

@Otte – Good points all around, as you’ve recognized.

@branding – well said.

@alancreative – We’ve considered this suggestion and ultimately, the economics were too difficult. Have you seen the interest rates that savings receive these days? But as with everything, we’ll keep a close eye and always consider ways to improve …

@micard – Thanks for adding your thoughts. There is a risk balance and you might be right that $39 is a low barrier. Ultimately, we think that projects on crowdSPRING should be about quality and want all buyers to be very happy with the quality of the work here. I tend to believe that people are generally good and that we’ll see few abuses of this new policy. However, if you’re right and it is abused more than we anticipate, we will not hesitate to make adjustments.

@davebowman – much thanks for those words of support. I wish we were as successful as Kellogg’s…

But you’re absolutely right that we see great work in nearly all projects. We too think this is a bold move because it further differentiates us from other marketplaces and puts our money where our mouth is.

To answer your question – we will post a project comment announcing the award to the specific creative who receives it.

@DigitalBeckley – I do appreciate your point of view. We’ve spent a lot of time discussing this policy, including how some buyers like yourself might react to it. The added cost is meaningful to a buyer posting many projects, but we think that the added assurance to our community will allow us to build a stronger and more capable community. We want buyers to leverage crowdSPRING not because they can get at least 25 entries, but because we have the best creative community on the planet. As we work to further evolve and refine our business model, we must continue to find ways to support that community and to offer buyers a great product and a great community.

@hangar79 – we will look at these changes and make any adjustments that are necessary. As you know, we do our best to innovate and we’ll continue to find other ways that we can protect both parties.

We’re not yet in a position to award creatives beyond the first in multiple award projects. However, this is something we’ve discussed and something we’ll certainly keep an eye on and possibly introduce in the future.

To answer your question about LG – they made this decision to include only US citizens and residents. We did our best to persuade them to open this competition to everyone in the world. We’re amazed by the great talent on crowdSPRING and elsewhere in the world – but they declined to do so and kept it US focused.

@SUBHADIP – We’ll keep encouraging LG to open up future competitions to the whole world. We’d love to see ALL of you have an opportunity to participate.

@tygraphics – There’s much truth in your comment. Many of the failed projects do in fact result from poorly written briefs and lack of feedback. We’ve seen briefs improve considerably over the past year, and we’re seeing feedback moving too.

The suggestion to inspect projects is a good one. In fact, Audress has been reviewing every project and where we see inadequate briefs or too much scope for the amount of the awards, we act promptly to remedy that issue.

As for your suggestion to vary fees – it’s tough for us to operate a service where some but not others are charged a fee. I understand why you’ve made the suggestion, and it’s an interesting concept, but not easily executable at this moment.

@mike – Thanks for your perspective. It’s a valuable point and I hope that the designers and writers following this discussion consider it…

@Marc Hughes – Thanks for your comment. It’s very valuable to hear from buyers and potential buyers because it helps our creatives to better understand how buyers evaluate our policies (including the guarantee) and fees.

@Otte – Good points all around, as you’ve recognized.

@branding – well said.

@alancreative – We’ve considered this suggestion and ultimately, the economics were too difficult. Have you seen the interest rates that savings receive these days? But as with everything, we’ll keep a close eye and always consider ways to improve …

@micard – Thanks for adding your thoughts. There is a risk balance and you might be right that $39 is a low barrier. Ultimately, we think that projects on crowdSPRING should be about quality and want all buyers to be very happy with the quality of the work here. I tend to believe that people are generally good and that we’ll see few abuses of this new policy. However, if you’re right and it is abused more than we anticipate, we will not hesitate to make adjustments.

@hangar79
3/ i think the same.

…”yeap – if we post 1 project a month, thats like almost $500 extra on the year of overhead and its lost money – to me thats like throwing away $500 for nothing. it in no way protects me nor does it provide any additional assurances.”

It looks to me though that your ‘assurances’ would come from the fact that you can say no to a project and not pay the full thing wheras before, you had to pay no matter what.

That means if you say no to even 1 project (if it’s large enough), your extra fees are pretty well covered and you get better work overall. You’d have to use it right though…….. If the work you buy here is 100% all the time anyway it would seem a shame to complain about a few fees that might let the wonderful people that work for you so brilliantly have a bit of insurance too.

Not sure about it though…. just thinking.

…”yeap – if we post 1 project a month, thats like almost $500 extra on the year of overhead and its lost money – to me thats like throwing away $500 for nothing. it in no way protects me nor does it provide any additional assurances.”

It looks to me though that your ‘assurances’ would come from the fact that you can say no to a project and not pay the full thing wheras before, you had to pay no matter what.

That means if you say no to even 1 project (if it’s large enough), your extra fees are pretty well covered and you get better work overall. You’d have to use it right though…….. If the work you buy here is 100% all the time anyway it would seem a shame to complain about a few fees that might let the wonderful people that work for you so brilliantly have a bit of insurance too.

Not sure about it though…. just thinking.

@hangar79
3/ i think the same.

I’ve been working on a small project in my off-time. I had considered posting a contest. I’d happily pay a grand for a great design that I liked. But taking a chance on paying that much and not getting something I liked or not getting something I could use was preventing me from posting. I can’t afford to do a contest, fail, and then find a more traditional design route.

Now, I can post. If it doesn’t work out, I lose $39 instead of $1000.

This is one contest that wouldn’t have existed without this policy.

I’ve been working on a small project in my off-time. I had considered posting a contest. I’d happily pay a grand for a great design that I liked. But taking a chance on paying that much and not getting something I liked or not getting something I could use was preventing me from posting. I can’t afford to do a contest, fail, and then find a more traditional design route.

Now, I can post. If it doesn’t work out, I lose $39 instead of $1000.

This is one contest that wouldn’t have existed without this policy.

On a side note, a very frustrating problem is the buyer who is not an active participant in the creative process. Too often I see buyers who just want to post their fly paper and come back at closing to see if anything stuck. This is the main reason I stopped participating.

To remedy these issues:
1. I would recommend Cs institute a project inspection process to determine if the project has validity.

2. Perhaps a training cycle and a set of rules that requires the buyer to post feedback as well as have an understanding of the nature of the business.

3. I would not charge the fee to any who have never asked for a refund. Once any buyer asks for a refund then they would be the ones to subsidize the kill fees. The more refunds they receive the higher their fee.