I was reading a post on Airbag Industries about a little design contest Greg, who runs Airbag, had arranged for a friend. The friend was starting a company and needed a logo, and Greg was too busy to design it himself, so they set up a few judges and offered an iPod Shuffle, worth $99, to whoever submitted the winning entry.

Suddenly the discussion exploded into claims that such contests "devalue the design market," because any real designer would charge $800+ for a logo design. I've seen these kinds of claims before; professional designers outraged at new designers fresh out of college and desperate for work, that charge relatively piddly prices for design work. They argue that these designers shouldn't accept such low prices for their work, because it hurts the value of design work as a whole.

This argument always seemed sort of ludicrous to me. It's like trying to fight the laws of economics through group consensus — I picture a bunch of designers backed into a circle by potential clients offering them $500 for a website design (hint: this is piddly), and whispering angrily at anyone who seems tempted to give in.

But the fact is, if a client can obtain results that are up to his standards by paying someone $500, then I think you might have to admit that your work isn't worth the $6000 you're trying to charge for it. Its worth appears to be about $500.

On the other hand, unlike more manual forms of labor, design work requires creativity; designers are not interchangeable parts like, say, stoneworkers (no offense to any stoneworkers reading). So while the cost of having a wall built might be determined for the most part by supply and demand, I suppose the value of design work is much more subjective. A good wall is one that doesn't fall down when you lean on it, but a good logo design is only good because it has been declared so by the people whose opinions matter (be it the president of the company, or a focus group, &c). So in a way design derives its value by fiat, and so I can sort of see how designers could claim that their work is worth a certain amount, in spite of the fact that others offer less. But I'm not really convinced.

There's no doubt that the output of a recently graduated student will not usually be of the same quality as that of an experienced professional, but it seems that this distinction seems to be lost on most potential clients. However, if they can't appreciate the differences, I don't see how they can be expected to pay for them.

Granted, there's lots of factors at work outside of the actual artistic output; design is not just about making something pretty, but about translating the client's ideas and intentions into effective communication. The ability to work with the client and understand what they want is probably another characteristic that differentiates experienced professionals from amateurs. That might be worth paying for, but if it is, then the professionals will get the business. I still don't think it's appropriate to yell at people charging less just because they can't afford to hold out for what their work is "really worth."