I guess the question I have is how exactly places like CrowdSpring retain their stable of talent in spite of asking for free work (as opposed to free “art”, i.e. Threadless) and offering nothing except the possibility of getting a prize. Obviously, it's a buyer's market, so what realistic gain is there for a designer (whatever level of talent s/he possesses) to contribute to a CrowdSpring project? Other than so-called “exposure”, I don't really see one. To call a place like CrowdSpring a “community” is a bit like calling the Mustang Ranch a “resort for carnal enthusiasts”.

I guess as long as the well of young, naive designers are out there willing to make more and more spec work, CrowdSpring will have a healthy marketplace. This is why it is in the better interest of designers to avoid these places, because it deminishes the overall value and prospects of a career in graphic design. All we can do is discourage it, knowing it won't ever really go away. …Much like prostitution won't ever really go away, we still don't want our daughters to become whores.

Based upon the debate I have seen, the Design community sees itself as a cartel. An official (OPEC) or unofficial (Drugs) group of companies/people with the interest of regulating the market price (My defn). The problem with cartels is that there is always some rascal who isn't a big player and wants to sell more for less. This always happens and will always break the back of the cartel. Thus, the result: Cartel gets pissed and begins sabre rattling. In most cases they have no leverage other than meaningless threats and the case of the Design industry v. spec work sounds no different.

Warren Buffett once said (Paraphrasing): Companies will always be in search of lower costs for labor as long as quality remains high.

In this case, it is high enough.

You question whether community is central to our goal. It is. Without community, there is no crowdSPRING. And while our community differs from that of Threadless, it is at the heart of who we are.

I think your distinction is very interesting.

In many ways, it plays to the concept of Threadless being a community of designers, and Threadless (the company) is simply watching the interactions and productions of those designers, selecting the “best” designs (paying for them) and then profiting from them through printing tshirts. Is there anything stopping other companies reaching out to Threadless designers and paying them for their designs? Are all designs submitted on Threadless “owned” by Threadless (for the purpose of printing them on apparel)? According to your comment, I believe the answer to be no.

As a marketplace, Crowdspring's primary function is to connect sellers to buyers, and uses competition to keep pricing “in check” and quality “at a high level.” Any community fostered by crowdspring must exist solely for the purpose of attracting buyers (by making the product of sellers more attractive, buyers more saavy, etc.)

Community is not central to their goal, whereas with Threadless, without community there is no Threadless.

On Threadless, artists are creating art for the sake of art. They can use it elsewhere for any purpose and they can submit art they've created before they've ever even heard of Threadless. Even if their design is printed and they get paid $2,500 they can still use the art for purposes other than apparel. Threadless doesn't own the full copyright, only the right to print the art on a tee. Should an artist not make a painting if they don't have a buyer? Of course not!

Meanwhile on crowdSPRING, artists are asked to design very specific works such as logos or websites that are for a specific company. The work must be created specifically for this purpose, would have no other use if not chosen and is a lot different than just creating art for fun. Whether or not this is right is not really my concern, I just think the difference is incredibly important especially in the context of spec work.

I see spec work as a necessary evil – sometimes you need to prove the value of your offering by giving your potential client a concrete example of what you can do. There's a danger in doing a fair amount of work and not getting paid for it, but it's usually worth the risk when it comes to creating a relationship with a potential customer.

Sam Flores, indeed.