The crowdsource debate heats up nicely over at Denver Egotist. Y’all know how I feel on that. But one obvious, if overly simplistic response I haven’t seen thrown out yet is to flip the script. (Maybe someone has, but c’mon, it is a big net, I can’t read it all.) I’m using Harley-Davidson in this case but, swap out any brand if you like:
If people found out Harley-Davidson wasn't paying its workers to assemble their products,
but instead the brand was offering to give a hopeful employee a shot to move up the ladder and work on cooler bikes if their design was chosen, wouldn’t people vilify them, let alone report them for not paying their workers?
Time spent leading to the presentation of the idea, matters. Period. You don’t get to skip out on paying for a meal just because you didn’t like it. Now, if an individual wants to wave their fees in the hopes that it will lead to something bigger, that’s their choice. It shouldn’t be forced on them as the only option in a work arrangement though.
1 comment:
Your questions lead to more questions. Since V&S is literally taking volunteer submissions, are they really an employer—or something more like a promotions vendor running a contest? Is it legal for V&S to refer to its “1800-strong creative department” when it’s really a group of contestants, many of whom are illegally entering the promotion by violating their confidentiality/work agreements with the agencies that currently employ them (the creators of V&S’s awful Dish Network spots opted to remain anonymous because they are employed at actual agencies)? Actually, it’s all moot, given the fact that Harley’s ad agency recently dumped the client, and Harley initially indicated it isn’t even looking to replace them. That Harley is acknowledging V&S only shows the client is desperate and cheap.
Post a Comment