Work on Spec has long been a very dirty word in the design industry. The AIGA’s stance on this issue is very established. But recently a number of big agencies such as Crispin, Porter + Bogusky and a new agency created by two former CP+B executives, Victors & Spoils, have embraced the concept under it’s new politically correct name of crowdsourcing.

Under this new model the company works with the client to define the project and then posts the project on sites such as crowdSPRING. Designers, or anyone for that matter, can then read the project requirements and submit a design. The agency and the client then choose the design they like best and pay that person the specified fee. So potentially thousands of designers spend their time on the project and one gets paid for their work. In the case of a CP+B project that was $1000.

Sounds like a great model for the agency and the client. Get thousands of hours of work for $1000. In the case of Victors & Spoils they come right out and say that the new model will lower their overhead and lower costs for clients. Heck it’s a win for everyone right? The clients pay a lot less for creative, the agency lowers it’s costs by hiring less full-time employees and not having to pay benefits, and creatives all over the world get a shot at doing work for big name clients.

A perfect model for the death of an industry. For the industry to survive it requires a continual infusion of new talent from a strong system of schools that educate the next generation. If the future career path for a design school graduate involves spending hour upon hour working away on projects that I have little to no chance of getting paid for, how long can a designer sustain this? If I am choosing a major and a career path I would find this a very scary choice. What career counselor would advise anyone to pursue this career?

Let’s do the math. Say I’m a hotshot designer and I can knock out a great logo or homepage design in 20 hours. I can work on two of these spec projects a week, 8 in a month. Say the prize is $1000 and I manage to actually win 25% of the projects I do. I just cleared a cool $2000 for the month. I’m guessing most people could probably work less hours and make more money waiting tables. And this assumes I get paid for 25% of the projects I do. WIth thousands of people competing for these projects the reality for even the best designers is probably much worse. And does this really even reward the best solutions? Every designer knows that the client doesn’t always pick the most innovative design you show them, so even being the best designer competing for a fee doesn’t guarantee you will get paid.

There will always be those who think only of themselves and how they can make the most money with little regard for the future. What legacy will they leave? Will there be any creatives left to care? Maybe they should go read the Lorax.

These are not valid metrics of the health of a website. These are numbers that executives like to hang their hats on, and they are shortcuts to thinking and in-depth analysis. I love metrics, no doubt, but it’s time to start telling stories of user-interaction. Hard numbers lack context; and therefore often send poorly informed decision makers down the wrong path. Let’s go over a few of my favorites.

Absolute Unique Visitors
This number is by far the most used metric of site success but it needs to be framed in the context of goals & objectives. Look at the weekly trend below. It’s a capture of our traffic pattern on supportdetails.com. Support Details is a one-page site that captures browser specs and sends them to a targeted contact via email.

Simply showing this graphic and looking at an absolute number doesn’t tell the story of what the users are doing on this site. When this graphic is supported by referral sites, repeat visitor trends and normalized for spikes then the numbers begin to talk.

The numbers are telling me the spikes in traffic have helped to create product awareness, overtime this increased awareness has led to increase usage of Support Details on a regular basis. By utilizing the visualization tools that Google Analytics has to offer the trend becomes pretty apparent.

Pageviews
More pages clicked is counter-intuitive to the rational of a good site
information architecture. So why is it valued as a positive metric? If someone is clicking on more pages it can either mean they aren’t able to find content, or it could mean they are deeply interested in the content. I usually suspect it’s the former.

Bounce Rate
Measured by a visitor coming to one-page of the site, then leaving. This isn’t necessarily an indicator of a problem. It could be a measure of excellent content. If a visitor is searching for information and they find it without clicking around, then wouldn’t this be considered success? When this metric is used in the context of goals, then it becomes important. As a standalone number, it’s a useless metric.

Time on Site
What does this really mean? Does increase time mean the site is difficult to navigate. Is it hard for me to find what I’m looking for, or am I engaged in reading the content. In-depth analysis would compare the objectives of the site, with the type of content, then the average stay on a particular page.

I could continue offering alternative views for just about any of the major metrics, but my point is it’s time to look at the bigger picture. We need to be asking questions rather then looking for shortcuts that make for pretty charts and reports. Dig deep, give real analysis into what’s perceived in reading the numbers; that is were the art & skill of analytics pays off.

I’d like to hear more stories of useless analytics that you’ve encountered. Please share the info.

1. We are extremely lucky to work in the industry we do. By having everything online, it’s just silly to not be able to work from home. When you have a group of trusted individuals who get their stuff done and are accountable for it, it is such a nice benefit to work from home. I find it funny with micromanagers in a big corporation who think working from home is an excuse to slack off. If that’s the case, you’re clearly not doing something right. But, micromanaging rants can be saved for another blog post.
2. When 2 of the 9 people in your office have swine flu, you can avoid them. Plus, you don’t actually have to take sick days. It’s so nice to stay home when you’re not feeling well, but still be able to get your work done and not cut into your vacation or personal time.
3. Fresh air and change of scenery. Everyone can use that.
4. It tests communication skills. Are we working in the most collaborative way? Does the weakness show more when we’re out of the office? If so, what do we do to solve the problem?
5. Nooners. Kidding. I swear.
6. It helps put work life vs. personal life in perspective. Some things that tend to stress me out when I’m in the office just aren’t that big of a deal and aren’t worth adding the extra years to my life. It’s good to get that periodic reality check.
7. Pajamas. Enough said. Well, not really. You also don’t have to put makeup on or do your hair…until George surprises you with a video chat. Course, it’s worse when he does that during #5. Ah, kidding again. Really.
8. For some reason, I feel like I can take a step back and become more strategic. I have the time to look at the big picture, our process, client goals, etc. I’m not sure why, but I do. Maybe it’s because I get to dodge phone calls for a day, and really focus on some of my own goals.
9. Healthier lunches. I LOVE going out to lunch with my colleagues. It provides a much-needed break in the day, and is a great time to talk about our shenanigans outside of work. However, with that comes lunches that are much larger and much higher in calories. I know, I know. With some discipline I’d be better when at work, but where’s the fun in that!?! At least when I’m home, I have a damn good reason for staying home to eat.
10. Everyone’s super duper excited to see you when you get back. It’s just one big love fest. Seriously.

What did I miss? What are you favorite things about working from home?