Should you class yourself as a designer if you use stock sites for your work?
It's a question that I have had running around my head for a while now. One that has had me torn between the answers. Does using stock sites for graphics, logos, or other designer elements (such as Freepik or Vecteezy) make you any less of a designer?
(N.B. I'm not talking about image stock sites.)
I was quite shocked to find out that a creative director at an old job was constantly using iStock for graphics, logos, patterns, and anything else design related. You name it, they bought it instead of coming up with the idea themselves. This is somebody who should be setting a creative bar for me to reach, somebody to aspire to and think 'how the hell did they come up with that idea?'. Instead, I was left feeling frustrated, as though my entire profession was a joke to this person, a person who doesn't runs a creative agency, but doens't actually know how to design.
I've left there since (thank goodness), but it still had me thinking. Should you class yourself as a designer if you use stock sites for your work? My conclusion - yes and no. It's sort of a 'depends on the situation' answer, so let me explain my choice for both.
Yes - If you are a designer at heart, and you have scope for an idea, but know your limitations, then by all means using stock as a supporting mechanism is perfectly acceptable. Afterall, we had to start somewhere, and working with stock files can be a great way to understand how you can do it yourself in the future. You may also have time restaints, making life super hard to create that extra illustration a client asked for with 5 minutes to go until the deadline. So as a supporting mechanism, one you can build with to change its 'out of the box' look, then yes I think you are a still a creative designer.
No - If you are the 'get rich quick' sort of person, looking for a way to look great but with minimal effort, then please stop preaching yourself as a designer, or creative for that matter. My previous experience above was a director who sought to cull creativity, because it was taking too long. They bought stock graphics and logos, but left them exactly how them looked out of the box. This is a person who runs a marketing agency and supposedly leads their staff in best practice, but buys a $5 logo for a client because 'it's just easier' and 'nobody will notice anyway'. When you have no interest in creativity, and seek to buy work because you are lazy, then you are no designer in my eyes.
This is my thoughts, from my experience. I'd love to know what you think, whether you agree or disagree, perhaps you have your own experience on the subject? This is just one view, that may not necessarily be the same for all!
Replies2
- I think it really does boil down to context. I've been in the design world for nearly 20 years now and I've never yet found a 100% satisfactory way of working. For me, it all comes down to intent. If circumstances mean you have to cut corners then that's not a deal breaker for me. I've used assets from stock or old projects many times in the past. Sometimes it was for time saving reasons, others it was simply that my creative well had dried up.That said, I would never consider just downloading and presenting a valid design solution. If you use assets as part of a design, that's fair. A chef doesn't need to invent the ingredients after all.A designer is a problem solver. The problem isn't always the design, the problem can be the constraints too. All I can say for certain is that I meet designers on a regular basis and not one of them works in the same way as the next.
- I'm very sensitive about this subject but I'll try to stay professional :).I think it depends on how this agency was selling their work (coming from stock): did they say it was original, tailored content? And maybe sold for 10 times their value? I read in another forum the story of an agency who sold to a PR company a 6 figures creative campaign as original while it was entirely bought from a stock site, no change done. For me this is a fraud.If instead they go for a cheap selling, we can compare this situation with fast fashion (often copied and sold cheapily)/slow fashion or tailored fashion. It's up to you to decide whose side you are on.I had a couple of clients who didn't have the budget/time for custom illustrations, so we used stock, but I was transparent about the assets costs and where they came from.Then there's this case: https://wersm.com/a-campaign-made-out-of-stock-images-just-won-a-cannes-lion/. Do you think the campaign was less creative because the visual (that - I suppose - had great weight in the prize decision) is a stock image and not an original concept? (apparently also a copy of another work). Probably the copy adds value but I wonder how much this was sold for....
You must sign up or log in before you
add a comment.