Hacker News Reader

Comment by mnicole | Hacker News Reader

All you can really say to the people that use 99designs is "You get what you pay for."

There's always going to be people that don't understand the cost and importance of good design, and as much as I am continually put off when I hear business owners praising it, these are the types of people that would rather use WordArt for their logo if such a service didn't exist anyway, so there's not much to complain about.

I've also heard horror stories from both sides in the process, particularly when these cheapskates tend to be the ones who are the most nitpicky.

View on HN

>> "You get what you pay for."

That really is the key point.

For a one or two person bootstrapped startup, a designer can be cost prohibitive, especially if there's not a lot of money in the bank.

For a sustainable multi-person company that's making money, they should really spend more money on a freelance designer vs going the crowdsourced route.

The companies that could afford to hire a designer but opt for something like 99designs are usually difficult/annoying customers, so in some respects, sites like 99designs are doing the higher end designers a favor.

This is pretty much what I've found to be the case also.

In general, if I'm bootstrapping a project I'll start with a $5 logo from Fiverr just to give me something to throw up on a simple MVP. If it looks like the MVP is viable, I'll then spend $300 on 99designs. If six months have gone by and things STILL look viable, then I'm happy to pay a few grand for a "real" design.

99designs is still excellent for what it is.

You imply good design cannot be had at places like 99designs. I find that unfair, and a bit conceited.

As someone who has used a place like 99designs, I would say that you can get good design, but a portion of the designers (i.e., the ones who try to make $ on volume wins) who are competing for your bounty also seem to be working from cookie cutter templates.

Citation needed on the implied good designs.

The two people I knew that used the site as 'designers' were doing so as a means to dip their feet into graphic design. They were using it to see if they even had a chance in the industry. I'm not saying good design can't be had, but when you're competing with people that are putting zero experience behind their work and they beat you out on subjectivism alone, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth and gives the winner a false sense of accomplishment in the field. I'm looking at their logo design page right now, and it's a mess.

Not to mention the amount of times people have made money off of plagiarized logos, iStockphoto vectors or blatantly used Illustrator (worse, Photoshop) defaults.

When Fog Creek needed a logo for Kiln, we went to 99designs and asked for a buddy for our goofy looking kiwi. We got a goofy looking dodo. Pretty much exactly what we wanted. I wasn't directly involved, but from what I know, I would totally use them again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com