Comments on: Hitting Spec Creative in the Head with a Bat

By: rickey gold

rickey gold — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:07:17 +0000

The hotel example is perfect.
Working on spec is something you should only do when you’re brand new and need to build a portfolio.

By: Joy Stauber

Joy Stauber — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:30:03 +0000

Thanks for writing this! When I’ve been asked why we won’t do spec work, I’ve explained that our thinking – and the resulting work that is executed – is what companies buy. Because it is valuable to them. (Duh!) Plus as a design firm, we don’t make money in the ways some agencies do that allows them to do spec work. It’s pretty simple. Years ago, I talked with someone who didn’t (want to) get it, so I suggested that he ask his accountant to do his corporate tax returns on spec, or ask an attorney to do a trademark search on spec, and see if he could pay them only if he liked the results they presented. Maybe spec work provides a shot at work for someone who is hungry, but in the long run, how can it be good for them? (Why should the client pay them ahead next time? If they have free time, why not put it into marketing their business?) And when they agree to do it, they undermine the value of the entire industry.

By: Dave C.

Dave C. — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:11:43 +0000

Brilliant. I love the last bit of the story. That is classic and if I ever come across this situation again in life, I’m sure to use that technique.

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:02:04 +0000

I agree that spec work is a really bad idea – both for the marketer and for the client. Once all work has been submitted, what’s to stop the client from asking the selected marketer to make revisions to his/her submission based on aspects or features the client liked in the other submissions? There’s no recourse when this happens. Go prove it.
Our ideas and creative brains are our inventory. That’s worth a lot. Sure, there’ll always be someone else out there to give it away, but what are the chances that the results are a good match for the client, meet the strategic marketing objectives of the business/marketing plan (if there is one), etc.? I believe in the old cliche – you get what you pay for.

By: Jen

Jen — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:27:34 +0000

Spike – I think bad idea #1 is one that agencies have to remember long past spec and into execution. Too many times you end up with a client who says, “No need to do research. We already know everything there is to know about our target and message.” Sure they do. It can be an uphill battle to get at the truth beyond the preconceived notions, but it’s definitely one worth fighting. And it’s a fight made that much more difficult if you already went down their preconceived path for free.
And Alex A – you misspelled “misspelled.” Instead you wrote “missed spelled,” which is an archaic error in reference to the incorrect spelling of a word. But, in the context, I assume that you meant “misspelled.”

By: Spike

Spike — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:09:26 +0000

That's true, Cam. I think education is the key. And articles like the one I referenced will help. Do I see it happening soon? Not on a wide scale, but I'm already seeing a trend where potential clients are asking for capabilities instead of spec. And people on the creative side are getting organized, too. Check out http://www.no-spec.com/about/

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:59:10 +0000

I know you no longer provide it, but as I said, as long as someone out there is hungry, there will always be someone willing to provide it. It seems, then, that the ultimate resolution of this inequity still relies on the customer no longer asking for spec work.
Do you foresee that happening anytime in the near future?

By: Spike

Spike — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:35:03 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Cam. I think the problem can be solved by answering qualifying questions and some in-depth case studies. That’s the route we take. It shows process. It shows overcoming obstacles. It shows success. And it shows you know what the hell you’re talking about.

By: Alex A.

Alex A. — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:29:55 +0000

You missed spelled ’sell’. You wrote ’seel’.
Spelled with two e’s, the word is an archaic definition for prevention, closing. If you meant ’seal’, you would have a better definition. In context, you probably meant ’sell’.

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:11:28 +0000

Great story, Spike.
One other hazard of spec work – if an agency doesn’t win the business, it often gets leaked into the public anyway. Which can be very dangerous for brands – like PUMA, VW, Nike, and Nokia, among others.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:58:41 +0000

This is a great article. I’ve been contemplating the subject for a couple of months.
There’s still a problem, though. As long as clients ask for spec work, there will always be agencies hungry enough for their business to give it. The clients (at least the selection teams) feel validated because their process led to the hiring of an agency and the spending of millions of dollars.
I agree wholeheartedly that the spec process is terribly inefficient and ineffective. But really, is choosing an agency based on how you interact with them over a beer any better?
“Mr. Thomas, as our CMO, tell us why you selected Agency X to lead our advertising.”
“We got LOADED. And the agency’s principle we’ve been dealing with has this great joke… Well, it wasn’t so much a joke but a noise… He made it when I pulled his finger…”
And so on. Obviously that’s a caricature of the proposed process, but if we are to take the position that the clients aren’t capable of selecting an agency efficiently and effectively by meticulously reviewing its responses to tasks laid before it, how can we possibly believe they have the capacity to choose through a set of self-developed interview questions and anthropological observations about their behavior?
Obviously, I’m conflicted over it, but I applaud you for effectively bringing attention to the problem with such eloquence and insight.