That’s not tongue-in-cheek, it’s blatant slander. Put together some constructive criticism and I’d pay attention, but this article is just awful and doesn’t deserve to be linked up. Poor taste, CSS Drive.

Rob, while it is written in a rather abrasive tone, I think you should rethink your use of the word “slander”.  Nothing in the article itself was false.  Brandstack really does only advertise to designers and not to buyers.  They really do leave it up to designers to find buyers for their work.

Here’s a screenshot that blatantly says that Brandstack advertises through their designers.

Given that undeniable truth, why is it ok for Brandstack to take 15% of the sale FROM THE DESIGNER?  If they are going to take a percentage, shouldn’t it be a fee added on to the designers selling price, targeting the buyer specifically?  As for the Robert McGuire portion, Robert was uncovered posting real slander on several designers’ work on Logopond late last week through a different username, while at the same time posting pleasantries on any logo that was linked to Brandstack.  Is that honest behavior in your eyes?

I also believe the highly unmoderated, classless approach that Brandstack uses for approving posted artwork is a downright crime.  In the last week alone there were over 5 new logos that were posted to Brandstack that were only later decided to be overinspired, not by Brandstack itself, but due to user removal (after being contacted by several designers).  In most cases, the designer was aware of the other work in question.

Brandstack posts unresearched, low-quality logos on its website and that is a fact.  Point out one slander in that article specifically and I might have a little bit of respect for you, but to make the broad allegation that the entire article is slander is just ridiculous.

Ted

Ted,

Now see, there’s the backing. Thanks for responding, and for your tasteful explanation. You’re right, slander was the wrong word of choice.

LOL right as Ted mentions overinspired work, another one pops up!

A vs. B

You looking for slander? here’s some!

Ok fellas, here’s what we’re gonna do with the 15% of sales we steal from our designers!

Since the 15% is an AGREED RATE between consenting adults, then they cant be STEALING ANYTHING, hence that statement is demonstrably and provably FALSE, ergo “SLANDER”

incompetent douchebags such as Robert McGuire

Incompetent - who can say what that is? you may have to PROVE it’s true, if this Robert McGuire takes action, can you?
And ‘Douchebag’ - a bag containing fluids to help a woman clean her vagina - why would that be a bad thing?

What Brandstack is trying to do (by attracting or gathering as many designers as they can, is to achieve ‘critical mass’ where there is enough of what people want, then people will seek them out!) i.e. “If all the designers are there, then there is where I will go when I want something designed”

(Obviously, crowdsourcing is no good as a purchasing model unless you have a willing crowd to throw up designs for you to pick and choose from!-  )

However, this article is just a boorish, ignorant rant. It makes a lot of noisy statements and insults, but has no facts to back it up. It fails to educate or amuse and is thus -A WASTE OF TIME

Proof of incompetence : basically, Robert created fake accounts on both Brandstack and Logopond in order to put down certain designers who pointed out similarities between one of his logos and another logo on the market (the bottom halves were literally identical, he has since disabled comments on that logo rendering the proof invisible).  After he had singled out those two designers, he then proceeded to “float” and comment on only logos that had been submitted to Brandstack (sounds sly to me…)

Link to one of the logos commented on under false name : The owner of the site deleted the comments made by Robert to protect his sponsors (I assume).

Attracting a large userbase does not equal sales. I’m sorry, it doesn’t.  Who in their right mind googles “brand marketplace” when they are looking to have a logo done?  The glaring issue is that they can’t attract a purchasing crowd because they do not know what they are doing.

Just because sellers agree to pay the 15% doesn’t mean that it isn’t stolen from them.  In my opinion, they are being deceived because they are unaware that Brandstock does virtually nothing constructive with the fees they charge for featured memberships and sales.

Phil, you’ve failed to prove anything in that article is slanderous and you’ve reaffirmed that the article was written in a somewhat angry, obnoxious tone.

Just my 2 cents.

I really wonder how many of those that took the defencive and looked over every point made in that article, work or use Brandstack, if not then at least a similar site.

So PhilC, what you’re saying is, while 15% is an AGREED RATE between consenting adults on Brandstack, it’s ok? But people registering on crowd sourcing sites like CrowdSPRING and using it is somehow wrong? I mean I may not be making much sense, but forgive me, neither were you in your last statement. The issues are pointed out in that article clearly,  in a somewhat angry, obnoxious, arrogant manner.

Brandstack’s business model is what we’re talking about here, how wrong it is, how full of BS it is.

Yes right, take 15% from the DESIGNER and not the buyer, that makes a whole lot of sense…because designers are desperate to make a sale I guess?? BS.

Make the designers advertise on their own sites, so their potential clients finding them naturally or by word of mouth or somehow landing on their site can find a whole pool of other, obviously cheaper designs on BradnStack. Way to go on providing your designers with exposure in return for them using the service and earning brandstack it’s paychecks.

Ah and don’t forget quality control, urrr, there is none. Absolutely none. Any designer worth his shilling can go have a look at the logos there. While a lot of great work gets accepted, so does a ton of crap. Yes, CRAP. Honestly, there’s even abuse of vector clip art in a bunch of those logos. as blatant as GoMedia’s Arsenal. Literally just dragged and dropped into the canvas. Some are just too recognizable to give the brand any originality. If you want proof then go sift through the logos there, go on. Also to quote something someone said about brandstack in another article:

Some brands too similar to famous brands…like Sprint’s ‘pin drop’, and the paper plane from Yousendit. I will not say that they are outright infringement, but absolutely no creativity or originality, which if you ask any professional will tell you is crucial for a successful brand. (The Sprint look-a-like was rotated, colored differently, was short one fan pane, and basically it. Even the font for the company name looked very similar to Sprint’s logo).

I could keep going on for hours because there is ‘that’ much wrong with their business model, with the way they run their service, with the way they advertise (they dont they just troll other communities).

While the article was rough around the edges, i’m shocked it’s all you got from reading it. I’m pretty sure it’s making a point and you can bet it’s only one of hundreds to go up about it soon. It’s just the way it is, people have now seen that brandstack is as much a cancer as many of these spec work driven sites.

I will admit that the article was in a bit of a rough tone, that’s just Toni’s style. He states things how he sees them and pulls no punches.

Style aside, Toni brought up some good points. Brandstack, in my opinion, has not done enough to market the service to business owners to justify the 15% fee. And that’s one of the reasons I ultimately removed my work. I had some sales, but the 15% cut was pretty steap. Also, I felt that selling pre-made brands was in conflict with my primary marketing efforts.

If you AGREE to pay 15% AND YOU ARE OF MAJORITY AGE (i.e. not a minor and can legally sign a contract) then a contract it is and it cant be “theft” - nobody twisted your arm?

By not charging a fee to the buyer it lowers the entry barrier entry for buyers (or at least the ‘psychological barrier’ since there will be fees paid anyway)
Personally, I find most of these ‘contest’ sites CYNICAL and PREDATORY. Cynical because there is little chance of quality making it to the top there are two few quality controls on the process and inadequate tools that help a buyer make an informed purchasing decision. There is more to a website or logo than something just ‘looking right’ there are quality, accessibility and cross browser issues. Not to mention user-interface and market appropriate issues. These are best fleshed out with an intelligent PROCESS supported by a mutually beneficial business relationship.

What designers need to do is create their OWN sites!  A designers guild with membership rules and a logo and trademark that means quality, good service AND PREDICTABILITY you dont know how important that is to a business man!! Predictability of cost, predictability of RESPONSE TIME, Revisions etc. an organization of designers that all hold to those standards (and can be found in one place) will be an excellent counterweight to these fly by night bullshit sites

Thanks for the quote Moni. If anyone wants see what Sprint-look-alike and what I was talking about it’s here.

I understand the author’s frustration and I personally deleted several drafts before writing about my experience publicly. It is a very infuriating yet sensitive topic many are hesitant to touch even with a 10ft barge pole.

I think the main goal here is to bring awareness to this deluge of stock branding communities and speculative contests which hurt designers and small tight-budget businesses directly.

Stock photography is one thing but actual branding which becomes a serious legal issue and attribution to a company’s identity is serious unnecessary drama.

Rather than bashing though I think everyone should actually #1 realize why this is an issue #2 be constructive in educating fellow designers and CLIENTS who in the end talk with their money.