If there are two words that when used together make professional identity designers wince or worse, those words would have to be "logo" and "contest." Announcements of such competitions appear by the dozens every week on the internet; no doubt there are many more that go unpublicized. Such contests are fraught with spec work, unprofessional and ineffective results, and hard feelings from designers and the public alike. Perhaps one of the highest profile incident thus far occurred earlier in early May 2005 when the logo for the 2010 Olympic Games, to be held in Vancouver, BC, was released. The 2010 Organizing Committee made a number of serious errors, in the eyes of many designers and indeed in the eyes of the Society of Graphic Designers of Canada.

The committee asked that only professional and student designers enter, but did not offer recompense to anyone but the winner. Even worse, entrants were charged $150 for the privilege. The designer of the winning logo would be paid $25,000. The logo was considered alone, not as part of a larger identity system. John Furlong, chief executive officer of the Organizing Committee, added insult to injury by saying he didn't "know what the ethical dilemma is" and that "the honor of participating should be enough."

The logo does not properly represent the western Canadian region; instead, its inukshuk figure is a symbol that originated in more northern realms.

The final result, completed by the Rivera Design Group in Vancouver and selected from about 1,600 fee-paying entries, is a logo that is widely reviled, and not just by designers. Comments range from "it doesn't look Canadian," to "it looks like a hand flipping the bird" and that it looks like the "offspring of the Michelin Man and Miss Gumby."

As a result of the situation and others that preceded it, the GDC changed its Code of Ethics at its annual meeting on May 6-7, 2005, so as to leave no doubt as to its stand on design contents. The GDC no longer allows any member participation in open design contests for commercial purposes on speculation, either as an entrant or a judge.

The winning design firm is a GDC member, but the organization did not sanction the member because previously this section of its Code of Ethics was open to interpretation.

From now on, GDC members cannot undertake any speculative project for which compensation will only be received if a design is accepted or used. Members may take part in limited design competitions where each participant is provided equal and adequate compensation. The Society has separate guidelines for pro bono work for charitable purposes.

"Everyone loves the Olympics, and of course, you want to support it, but a designer's actions must support our common ethics," says Peggy Cady, national GDC president. "We are trying to emphasize that a client's return on investment is greater when they hire qualified professional designers who are appropriate for the project."

The Graphic Artists Guild and the GDC both recommend that if a competition is held, the hosts should first put out a request for portfolios, then after reviewing the work, select a group of finalists who are best suited for the job. The finalists may be asked for rough sketches for the project at hand if they are paid adequately and equally for their work. Finally, when a single designer or firm is finally selected, that winner should be paid fees that are commensurate to current market value. The designer will retain rights to the work.

It's too late to effect any change on the Olympics logo project, but the GDC does feel that it has possibly caused some motion: The same Olympics committee is handling the Paralympic Winter Games, and Cady says that the group will be handling that logo design process in a manner more in keeping with professional design standards.

The GDC has also sent its plea to ICOGRADA, whose international standards still permit its members to participate in open contests. For more information on the GDC's efforts, see www.gdc.net.