Visual Editors
Visual Editors, NFP was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2004.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Does this NASCAR graphic cross an ethical line? |
| Yes. |
|
36% |
[ 36 ] |
| No. |
|
63% |
[ 62 ] |
|
| Total Votes : : 98 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Layne Smith
Secret Agent
Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:04 pm
|
|
| |
I'll try not to rehash some of the arguments that have already been made or cover ground that's already been covered.
| tball wrote:: | | The only way I can see this thread evolving in a productive way is for the judges involved to add their comments. But, as enlightening as that may be, we shouldn't bully them into defending their choices. |
Hell yeah we bully the judges into enlightening us. How many years have hundreds of us flipped through page after page after page of award winning designs and graphics thinking "WTF were the judges thinking!?" Reinforcing the belief that the judging process consists of some secret society of SND glad-handers, real or perceived, is a big mistake.
I stand before you all to defend myself and my decisions. Yet the judges are somehow safe from that responsibility? They can judge the work that defines who a lot of us are and then shrink back into the shadows and watch the sparks fly? As the single most responsible party for this whole fiasco, you can bet I have every right to call them out. Those who know me know I love to learn, I love to help others learn. That's why I'm here. That's why they should be here too.
SO HOW DID THIS ALL HAPPEN?
I remember putting it on there. I remember thinking briefly that it might be a bad idea. But after having spent a good deal of time figuring out how I was going to lather up the vehicles with logos in the true Nascar style, I just said f*ck it. I think it was about 4 a.m. a day or two before my render deadline. I was strung out on Mr. Pibb and Cheddar Flavor-Blasted Goldfish!I needed a lot of logos fast. NewTek was staring me in the face so I took it. I wasn't even thinking about it as a shout-out at the time although I'll admit that it did briefly cross my mind as we were doing a pre-production critique. It was late, no sleep, and I guarantee you I had other, more important things to worry about.
But what gets lost in this whole discussion is the actual graphic itself. It's spectacular. The amount of research, the level of detail, pure awesomeness. Let's not forget that.
AN ETHICAL LAPSE?
This is where it gets personal. For anyone to stand up and question my integrity is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable. Especially if those people are safely sequestered in the northern nether-regions we down here in Texas call "New York".
So what ethical violation was made?
| Whitley wrote:: | | After an hour of proofs and discussions, all six voted to disqualify the entry for 'inappropriate promotion of an editorial software in an editorial product." |
That's a quote. Where did that line come from?
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
Let's not forget that this is also clearly labeled as an artist's rendition of some of the features of a typical hauler. I'm the artist. I dictate the level of accuracy. The truth is, that hauler is a complete fantasy. It doesn't exist, anywhere. And our readers know it.
Someone got to decide that this logo placement constituted such a gross ethical violation that it disqualifies the graphic. Is there a by-law or specific rule that can be cited as reason for the disqualification. Or is it just some ambiguous line somewhere that says "Thou shalt not be involved in a conflict of interest." Then who decides that? Or was it just a gut feeling? I don't know. These aren't rhetorical questions.
But lets take a look at the graphic again ...
I chose a Peterbilt truck to pull the hauler. Why? Peterbilt trucks look cool. The Peterbilt dealer I had contacted was extremely helpful. Was my choice in working with them influenced by that? Absolutely. Did they stand to benefit from me, absolutely. Did I know that? I absolutely counted on it to get me access! I used them, they used me. But did the judges know that?
I chose a Featherlite Inc. trailer to draw. Why? Are there others? Sure. Why did I pick them? Featherlite's the biggest, no doubt. But they also had the best reference available. The people were extremely kind in providing everything we wanted. Again, they used me, I used them. I knew this graphic was going to be awesome. I knew they would want it for their marketing materials. I knew it. Did it influence my decision on the level of detail we were going to achieve? Absolutely not. But did the judges know that? Hell, you wanna talk shout-outs? The whole graphic is one big shout-out! That's what a hauler is by its very design. That's one of its primary functions.
I chose a Monte Carlo race car. Why? I don't know crap about race cars, a guy on the internet e-mailed schematics of the appropriate car after I had mistakenly purchased a model of an older model. Oh and I own stock in General Motors. Did the judges know that?
I chose EDS as another logo. Why? They're a big player in the Dallas economy. Do they sponsor a car? Hell, I don't know. Do I own stock in them? Yup! In my 401k mutual fund. Goodyear? Yup! Delphi? Yup! I don't remember the other logos but I'm sure there are a few more "yups!" in there as well. Did the judges know that?
So a lot of people stood to benefit from my decisions. Myself included when you think about it. Was it a motivation? F-ing ridiculous. The one decision that no one stood to benefit from? The NewTek logo. How ironic.
SO WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH LAYNE AND NEWTEK
Easy. There is no deal. They toured the DMN once many years ago doing research into the dark untapped world of newspaper graphics departments, they gave me a nice thank you note and a Dr. Seuss ornament. I established a relationship with these people and I gladly call them friends. For the scores of you who have met Proton and Deuce, you know what I'm talking about. They invited me to come speak to a San Antonio Lightwave Users Group and over dinner that night they grilled me on how they could make inroads into our industry. I said lower the price. They lowered the price. I forget how it came up but I mentioned that the DMN would love to host a Lightwave seminar and their help would sure help make it a success. They enthusiastically agreed, whatever I thought would make the conference a success, they did it.
So then who benefitted from my "relationship" with NewTek? You did! Everyone of you who came and enjoyed the fantastic show in Dallas, met some new friends, got some great software at a ridiculous discount, and learned how to use it, you're the ones who benefitted.
And who else?
SND itself makes a lot of money off the Dallas seminar. It's success is their success.
NewTek also benefits by raising their market share a little more each time.
Did I? Hah! Hardly! I got to stay up for three days straight doing training videos so the people who came here counting on me didn't go home disappointed.
But full disclosure here, NewTek has extended special deals to the Dallas Morning News. Is it because of me? Who knows? Maybe it's because we've purchased 12 copies and are doing some fantastic work with it? I don't know, I don't care. All I care is that my artists have access to a fantastic piece of software.
THE TRUE OUTRAGE
That it was only being considered for a silver!!! What were you judges smoking to stay warm up there!? Outrageous! 
A FINAL THOUGHT
This is bullsh*t. There, I said it. I feel better now. No hard feelings. Now let's all try and learn something from it.
-Layne |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
douglas e. jessmer
VizEds Moderator
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 1364
Location: Tampa Bay (Clearwater)
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:07 pm
|
|
|
| |
| Megan Lavey wrote:: | | Yes, because I want to understand ethics a bit better. It's one of those areas I'm trying to learn more about. So I tend to ask odd questions at times. From what I understand though, it's not an actual altered photo or story, but it's suppose to be a representation of a NASCAR car. Should they had just stuck to logos that could have commonly been found on NASCAR outlets? |
Actually, there IS a method to the madness when it comes to those funny logos on a NASCAR car. The fender decals are sponsors of the circuit, whether Busch series or Nextel Cup, so every car follows the same template for placement... and they're all in the same place on every car. NASCAR teams have one primary sponsor and may have several secondary sponsors. For instance, the Motorcraft car's secondary affiliation is Air Force Recruiting Service, or Mark Martin's Viagra car's secondary sponsor is... I don't think that team has one, what with all that schwing money Pfizer's putting into Roush to sponsor that car.
I didn't get a good enough look at the graphic from the DMN to know if those regulation-issue graphics were on the fender, but it seems to me the placement of the logos on the upper corner of the trailer was out of place.
It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback, and while I think the graphic is a well-done piece, I would have stuck to the standard clutter on the fender, if I used any decals on the car at all, and kept the car logo-less otherwise. Some cars enter races early in the season with solid-color paint jobs (meaning they didn't pick up a sponsor yet -- this is common in the Busch series), but the fender decals are still there. Had it been my graphic, outside of the fender decals, I might have used stripes and maybe a number, if I could use a number that wasn't assigned. As for the trailer, I don't know that any adornment advanced the story -- seems like it was just decoration. The point of the graphic wasn't the decal detail of the car, but instead the components and equipment a race team uses. And the DMN did a good job of that... things just went a little too far, maybe?
It's too bad that one stupid foulup kept a great piece of work from getting its due.
_________________
I've upped my standards — now, up yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
william neff
Juke Box Hero
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 36
Location: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Posted:
Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
I am so glad to hear Layne chime in with a defense of what happened with that graphic that sounds an awful lot like what I might have found myself saying.
I sat there in Dallas, at their Lightwave seminar, poring over that graphic in detail. To be perfectly honest, I found the Newtek logo maybe a little cheesy at the time -- I, for one, get a kick out of making up fictional, nondescript logos on the spot, and I thought using that thing showed less than stellar creativity. But that was it. The ethical implications of it didn't occur to me. And if they occurred to anyone else in that room, they kept it to themselves. That includes one guy who ended up as one of the judges who disqualified it.
I'm glad the issue came up because I, too, needed the reminder of where these boundaries lie. I might have made the same mistake under similar circumstances, which only makes me angrier at the blithe implication of "one judge" that the Dallas Morning News graphics department might be corrupt enough to have accepted payola to put the logo there. That's going over the line.
And while I don't know Richard Curtis personally, that disingenuous "my artist would have been fired" boilerplate did not sit well with me either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Zhu
Maestro
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Durham, NC
Posted:
Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:52 am
|
|
|
| |
After reading all the posts on this thread, my feeling is that yeah, it's a shame that this gorgeous piece of work missed out on an award b/c of something like this. As for whether the judges were right in questioning the motives, I can see it both ways (and in some ways I think this is another example of newspapers spending too much time on the psychiatrist's couch). I will say this though: This is obviously a damn fine piece of work. The people who worked on it knew it, other designers who saw it knew it, and since it was up for an award, obviously the judges knew it. And most importantly, the readers who saw it knew it. So really, if you were designing for readers, you achieved your goal. And even if you were designing for a pat on the back from your peers, you have that too. You just don't have a little plaque to show for it due to a technicality. Logo or no logo, I don't think anyone would mind having their name attached to this piece of work. Maybe the DMN people can take some solace in that.
_________________
Let this be a lesson to you: Never Try. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PAnderson
Visual Guru
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 62
Location: New York, NY
Posted:
Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:20 am
|
|
|
| |
I can't believe there's this much hand-wringing, indignation, and general nastiness over a decision about an award. A simple industry award. Which 99.9 percent of the world has never of, nor cares about. Why is this so important?
If, at the end of the day, you believe your work has enlightened and entertained your readers, then you've done your job and you should be satisfied with that.
Awards are capricious, subjective, and political. If you win one, that's just gravy. If you don't win: Get over it. Either way, it's nothing but a sideshow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Previous topic
Next topic
