

The Startup’s Guide to Budget Design - sgdesign
http://blog.folyo.me/the-startups-guide-to-budget-design/

======
adrianhoward
Here's another way of looking at it.

Visual branding (Which is really all we're talking about here. It's logos,
etc. Not many of the other things that sit in the design/ux skill set) is
directly related to the product/market fit of your company.

Harrods and Wallmart have different branding because they're aimed at
different markets and are selling different things.

What have we learned about building startups of late? That people's original
ideas of their product/market are often _way_ out. As you start pushing our
MVPs and getting real feedback the original ideas about product and market get
pushed in new and interesting directions.

So investing a lot of time and money in strong visual branding at an early
stage in a startup is often going to be a mistake. The market the brand is
targeting and the values that the brand is trying to communicate will almost
certainly change as the startup progresses.

Indeed, with the right perspective, you can look at the lean startup process
as being a brand discovery process. My approach to branding startups is now to
start cheap and neutral, and then refine later on as product/market fit
becomes clearer.

If folks find this idea resonates, they might like find these of interest:

* [https://www.quora.com/Lean-Startups/What-is-a-lean-approach-...](https://www.quora.com/Lean-Startups/What-is-a-lean-approach-to-naming-and-branding-your-startup)

* [https://www.quora.com/At-what-point-should-branding-become-a...](https://www.quora.com/At-what-point-should-branding-become-a-concern-for-a-startup/answer/Salim-Virani)

* [http://www.slideshare.net/willevans/introduction-to-leanux-b...](http://www.slideshare.net/willevans/introduction-to-leanux-branding)

------
digitalengineer
You might want to correct the "use iStock" part of your article: The whole
point of having a logo, business name or design mark is so that it will be
unique in the marketplace. How can your logo be unique if you're using a
royalty-free file that millions of other people could have downloaded?
_Besides violating the iStockphoto Content License Agreement, using an image
in this way also infringes upon the rights of the artist who created the file.
If these aren't reasons enough, good luck trying to develop or enforce rights
in conjunction with a logo that uses a royalty-free image._

<http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=616>

~~~
sgdesign
The part about using iStock was more for temporary landing pages, say, to test
out interest for a product.

I didn't know it was explicitly forbidden by their terms of service, although
I wonder where they draw the line between a "logo" and an "illustration".

To me it seems like their restriction applies to using stock art as an
_actual_ logo for a real product, not as a quick placeholder for an MVP or
landing page.

~~~
digitalengineer
I enyoyed reading your article and bookmarked some links. But even using
iStock for landing pages can get you in murky waters. Just ask twitter (they
used a birdy from istock. After they became successful this was easily copied
by copycats with almost the same url. The birdy can still be used today as
it's royaltyfree). If you're going for stockart at least use it as a base for
your design, not as the design.

------
michaelpinto
I'm a designer and I have to say that this article is dead on: It's about the
right approach for your budget.

I think people tend to get into problems when their level of expectations
don't match their budget. So if you have less than $500 don't expect a real
designer to treat you better than a full service agency. Also don't hire an
agency unless you have someone on your staff who's a real point person and
actually knows something about the project domain.

------
nodesocket
I found an amazing designer who did the logo for NodeSocket
(<http://static.nodesocket.com/home/images/logo.png>) for $300. Best money
ever spent, he did a fabulous job.

~~~
digitalengineer
Sorry to tell you this but the artwork for the socket came from shutterstock:
[http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-86299162/stock-vector-
world-...](http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-86299162/stock-vector-world-globe-
with-outlet-socket-on-white-background-vector-
illustration.html?src=a58e495aefd518d137a80ea3c763c8f8-1-61) (turn the socket
180 degrees).

Why is this a problem? Shutterstock does not allow it's artwork to be used in
logo's. See legal: You may not use any Image (in whole or in part) as a
trademark, service mark, logo, or other indication of origin, or as part
thereof , or to otherwise endorse or imply the endorsement of any goods and/or
services. <http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml>

~~~
peteretep
Oooh oooh, do mine next! I paid $99 for: <http://zipripjs.com/logo.png>

~~~
digitalengineer
Yours isn't very complex and wouldn't pass for a complete download. Looks like
it was part of a collection of artwork like this:
[http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-63245905/stock-vector-
locati...](http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-63245905/stock-vector-location-
icons.html)

You could have received something like this:
[http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-89416879/stock-vector-
paper-...](http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-89416879/stock-vector-paper-map-
icon-vector-illustration.html)

or tis one: [http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-100932412/stock-vector-
city-...](http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-100932412/stock-vector-city-map-
with-marker-vector-icon.html?src=dcf112fefee9b3b5c9deef6da972a75a-1-79)

This one looks cool: [http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-75302035/stock-vector-
vector...](http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-75302035/stock-vector-vector-
navigation-route-map-xxl-detailed-
icon.html?src=dcf112fefee9b3b5c9deef6da972a75a-1-26)

Remember, this is vector. Each and every part of this can be altered.
Something I would really advice.

------
mitchellbryson
I can't wait until people doing start-ups realise that design should come
first. Not only the aesthetics, but making it usable. Most start-ups I've
worked for say they wished they had hired me when they had started, because
there are so many problems that good design can solve.

I would place most emphasis on hiring a designer or find a design co-founder.
The more common option, is a technical founder with a understanding of good
design/usability, that seems to get you quite far too.

~~~
bmelton
Not to sound contrarian, but startups generally focus on their areas of
expertise. I'm a developer, and while I try to do a good job of making designs
that aren't horrible (or Bootstrapped), I am not a designer. Consequently, all
the apps I build could definitely use a designer's touch, at least in the
early stage.

If you're a poor startup, the objective is to solve a problem. You _can_ solve
a problem without great design, just as you can solve a problem without great
programming, or great copywriting, or great hosting, or any of the elements of
building and running a startup. The only thing a startup has to do
exceptionally well, I think, is to solve the problem it sets out to solve.

I know some designers who have started startups and naturally, their pages are
beautiful. I could make a similar argument about how development/architecture
should come first. Their apps will never scale, and if they'd had a good solid
architect in at the start, we could have solved all their IT issues. That may
or may not be true of course, but it's easy for me to make the statement that
I could have helped and I'm probably right more than I'm not (just as you are)
-- but that misses the point that except where funded, startups should focus
on the things they can do well until they can prove the market or figure out
if the idea has legs. Once you've proven that there's a benefit, or a customer
base, or a way to make money, then you can start to pay money for things to
make something more well-rounded.

Note: I'm re-reading this before I submit, and I can't tell if I sound like a
giant prick or not, so please be aware that wasn't my intent. Your statement
is of course valid, and I would personally love for startups to be better in
UI/UX; I just wanted to posit that startups can't be good at everything and
still be quickly built / cheaply built / etc.

~~~
mitchellbryson
I think that "good design" can be done by anyone, not just someone with a job
title of "designer". The major design success that comes to mind is Google's
homepage. Same with Facebook, the developer had an insight into what people
wanted to see on the page and how they were going to interact with it. That's
how design plays a bigger role than most developers realise.

I see design and development as symbiotic, and I wish I saw more start-ups
using both to solve problems, rather than an over-reliance on the back-end and
then shoving bootstrap, or a $10 template on the front.

And don't get me wrong, there is a place for these type of templates and crowd
sourced art. But if your product is a web based service, you can't rely on
clipart and templates to solve a problem effectively for the person using it.

~~~
bmelton
I think that you're right, but I don't see that as a universal truth either.
There are a _lot_ of problems that you can solve even if the product looks
like complete poop.

I certainly agree that design helps, and if nothing else, it helps traction.
Stripe is an example of something that could suck, but works so well that it
would still solve a problem. That said, it doesn't hurt that their product is
gorgeous, and it certainly makes it more sticky in mindshare. I still remember
how giddy I got when I noticed that their documentation uses your actual API
keys instead of having the dumb old "<INSERT_YOUR_API_KEY>" you see everywhere
else.

I'd have still used Stripe either way, but the fit and finish throughout made
me a staunch advocate for its ease of use to everybody that's ever asked me.

In counterpoint, Dotcloud is the cloud hosting provider I generally believe to
be "the best". Their homepage has come a long way, and if Solomon or any other
Dotclouders are reading this, I apologize in advance, but it used to be
downright ugly. On top of that, the dashboard they provided obviously had an
abysmal level of fit and finish, and while some of its warts persist, it's
come a long way. That their product wasn't beautiful absolutely impeded my use
of it in no way whatsoever. It is easily the 'best' way to deploy code for a
variety of services, whether or not it's attractive, or even 'complete'.

 _So long as the pain you ease is substantially greater than the pain you are
introducing, the product can work._

I agree that isn't an excuse for bad design, but the notion that better design
makes something better isn't necessarily a reason to always pay top dollar for
it. If you can get design on the cheap (either Bootstrap or similar products),
through 99 Designs, or even by just reading a book, and execute in other
areas, then you'll likely come out ahead, and revisit the design when it's
more easily affordable.

The point though, is that the same thing could be said for engineering. Bring
in only the minimum you need to solve the problem you're trying to solve. If
you don't have a rockstar engineer, but do have somebody that can mock up a
proof of concept that may or may not scale, that's what you should push
forward with.

Like I meant to say in my previous post, I feel like we agree more than we
disagree, I was just trying to point out that the priority #1 for a
bootstrapped startup should be pushing product out the door. If it's ugly,
won't scale, whatever -- ship product. Would a more attractive product be
better? Of course it would, but that shouldn't slow down shipping.

------
leadholder
$10000+ is the "domain of big-budget agencies"? What exact kind of work are we
talking about here? Certainly not websites...that are any good... :)

Maybe that's the problem I had with this post--no project parameters are
visible. Because it's not like you can walk into a big-budget agency and they
say, "for $10,000 we can build you either a logo or an app. But not both."

When you walk into a big-budget agency, you will be lucky if you can get
penciled onto their calendar in about a month.

When you walk into a small agency, they'll meet with you right there for a few
minutes, then probably never call you back because demand is too high and you
sound like a cheap client, asking where your $10,000 will get you. Now, for
low-end small agencies, the reverse is true. They will never call you back
because they can't figure out why someone would pay $10K for design, and it
scares them. I have seen that happen.

When you chat up a highly-skilled _individual_ freelancer, he/she will
immediately try to figure out which you value more: Good design or budget
integrity. High-value freelancers, working as individuals, are known to take
on projects of $50K and higher. They have a great reputation and are hired by
people who are good delegators with a need to solve a distant problem
effectively.

Demand for high-value, professional design services is extremely high. Here at
HN the startup culture is always squawking about the cost of design, but the
demand really is there. For every "I am willing to pay you $XXXX for a
website" phone call I get, I can invent 2-3 opportunities of my own to contact
existing clients and sell them on an idea that will cost them $XX,XXX. This is
not some secret where I am keeping them from discovering cheap designers. It's
how professional design works. I know their business. I pitch an idea that
makes them stand out. They go after it.

Anyway, telling people that they can (or should) hire a big-budget agency with
their $10K is pretty misleading.

~~~
sgdesign
I'm not entirely sure what your point is. If it's that $10000 is too low to
hire an agency maybe you're right.

But in my experience it's the upper bound of most initial design budgets on
Folyo, that's why I picked that number.

~~~
leadholder
I wasn't sure what the point of the article was. Reinforcing pricing notions
of a specific group was my second guess, and from what you're saying, that's
the right one.

------
macspoofing
>But I personally don’t have enough experience dealing with agencies to say if
their services are really worth the expense.

It's a crapshoot. You can spend $10,000+ and end up with essentially nothing.

------
ajhit406
Found it somewhat curious that you didn't mention Dribbble (www.dribbble.com)
in your article given that they're (in my estimation) the leader in the design
community space at the moment in terms of quality of designers, engagement and
the web application itself.

You do allow designers to list their dribbble profiles in their profiles-- In
fact many of the designers on Folyo have empty profiles, but then have super
decorated profiles on dribbble, for example:

<http://folyo.me/designers/1224> and <http://dribbble.com/seanbunton>

Just kinda tired of this "hidden" promotion via blog posts and was hoping
you'd be a bit less impartial and include the real leader in the space. Other
than this obvious omission, it's a quality article.

------
dbecker
I got a logo that I really liked on oDesk for $100. I hired 3 different
designers (a couple were from India, and I forget where the third designer was
from). I paid each of them about $35. One was a complete bust. The other two
were pretty good.

~~~
sgdesign
I would be curious to see the logos, if you don't mind. It would be
interesting to see if I can find anything wrong with them…

~~~
dbecker
The one I preferred liked the most is at <http://codeglasses.com/logo.png>

I wanted something cheap to put together an MVP. I quit on the project (for
reasons unrelated to the logo).

So, I'll be curious to see if you find design flaws... but I'm glad I didn't
spend much on the design no matter what faults it has.

------
grantph
I prefer a hybrid solution. 99designs to weed out a good designer. For me that
tends to mean good comprehension, a knowledge of how to use their tools and
their unique style (each designer tends to certain styles).

A contest on 99d is simply a precursor to further work. Once I find the
designer they will earn a lot more than the prize on offer. I find this to be
more effective than big agencies because they are hit and miss - but way more
expensive when missed!

I have also used 99d to simply browse successful projects and approach
designers directly without a contest. Sometimes they have a style I like, so I
hire them.

With regard to "design" - I ALWAYS separate functional from aesthetics. Most
"web designers" that I've encountered have no clue when it comes to function
and process. Safer to give them a wire frame and let them make it pretty. If
you can't come up with a sensible wire frame then your website has bigger
problems than how nice it looks. I always think Hollywood for design: story,
storyboard then production. A designer can't provide the story - you must do
that!

~~~
sgdesign
Have you considered that maybe the reason the designers you encounter have no
clue about function is precisely because you find them on 99Designs?

------
andrewfelix
Design is about problem solving. It's about holistic solutions. Do not presume
you can emulate good design with disparate elements that look pretty. For a
more insightful article on design for startups please read this:
<http://startupsthisishowdesignworks.com/>

------
deusebio
I think using small agencies / freelancers are the sweet spot of value /
quality. In my experience both as a freelancer and as a client, I've seen the
most long-term value through those relationships.

------
capex
If a logo design can cost from 1k to 10k, how about a complete app design? I
thought this range was for an app design from Folyo designers.

~~~
sgdesign
Sorry if the post wasn't clear. The 1k to 10k budget is not just for a logo,
it could be for the whole app too.

The idea of this post is more to say "if this is your budget, here are the
options that are available to you" rather than give out precise costs for
different jobs (which is hard to do, but I gave it a shot here:
[http://blog.folyo.me/how-much-does-a-website-cost-and-
other-...](http://blog.folyo.me/how-much-does-a-website-cost-and-other-
pricing-questions))

------
dotborg2
what about copying other website layouts and designs? it seems like everyone
do that, unique design is something very rare

why pay for design if I can copy something(+small modifications)?

