If Hugo is the exception to the questionable ethics of creative service contests as I keep hearing over and over, then I’d expect Hugo to be selling that angle. Instead, they sell it like any other contest holder: “this gives a designer a head start”, etc. Just like all others it’s packaged as good fun, and even proportionately beneficial between parties.

Hugo is an umbrella org for a creative sector that is a cousin to design. Hugo certainly deserves it’s fan support, so it’s not quite picking on Hugo alone. I think those that are putting a frown on this are trying to slow the widespread perception that design contests are a healthy first resort to take advantage of for anyone. Most are grossly exploitive and go to extra lengths to be extra-exploitive in the fine print. So to hear Hugo, part of the overall greater creative services brethren adopt the usual “It’s fun for the designers, they’ll enjoy it” tone is (to me) a bit sad and insensitive.

Designers have good reason to keep their market value strong, and I think that’s all their doing here.

The reason for that wording is that every one of the logos is going to include the words “Hugo Award,” and WSFS owns a registered service mark on “Hugo Award.” The entrants could of course make new work based on their old work as long as it doesn’t include the registered service mark.

Like Chip Kidd who is one of the judges ?