It's a site where you can get designers to offer you design work based on your requirements for a fraction of what it usually costs to get this sort of work done.
Read the comments at the bottom from the bottom up.
Not only did she run off and not pay the winner in the end. But she still went ahead and used a logo on her site that looks remarkably like the finished works on the page. That's seriously unfair and unprofessional. You can bet she would whinge like hell if someone got her to make up a load of different trial skincare gunks, but then didn't pay her for her time/effort, but then went ahead and used one of the skincare gunk recipes anyway.
It's not like it was a lot of money that she should have paid anyway. The designers are trying to make a living just like she is.
Secondly look in the "December 24, 2010 2:12 PM" comment. Here she specifically tells the designers to rip off LizEarle.com!
What a thieving and thoroughly unprofessional woman.
It's a site where you can get designers to offer you design work based on your requirements for a fraction of what it usually costs to get this sort of work done.
Read the comments at the bottom from the bottom up.
Not only did she run off and not pay the winner in the end. But she still went ahead and used a logo on her site that looks remarkably like the finished works on the page. That's seriously unfair and unprofessional. You can bet she would whinge like hell if someone got her to make up a load of different trial skincare gunks, but then didn't pay her for her time/effort, but then went ahead and used one of the skincare gunk recipes anyway.
It's not like it was a lot of money that she should have paid anyway. The designers are trying to make a living just like she is.
Secondly look in the "December 24, 2010 2:12 PM" comment. Here she specifically tells the designers to rip off LizEarle.com!
What a thieving and thoroughly unprofessional woman.
Wow that's pretty bad actually :eek:
Knowing what you know about Susie's brand, including her profit margins, how the business came about etc, does this put you off buying her products or does it not make a difference?
As a freelancer myself I feel for the designers whose work she has ripped off. And also for the Liz Earle company too, even if they are big business, by copying them she's still riding on their coat tails like a parasite.
her products are an almost exact copy of the Liz Earle range (which i use) even down to the packaging being the same colour & the same containers for the products.
Not exactly her 'original' idea...Liz earles products have been around for years
Have just visited her site for the first time - yes, Susan's products are a complete rip-off. Even the website, the layout, functionality, etc.
As a freelancer myself I feel for the designers whose work she has ripped off. And also for the Liz Earle company too, even if they are big business, by copying them she's still riding on their coat tails like a parasite.
It's a site where you can get designers to offer you design work based on your requirements for a fraction of what it usually costs to get this sort of work done.
Read the comments at the bottom from the bottom up.
Not only did she run off and not pay the winner in the end. But she still went ahead and used a logo on her site that looks remarkably like the finished works on the page. That's seriously unfair and unprofessional. You can bet she would whinge like hell if someone got her to make up a load of different trial skincare gunks, but then didn't pay her for her time/effort, but then went ahead and used one of the skincare gunk recipes anyway.
It's not like it was a lot of money that she should have paid anyway. The designers are trying to make a living just like she is.
Secondly look in the "December 24, 2010 2:12 PM" comment. Here she specifically tells the designers to rip off LizEarle.com!
What a thieving and thoroughly unprofessional woman.
:eek::mad:
What I don't understand is why they didn't pick up on this?
Last year Stuart Baggs got ripped apart over a matter of semantics, but Susan Ma does far worse and just breezed through it all unchallenged.
It's a site where you can get designers to offer you design work based on your requirements for a fraction of what it usually costs to get this sort of work done.
Read the comments at the bottom from the bottom up.
Not only did she run off and not pay the winner in the end. But she still went ahead and used a logo on her site that looks remarkably like the finished works on the page. That's seriously unfair and unprofessional. You can bet she would whinge like hell if someone got her to make up a load of different trial skincare gunks, but then didn't pay her for her time/effort, but then went ahead and used one of the skincare gunk recipes anyway.
It's not like it was a lot of money that she should have paid anyway. The designers are trying to make a living just like she is.
Secondly look in the "December 24, 2010 2:12 PM" comment. Here she specifically tells the designers to rip off LizEarle.com!
What a thieving and thoroughly unprofessional woman.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, this is downright dipping your wick. And eating it. ...Sorry, my clichés may have got tangled. I am like Jim at this time of night.
But yeah, this is actually pretty bad. Her behaviour on that site is so deceptive. She might as well just have added "Tropic" in Paint over Liz Earle's logo; it'd be slightly more original than what she has now.
And also, not paying the designer? Ridiculous. Perhaps she was too worried about paying tax.
What I don't understand is why they didn't pick up on this?
Last year Stuart Baggs got ripped apart over a matter of semantics, but Susan Ma does far worse and just breezed through it all unchallenged.
There is the question of when the interviews were done; was it before December 2010? If so, this wouldn't have happened yet.
Most of the stuff on this thread is just rubbish, dragged up by those scraping the barrel in their hysteria to prove that she can't be what she says she is; Susan clearly has every right to set up on her own if she feels she can do as well as her employer, and there's never been any claim that she herself hasn't paid her tax (the people she employed on a one-off basis are responsible for their own tax).
This logo business seems more credible. I'm not rushing to judgement, but I must admit I'd like to hear her answer to this one (which, as she doesn't post here as far as I know, I doubt if I'll get)
There is the question of when the interviews were done; was it before December 2010? If so, this wouldn't have happened yet.
Most of the stuff on this thread is just rubbish, dragged up by those scraping the barrel in their hysteria to prove that she can't be what she says she is; Susan clearly has every right to set up on her own if she feels she can do as well as her employer, and there's never been any claim that she herself hasn't paid her tax (the people she employed on a one-off basis are responsible for their own tax).
This logo business seems more credible. I'm not rushing to judgement, but I must admit I'd like to hear her answer to this one (which, as she doesn't post here as far as I know, I doubt if I'll get)
At least the reason why she thought she'd make £4.1M in the first year has become abundantly clear - the Susan Ma Business Plan might as well just have read:
1. F*ck over as many people as possible. 2. Repeat ad infinitum.
BIB: You won't have to ask her - it's surely only a matter of time before either the BBC or Lord Sugar will be telling us for themselves
Susan has fallen into a classic business trap. I think a lot of designers will tell you that so many of their clients' requests bordering on "I want mine exactly like that" (and at a bargain price) and how those designers do everything they can to avoid making it "exactly" without their clients noticing.
Our book cover designers have this almost all the time. They were told to make Young Adult covers like Twilight's apple-in-hands cover and they did all they could to avoid doing that while offering similar looks, like black background and a red object that isn't an apple.
Susan's handling of the actual project isn't impressive, though. It seems to me that she had failed to understand how the system works. I think she honestly thought she can ask for ideas and then walk away if she doesn't like any, instead of paying the best as a good-will gesture, because she may reason that she could get someone tweak exactly the way she wants it. She failed to understand that the winner could tweak it further for her. Her action is unfortunately common among requestors at the freelance site I frequent at. I don't believe she was intentionally malicious, just clueless and inconsiderate.
When Susan explained to Margaret how she started she said "before I did my A levels I worked for a guy selling skincare products at Greenwich market. I made over £1,500 in one weekend. I realised how much money could be made so I created my own range....then I sold them at Greenwich market, shows and events."
Therefore she did trade at the same market.
Incidentally in her original interview she also says "I look at what is successful now and I sort of take other peoples ideas and see what they've established at the moment, what's successful for them and then I try to take that and make it better"
I find that last statement very revealing.
so freakin what. fortune 100 companies also employ the same tactics.
jeez.
Crikey! Is that sort of attitude really necessary?
However I hadn't realised that Susan's company was a Fortune 100. My mistake.
If you read my posts you will realise that I am expressing MY opinion. I think that is usually ok on a forum but your attitude seems to suggest otherwise.
Susan's handling of the actual project isn't impressive, though. It seems to me that she had failed to understand how the system works. I think she honestly thought she can ask for ideas and then walk away if she doesn't like any, instead of paying the best as a good-will gesture, because she may reason that she could get someone tweak exactly the way she wants it. She failed to understand that the winner could tweak it further for her. Her action is unfortunately common among requestors at the freelance site I frequent at. I don't believe she was intentionally malicious, just clueless and inconsiderate.
It's not so much that she walked away from it, it's more to do with fact she said she walked away saying she didn't want any of them and used one of their designs anyway. That's what it looks like has happened.
If thats true, then why is she getting a way with it. Otherwise everyone would be doing the same wouldn't they? Isn't there a law against taking pictures on the net without permission? I can't see why she would risk her own business credibilty by doing this. Perhaps you should contact the designer or Susan to see if you can get to the bottom of this.
Incidentally in her original interview she also says "I look at what is successful now and I sort of take other peoples ideas and see what they've established at the moment, what's successful for them and then I try to take that and make it better"
I find that last statement very revealing.
That's what Tom pretty much did with his nail file, didn't he? All good inventors see the potential in everything to create something innovative. Likewise with many in business including Sugar who liked the sight of Commodore 64 or Spectrum ZX and created a range of his own.
If there is anything I would criticise Susan, it 's her tendency to sulk. I wanted to say it's youth, it's youth, etc., but sod it. It's a crappy trait to have.
It's not so much that she walked away from it, it's more to do with fact she said she walked away saying she didn't want any of them and used one of their designs anyway. That's what it looks like has happened.
It would be an act of copyright infringement if she did take and use without permission. I had a look earlier and didn't see any submission that matches her current logo. Link please?
If they're just students and it's not copyrighted then it's not illegal, just really unethical.
Plus it's highly unlikely the designer (which I presume is American seeing as it's an American site) will know who Susan is or trace back her website.
If they're just students and it's not copyrighted then it's not illegal, just really unethical.
Plus it's highly unlikely the designer (which I presume is American seeing as it's an American site) will know who Susan is or trace back her website.
In the UK, the moment you created an original expression of an idea, it's automatically copyrighted. Regardless of your age, profession, etc. I'm reasonably sure it's same in the US. I may be wrong, though.
It would be an act of copyright infringement if she did take and use without permission. I had a look earlier and didn't see any submission that matches her current logo. Link please?
If they're just students and it's not copyrighted then it's not illegal, just really unethical.
Plus it's highly unlikely the designer (which I presume is American seeing as it's an American site) will know who Susan is or trace back her website.
I always thought that once you created the work it automatically becomes copyright protected and that would apply to everyone as well so I dont know why students don't count. I need to look up on this
I always thought that once you created the work it automatically becomes copyright protected and that would apply to everyone as well so I dont know why students don't count. I need to look up on this
You more likely know more than me, I didn't realise designs were automatically protected.
In the UK, the moment you created an original expression of an idea, it's automatically copyrighted. Regardless of your age, profession, etc. I'm reasonably sure it's same in the US. I may be wrong, though.
Copyright is the same worldwide in that whoever creates it owns the copyright to the work. Protecting it worldwide is a different thing.
Incidentally, the people who submit their designs are not always students but working designers. For a business, using these design competition sites is an economical way to get a great logo. So for Susan to withdraw the project at the eleventh hour and not pay is very unprofessional. I'm sure she would expect to be paid for her efforts.
The font is different, that's about it. It's an almost exact replica so would still class as infringement if the image was copyrighted.
Thank you. There are enough differences (yellow tip of a branch on the stem,leaf (narrower split), font, etc.) to show it's not raindesign's own logo. This means Susan didn't take or use raindesign's logo as some have been saying here.
There is no doubt that Susan's logo was heavily inspired by raindesign's logo, but unfortunately for raindesign, Susan didn't do anything worse than being unethical and inconsiderate. Such a shame that Susan didn't pay raindesign the prize as a thank you. I hope she'll rectify this soon.
Copyright is the same worldwide in that whoever creates it owns the copyright to the work. Protecting it worldwide is a different thing.
I agree.
Incidentally, the people who submit their designs are not always students but working designers. For a business, using these design competition sites is an economical way to get a great logo. So for Susan to withdraw the project at the eleventh hour and not pay is very unprofessional. I'm sure she would expect to be paid for her efforts.
Comments
Have a look at
http://www.mycroburst.com/contests/skin-care-logo?page=1
which another poster found and put in one of the other threads.
It's a site where you can get designers to offer you design work based on your requirements for a fraction of what it usually costs to get this sort of work done.
Read the comments at the bottom from the bottom up.
Not only did she run off and not pay the winner in the end. But she still went ahead and used a logo on her site that looks remarkably like the finished works on the page. That's seriously unfair and unprofessional. You can bet she would whinge like hell if someone got her to make up a load of different trial skincare gunks, but then didn't pay her for her time/effort, but then went ahead and used one of the skincare gunk recipes anyway.
It's not like it was a lot of money that she should have paid anyway. The designers are trying to make a living just like she is.
Secondly look in the "December 24, 2010 2:12 PM" comment. Here she specifically tells the designers to rip off LizEarle.com!
What a thieving and thoroughly unprofessional woman.
Wow that's pretty bad actually :eek:
Knowing what you know about Susie's brand, including her profit margins, how the business came about etc, does this put you off buying her products or does it not make a difference?
So no I would not buy from her.
Have just visited her site for the first time - yes, Susan's products are a complete rip-off. Even the website, the layout, functionality, etc.
Makes her philosophy a farce...."Pure. Honest. Effective."
She's just DelBoy but pretty
Me neither.
:eek::mad:
What I don't understand is why they didn't pick up on this?
Last year Stuart Baggs got ripped apart over a matter of semantics, but Susan Ma does far worse and just breezed through it all unchallenged.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, this is downright dipping your wick. And eating it. ...Sorry, my clichés may have got tangled. I am like Jim at this time of night.
But yeah, this is actually pretty bad. Her behaviour on that site is so deceptive. She might as well just have added "Tropic" in Paint over Liz Earle's logo; it'd be slightly more original than what she has now.
And also, not paying the designer? Ridiculous. Perhaps she was too worried about paying tax.
There is the question of when the interviews were done; was it before December 2010? If so, this wouldn't have happened yet.
Most of the stuff on this thread is just rubbish, dragged up by those scraping the barrel in their hysteria to prove that she can't be what she says she is; Susan clearly has every right to set up on her own if she feels she can do as well as her employer, and there's never been any claim that she herself hasn't paid her tax (the people she employed on a one-off basis are responsible for their own tax).
This logo business seems more credible. I'm not rushing to judgement, but I must admit I'd like to hear her answer to this one (which, as she doesn't post here as far as I know, I doubt if I'll get)
At least the reason why she thought she'd make £4.1M in the first year has become abundantly clear - the Susan Ma Business Plan might as well just have read:
1. F*ck over as many people as possible.
2. Repeat ad infinitum.
BIB: You won't have to ask her - it's surely only a matter of time before either the BBC or Lord Sugar will be telling us for themselves
Our book cover designers have this almost all the time. They were told to make Young Adult covers like Twilight's apple-in-hands cover and they did all they could to avoid doing that while offering similar looks, like black background and a red object that isn't an apple.
Susan's handling of the actual project isn't impressive, though. It seems to me that she had failed to understand how the system works. I think she honestly thought she can ask for ideas and then walk away if she doesn't like any, instead of paying the best as a good-will gesture, because she may reason that she could get someone tweak exactly the way she wants it. She failed to understand that the winner could tweak it further for her. Her action is unfortunately common among requestors at the freelance site I frequent at. I don't believe she was intentionally malicious, just clueless and inconsiderate.
I don't say that, either.
Therefore she did trade at the same market.
Incidentally in her original interview she also says "I look at what is successful now and I sort of take other peoples ideas and see what they've established at the moment, what's successful for them and then I try to take that and make it better"
I find that last statement very revealing.
so freakin what. fortune 100 companies also employ the same tactics.
jeez.
Crikey! Is that sort of attitude really necessary?
However I hadn't realised that Susan's company was a Fortune 100. My mistake.
If you read my posts you will realise that I am expressing MY opinion. I think that is usually ok on a forum but your attitude seems to suggest otherwise.
It's not so much that she walked away from it, it's more to do with fact she said she walked away saying she didn't want any of them and used one of their designs anyway. That's what it looks like has happened.
If there is anything I would criticise Susan, it 's her tendency to sulk. I wanted to say it's youth, it's youth, etc., but sod it. It's a crappy trait to have.
It would be an act of copyright infringement if she did take and use without permission. I had a look earlier and didn't see any submission that matches her current logo. Link please?
Plus it's highly unlikely the designer (which I presume is American seeing as it's an American site) will know who Susan is or trace back her website.
In the UK, the moment you created an original expression of an idea, it's automatically copyrighted. Regardless of your age, profession, etc. I'm reasonably sure it's same in the US. I may be wrong, though.
http://www.mycroburst.com/contests/skin-care-logo/users/raindesign
http://www.tropicskincare.com/
The font is different, that's about it. It's an almost exact replica so would still class as infringement if the image was copyrighted.
EDIT: you're probably right about the infringement, I didn't really this was the case. That's dodgy then
I always thought that once you created the work it automatically becomes copyright protected and that would apply to everyone as well so I dont know why students don't count. I need to look up on this
You more likely know more than me, I didn't realise designs were automatically protected.
Copyright is the same worldwide in that whoever creates it owns the copyright to the work. Protecting it worldwide is a different thing.
Incidentally, the people who submit their designs are not always students but working designers. For a business, using these design competition sites is an economical way to get a great logo. So for Susan to withdraw the project at the eleventh hour and not pay is very unprofessional. I'm sure she would expect to be paid for her efforts.
Thank you. There are enough differences (yellow tip of a branch on the stem,leaf (narrower split), font, etc.) to show it's not raindesign's own logo. This means Susan didn't take or use raindesign's logo as some have been saying here.
There is no doubt that Susan's logo was heavily inspired by raindesign's logo, but unfortunately for raindesign, Susan didn't do anything worse than being unethical and inconsiderate. Such a shame that Susan didn't pay raindesign the prize as a thank you. I hope she'll rectify this soon.
I agree.
I also agree, believe it or not.
http://www.mycroburst.com/help/clients