That crowd-sourced prizes attract reasonable quality entrants at low cost is part of their attraction to those funding them.
Complaining that they are low cost seems fruitless. Perhaps argue that the results are bad for the money invested - if you think there is evidence for that. I don't think there is much evidence for that, though - prizes produce competitive results. In this case there have been 20 designs submitted already. Update: make that 50 designs!
I'm working on a lengthy essay discussing this. It may not be relevant anymore by the time it's done, and might not really be appropriate for less wrong outside of replying to this specific post. But the basic summary is:
Yes, for the immediate future, a contest with a $300 prize is probably going to be more useful to you than trying to hire an artist for $300.
What you have to realize is that when you have a $300 contest with 20 participants, the actual financial payoff to the participants is essentially $15. The amount of time it takes to make a good
If you have graphic design experience, check out the on-going logo design competition at 99designs for the Singularity Institute. There are still 6 days left to enter and be eligible to win the $295 prize if your design is selected. Tell your friends with graphic design experience too. There are very few submissions currently.
Note: This is a blind contest. Designers can only see their own entries. All designs will be revealed when the contest ends.
If you're interested at getting a peek at the designs, they will be online after the competition is over. This is standard practice in 99designs contests to prevent designers from contaminating each other and having all the designs drift in a certain direction.