Design: Too Important to Leave to Designers?

Bruce Nussbaum of Business Week recently gave a provocative speech titled, "Are Designers the Enemy of Design?" Very interesting stuff. Here's how he starts:

"...DESIGNERS SUCK. I’m sorry. It’s true. DESIGNERS SUCK. There’s a big backlash against design going on today and it’s because designers suck.

So let me tell you why. Designers suck because they are arrogant. The blogs and websites are full of designers shouting how awful it is that now, thanks to Macs, Web 2.0, even YouTube, EVERYONE is a designer. Core 77 recently ran an article on this backlash and so did we on our Innovation & Design site. Designers are saying that Design is everywhere, done by everyone. So Design is debased, eroded, insulted. The subtext, of course, is that Real design can only be done by great star designers.

This is simply not true."

Bruce isn't just talking about graphic designers, but all professionals who design. Read the whole thing.

Let me say that I agree—sort of. I work with plenty of designers who don't suck. Great talents who understand that non-functional design is called art, not design. Exceptional artists who love to help clients create things they can't do on their own (at a price that makes sense). Designers who are more interested in the needs of their clients (including sometimes making the logo bigger), than their own needs for aesthetics.

But almost every day, I see designers who treat their customers like morons, or think their clients don't know anything about their own customers, or the needs of their own businesses. I've read comments by designers who have argued that if an entrepreneur can't afford an expensive logo created by a "professional" designer, they shouldn't be allowed to start a business. And I've read a "Client Code of Ethics" written by designers about how clients should act when working with them.

Designers don't suck. They offer an incredibly valuable service (regardless of price). But some of them need a reality check.

The value of design is not determined by the price charged by the designer (great design is available at all price points). The quality of design is not determined by years of experience (or advertising agencies would be filled with 65 year olds, rather than 20 year olds).  The acceptability of design is not determined by where you get it (you can get great graphic design at Landor as well as Logoworks [full disclosure: I work at Logoworks]).

Someone once said that politics is too important to be left to the politicians. The same is true of design. Your business/brand is far too important to be left exclusively to the designer. Bruce argues, "People want to participate in the design of their lives. They insist on being part of the conversation about their lives." If you're serious about the design of your brand, you want to be a part of that conversation too.

Be a designer.

Comments

[Martin Baron]

A great article, putting antiquated designers on notice that no one designer embodies a galaxy of knowledge & opinion. Their are no accomplishments more worthy than the rest.Everyone is a student of design!

[Sprtek]

The thrust of Nussbaum's article was about design thinking and designing green. By saying "designer's suck / designer's are arrogant" as he addressed an audience of designers and design managers, he was trying to provoke them to look inward at their own design process and outward at how innovation and product design has clients getting involved in the process.

You appear disingenuous as you take his comments out of context and give them your own spin. Or perhaps you just don't get it. That you "see designers every day who treat their clients like morons", is laughable since you work as the spin doctor for a McLogomill. If a logo is a part of the foundation upon which a business is built, your company sells substandard cinder blocks to customers and tells them how they don't need to buy those "expensive" ones. Professional designers don't whip up generic logos without doing the proper research. The customer ought to know that they're going to get what they pay for.

Getting the client involved in the process means spending time in conversation, educating the client about design and learning about the client's business, researching the market and building a real brand image, not just a cheap facade. To do otherwise would be treating the client like a moron.

You're a smart guy, Rob, but comparing Landor to Logoworks is ridiculous and sounds as though you think we're all suckers. Perhaps it's time to reevaluate how your current job is harmful to your career.

[Rob]

Sprtek, thanks for your comments. I especially appreciate your concern for my career. Let me first say, I don't think you, or anyone else, is a "sucker." I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote.

Yes, Nussbaum writes about green architectural design. However, he is using this as an example to illustrate his point. The paragraph I quoted is not out of context. He is talking about design everywhere and spefically mentions web design (not architecture).

Many (not all) designers today ARE arrogant. They act as if they have some special expertise handed down by the Gods and unavailable to the common person. One designer, who has been critical of LW in the past, recently posted in a popular design forum that a particular business model (not Logowork's) "removes the responsibilities of "creative director" from the designer and places it upon the shoulders of the people least qualified for the job—the client."

Forgive me if I disagree (with him) that the client shouldn't be involved in directing the creative. A business owner will always know their customer's needs better than the designer. They will usually have a better feel for the competition and what works in that environment. They should take maximum responsibility for the creative, not pawn it off on the designer. That's an important part of the way we have built our business. But many designers hate that kind of involvement from anyone who doesn't "understand" design. This doesn't mean the client is always right, but they surely aren't always wrong.

I agree with you that the dialog between the designer and client is critical to success. This is one of the things that makes LW different from traditional design firms—we make it easy for the small business person to articulate what they want/need without spending hours meeting with a designer in person. Many overloaded business people appreciate this approach.

The fact of the matter is that the value of a particular design isn't determined by where it is created. I stand by my assertion that you can get good design at Logoworks AND at Landor. You say this is ridiculous, but don't back it up. If Logoworks helps customers meet their business needs with great design in an affordable way, why is this ridiculous?

While the designers at Landor take on enormous clients like Nestle and BP, they are not interested in helping a small sandwich shop create a logo or print their business cards. And the shop owner can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars Landor would charge if they were. Let's be honest, the shop owner doesn't need a full-blown brand architecture or holistic brand relationship. She needs a good logo she can use for store signage and menus. She is bootstrapping to get her business off the ground. That's why she goes to Logoworks. Do you seriously think this small business owner would be better served by Landor, or Pentagram, or Ogilvy? At what cost?

Like so many other businesses, the world of design is changing. There are excellent designers all over the world (many of whom can't even get an interview at a traditional design shop). Likewise,there are millions of small businesses that can now afford great design (ten years ago, many of them couldn't get a phone call returned by their local ad agency).

This doesn't mean designers aren't important. They're more important than ever. I agree with Bruce that more people should be encouraged to participate in design, specifically business people should be more involved in the design of their brands/visual identities.

Thanks again for stopping by.

[Sprtek]

Thanks for responding. Nussbaum's provocative statement does fuel conversation.
Now please tell me why would this particular group of professionals be any more arrogant than people in any other field? Let's recognize that a great many designers are individual freelancers who deal with their neighbors and local businesses in their own communities. Do you believe that just anyone can buy some graphic software and create professional business logos that work? Do you believe that just anybody can do YOUR job as long as they have a book about branding? Or do you possess certain skills, talent, knowledge and expertise that you've honed over the years in your chosen field? I'm sorry if I'm a little suspicious that a person whose job it is to promote the brand of Logoworks may be taking advantage of Nussbaum's statement to take a swipe at professionals who warn clients about the logomills. Somehow, most designers are arrogant, EXCEPT the ones that work for YOUR company?

You said, "One designer, who has been critical of LW in the past, recently posted in a popular design forum that a particular business model (not Logowork's) "removes the responsibilities of "creative director" from the designer and places it upon the shoulders of the people least qualified for the job—the client."

This is NOT an arrogant statement and please show where he has ever stated that the client shouldn't be involved. I am familiar with this designer and I remember this comment. He was specifically commenting on "design spec contests" in a particular thread on the About.com Graphic Design forum. Again, you are being disingenuous by taking his statement out of context. You can read in detail why these contests are bad for the CLIENT, as well as designers, at http://www.no-spec.com where he is a contributor. Once there, you may notice the MANY professional designers who support this website and its message, including myself. You misconstrue arrogance for what is actually a deep concern for the best interest of the client. (Actually, I think you know that.)

Quality does matter, and saying you can get good design at Landor AND Logoworks is telling because what you've done, perhaps unconsciously, is put LW at the low end of the quality spectrum. In reality, they are apples and oranges, which was my point. You won't find Landor offering a "corporate package" which consists of "unlimited revisions" and " 500 free business cards" thrown in. You won't find Landor (who I'd bet you'd prefer to work for in a heartbeat) saying "here's the logo you picked, now you better go research and see if any other company has a similar design". I suggest reading this excellent website which explains the differences between a professional design shop and an LW-type logomill quite accurately.
http://www.thelogofactory.com/library/articles/hackology.html

Rob, true professionals are not arrogant when they make design recommendations to clients. Their experience helps them to know what works well and what doesn't. It's in the client's best interest to take advantage of professional expertise and listen to recommendations. Your doctor doesn't hold out 5 prescriptions and tell you to "choose one, do the research and get well". Your electrician doesn't have you decide whatever gage wire to use to wire up your house. You depend on the expertise and recommendations of your lawyer, your accountant, your car mechanic, etc... Can you say that you will "always know" better than these professionals?

Yes, the world of designing is changing. Change is inevitable. So what.
Knowledge, experience and talent will continue to be valuable assets worth investing in when starting a business. Going cheap may be tempting but chances are you'll get exactly what you pay for. And it will cost you more to have it redone later. Would you get the same protection by hiring a rent-a-cop when what you really need is a professional bodyguard? Maybe, but probably not. I wouldn't suggest paying cheap for a McLogoburger when you want prime cut beef either!

[Robert Wurth]

Hi Rob. I'm not going to assume that you were quoting me in your above comment; however, you and I both know my history with LW and I have made almost that exact same statement regarding the qualifications of the client to be the creative director of their own projects.

I think this is an interesting topic to discuss, because I get the feeling that you have been lurking within these popular design forums rather than participating, and as such you may be picking up on the shorthand of conversations without really knowing the full context behind them.

So, whether you were specifically quoting me or not, let me give you my take on this issue, because it's worth exploring more:

You read a statement that the client is "least qualified to be the creative director" and from that you leaped right to "the client should not be involved in the creative direction of their projects."

There is a HUGE difference there.

I know that I personaly have never held the opinion that clients should not be involved. In fact, my opinion is the exact opposite. I believe that there needs to be BETTER communication between clients and designers. They should be part of the process -- but, they are not creatives, nor do they have the background or experience to know what works and what doesn't.

It isn't so different from hiring any other professional's services (lawyer, doctor, etc.). It isn't unreasonable to have some opinions about what you want from professional you've hired, but at some point you have to trust their guidance. That's why you hired them.

The problem arises when you have services that give ALL of the control to the client, and they have no idea what they want, what will work for their business, what will work from a design standpoint and they get no guidance and no expertise. What they often wind up with as a result of all of that untethered power are "kitchen sink" or "Frankenstein" designs that really have no chance of fulfilling their needs.

[Rob]

Welcome back Sprtek and Robert. Let me see if I can respond to your comments (sorry for the length, but you guys have said a lot).

First, Sprtek, if you read my original post and my comments you will see that I very specifically said that "designers do not suck" and "designers are more important than ever." And while I stand by my comments that many are arrogant, I never said that only designers who don't work at Logoworks fit in that category. In fact, I didn't intend this post to be about Logoworks at all. Sadly, I've worked with arrogant designers at virtually every job I've held (including this one). I've also met arrogant doctors and mechanics. Even an arrogant priest. But that's beside the point. This blog is about marketing, design, and strategy.

Nor did I direct my comments at the designers who have been critical of Logoworks as you say. I never wrote anything of the sort (though it may be true). I do believe it is arrogant when a designer says that the client is "the least qualified" person to direct their creative. The client may not be able to use the software or effectively brainstorm 10-12 concepts that meet her needs, but she is certainly the most qualified to "direct" the designer in what she wants/needs. Perhaps we are saying the same thing here in different ways?

By the way, I agree that spec work is generally bad. Designers should be paid for their work. And clients should not expect something for nothing.

You didn't answer my question as to why it is ridiculous to say you can get great design at LW and Landor. Now you add that Logoworks is at the low-end of the quality spectrum. Why exactly? Is it because of the price? Let's talk about that.

Let's say that two doctors graduate from a top notch medical school and are faced with the decision of where to practice for the rest of their lives. One chooses a trendy plastic surgery practice in Beverly Hills where he can earn millions and do the work he has always dreamed of doing. The other chooses to work in a small country town where he'll never be rich, but will enjoy the purpose he finds in helping the people around him. Which is the better doctor? Which treatments are higher quality? If a doctor charges more, does that make his work better?

At Logoworks we have designers who have worked for Madison Avenue agencies. We have designers who graduated from some of the most prestigious design schools in the country. They have the knowledge, talent, and experience you mention. Just because they believe in our model and have chosen to practice in the "small town" doesn't mean their work is less effective or less valuable. It is simply less expensive.

Landor does great design for their clients. (By the way, you're wrong—I have zero desire to work there—I've done the big agency thing. Small business is much more fun.)

Logoworks, too, does great design for our customers. How do we know? Most of our business is referal. Happy customers refering their friends. If the design didn't work for them, would they talk about us? If they had to get their logos redone later, would they recommend us? Probably not. Free business cards are an added bonus. I have a hard time understanding why this would devalue the design work the client receives. You say it will cost more when our customers need to have their logos redone. Why exactly do the logos need to be redone? Are we using the wrong software? Or is this another case of arrogance?

Sprtek, one more thing: I left your links in your comments, despite the fact that they badly mistate what the customer gets at Logoworks. Perhaps this article is about other online design companies, not Logoworks? No one should read that article and believe it accurately describes the Logoworks process or design experience. It does not.

Robert, I almost agree with you. Right up until you say, "nor do they have the background or experience to know what works and what doesn't." Take a look at this interesting article (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070101/features-brandmakeover.html) about a proposed make-over of Dave's Insanity. Despite numerous meetings and consultations, how well did DESKEY understand Dave's brand? Isn't Dave the best person to make the decisions about creative direction for his brand? I say yes.

Now let me restate, for the third or fourth time. Designers do not suck, they are more important than ever. But a business person worth his or her salt, will take ownership of their brand and the visual identity process. People want to participate in the design of their lives. On this, I agree with Nussbaum. When it comes to business, doubly so.

[Robert Wurth]

Rob, you said:

"Robert, I almost agree with you. Right up until you say, 'nor do they have the background or experience to know what works and what doesn't.' "

and:

"Isn't Dave the best person to make the decisions about creative direction for his brand?"

A couple of things to consider here. One, we aren't only talking about the brand. There are a NUMBER of critical elements that go into logo design that should be managed by the designer -- with the experience to know what works and what doesn't -- rather than by the client, who often has no idea.

Sure, there are elements of brand strategy to consider (and often a business may know their OWN brand, but that doesn't mean they have a great grasp of brand strategy), but technical considerations, as well.

Say you want to build a house. You may have a better idea than anyone about what you want that house to look like and what your needs are for it. Yet that doesn't make you qualified to design and build it. You need an expert who can take charge and direct the elements you know nothing about and to tell you when you have an idea that might be great in your head, but simply not practical (or possible) in reality. It may be that the final house isn't "exactly" the image you had in your mind, but it will still fit your needs and wants, and be structurally sound, and your participation in the process will likely mean that you are still happy with it and still consider it "your" house.

Your whole post seemed to be sparked by comments against certain logo "contest" sites that have cropped up recently. The model of these sites is, I think, very dangerous to business owners because they get too much control, too many "cooks" working on the logo, and too much temptation to "frankenstein" the designs without any real thought or knowledge about why some elements work together and some don't (or even why some imagery might be inappropriate or impractical to their business or industry). Furthermore, the way these sites are set up essentially remove the opportunity for the designer to speak up and say, "wait! You're turning this into an ineffective cliche!" or any number of other pitfalls these project often fall into.

I'd even go so far as to say that LogoWorks is a vastly better option than these contest sites, because even though I may not agree with the fast-food (low-cost, very little time for research) mentality, it at least narrows down the design process to one designer working with the client. (And if you decide to pull this quote out and use it somewhere, you better keep the "fast food" reference! ;) )

I don't disagree that a client should have ownership of their, or participation in the design process. But at the same time, they need an expert there to offer creative direction and guide them when they are about to make dumb mistakes that could be avoided if they relied upon the expertise of the designer they hired.

Also, we all know that clients and designers will sometimes butt heads and not come to an agreement on a design (even for LogoWorks -- or you would not offer a moneyback guarantee), but the complete failure of the design process is more the exception than the rule.

-- Robert