Brand Story

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.

The Value of a Good Story

On Tuesday Apple's CEO and master storyteller, Steve Jobs, announced a "revolutionary" new mobile phone with a wide screen touch pad, Internet browser, built-in iPod, visual voice mail, Google maps feature, and much more. The reviews so far have been very good. Time writes: "Apple's new iPhone could do to the cell phone market what the iPod did to the portable music player market: crush it pitilessly beneath the weight of its own superiority. This is unfortunate for anybody else who makes cell phones, but it's good news for those of us who use them."

It's even better news for Apple's share holders. On the day of the announcement, Apple's share price increased more than 8% or $7.10 a share. And shares of both Palm (maker of the Treo) and Research in Motion (maker of blackberry) fell, 5.69% and 7.85% respectively (a collective loss of more than 2 billion dollars).

But here's the kicker. Apple doesn't even have a completely functional model yet. Those lucky few who have seen it report that some features are not yet ready for prime time. The demos are cool. The pictures are cool. But Apple won't have a phone ready to deliver for almost 5 months.

So all Apple really has is a well-designed model and a terrific story, worth more than 6 billion dollars. True, Apple is very good at delivering products that change categories. And that's what investors are betting on. Given their track record, it's a pretty safe bet.

But until the iPhone starts shipping, all Apple has is a very impressive, very well-told story.

What's your story worth?

Hat tip: tuaw.com.

The Blogosphere—Open Discussion or Affirmation and Argument?

Over the past 7 days, I’ve been called a few less-than-friendly names in a series of blog posts and forum discussions. According to the post comments, I am a:

Racist. Liar (in a backhanded way). Drone.

I have character flaws. But I am not a racist. I do not lie. And I’m not a corporate drone.

The story:
I work for a company called Logoworks. We specialize in the creation of high-quality logos, websites, brochures, and other design. Our business model uses a combination of in-house designers and a dispersed workforce to create the art we provide for our customers. Our clients receive a wide variety of art and a very competitive price. It’s a disruptive business model that has affected pricing and expectations in the marketplace.

And we had a hiccup along the way. Without going into too much detail (details here), we inadvertently placed 3 logos in our gallery that were not original. When this was brought to our attention, we admitted our mistake and immediately removed the artwork from our website. More importantly, we terminated our relationship with the designers who provided the artwork. None of the artwork was sold to a client. We also strengthened our oversight policies to help ensure it wouldn’t happen again. And so far, it hasn’t.

At the time we also engaged in the “conversation” on the forum where our mistake was first reported to try to explain what happened. But rather than an open discussion about how we were addressing the issue, we found that most of the participants were only interested in affirming their previously held, negative opinions about us. We even invited a couple of critics to visit Logoworks’ headquarters, at our expense, to meet our design team, but were rebuffed, then mocked.

More recently, we created a corporate blog to share the truth about some of these issues, which still come up from time to time. This has apparently stirred up the hornet’s nest again. As a company, we welcome honest feedback, debate, even criticism of our business model. But rather than engaging in a conversation, the critics accuse us of being racist and lying about our intentions. And now I’ve been called a corporate drone for trying to share the other side of the story.

I don’t intend to discuss the good/bad of Logoworks’ business model or design practices here. That debate is raging elsewhere. Instead, this is a comment on the state of the blogosphere. We live in an age of rage. But it strikes me that criticism and feedback is more acceptable when it’s not laced with name-calling, vitriol, or worse.

For the record:
#1: Logoworks does not pursue racist outsourcing policies as we have been accused of doing. Yes we have a dispersed work force. But we pay our designers in Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, and elsewhere exactly the same amount we pay our designers in the United States. We are one of the few companies in the world with a dispersed work force that does this. Most people would call this egalitarian, not racist.

#2: I did not lie or dissemble when I wrote in a blog comment that our inspiration for the myths came from various sources. They did. I was involved in the process.

#3: I believe deeply in Logoworks’ mission to help small businesses look great. We’ve created a company that is unique in its ability to help small businesses that couldn’t afford design services in the past. It’s a model that has worked for hundreds of talented designers and thousands of happy customers. I also believe that no one in the design industry has addressed the issues of plagiarism as well as we have. Are we perfect? No. Will we make mistakes in the future? Possibly. Will we address any problems in the future and make it right for our customers? Absolutely.

Trying to defend a company against disinformation and other inaccuracies does not make one a drone. Repeating the same tired criticisms in forums and blogs without regard for the truth or open discussion, well, THAT might.

Ironically, in one of the forums, a designer wrote about finding a Logoworks ad link on a website. She wrote the webmaster to share the above story (although I assume from a less than neutral angle) and the website took our link down. Fair enough. Another designer wrote in response to that post: “Wow, I'm impressed. I really respect people who listen to the advice/complaints of others...and really consider whether it might be valid.” Apparently that only applies to those who listen to and believe our detractors. Others, who listen, then agree with us, are denigrated and harassed.

So why are people so upset? As I said above, Logoworks is a disruptive company. Because we can create a high-quality product that customers appreciate at a lower price, we are helping to change an industry. Some designers (not all) who can’t offer a better value to their customers are threatened by this. So, they lash out, rather than adapt to the new reality. As a highly visible, well-funded company, we take the brunt of the criticism.

Last thing: I understand that not all designers feel this way about Logoworks. Some have been fair in their assessments and criticism. Some have even approached us, after reading the criticism, and asked to work for us. These few generally seem interested in a real discussion. Unfortunately, their voices are often drowned out by the shrill criticisms of the mob.

We listened to criticisms and made improvements to our system. Will our detractors notice? Only if they’re interested in a real discussion, rather than a flame war. In the mean time, let’s keep the debate rational, the volume low, and the personal attacks to a minimum.

Yet Another New Logo—Kodak

First it was Sprint, with their new mark reminiscent of the pin drop, though this may not be obvious to anyone too young to remember the pin-drop ads.

Then SBC with a redo of AT&T's death star symbol.  The new mark is oddly similar to this one.

Then Visa and Intel. Now Kodak.

What's the deal with unnecessary logo redesigns? And relatively poor ones at that? (Actually I like the Visa redesign, though I still wonder how necessary it was.) I understand that brands need to stay relevant to consumers and that logos are often updated to keep them fresh. Hey, I work for a logo design company. But walking away from good brand equity is something else altogether. These aren't just updates, they're throw-aways.

The Intel logo is neither distinctive, nor very original. And where Kodak's brightly colored old logo once stood out, this new one practically disappears on any background (though it may look a little more elegant on a digital camera).

Smarter experts than I have called the whole thing unreasonable. And they're right.

For a look at Kodak's logo history and a pretty good review of the new logo, click here.

And if you're thinking of redesigning your logo, here are a few things to keep in mind.

Hat tip: Links on this post came from a variety of places, including AdFreak, AdRants, and BrandInfection. Thanks to all of them for doing the heavy lifting.

New Blog at Duct Tape Marketing

Recently John Jantsch of Duct Tape Marketing offered me a slot at the Duct Tape Marketing Blog Channel to write about the design issues facing small businesses. The blog went live today. You can check it out here. This is not intended to be a blog about designers or design techniques, but rather about how design is used (effectively and ineffectively) by businesses. Hopefully it will help some small business owners make smart decisions about how they use design to support their brand stories.

Telling a Brand Story with Packaging

The latest issue of Package Design magazine features a profile of the new can for Waistline brand soups (no need to read the article, it's not that great). But the new package (shown here) is a great example of a company telling a brand story with a package. The can is slimmer in the middle than the top and bottom and makes good use of the color green, which represents healthy foods. Shoppers who see this can will know these soups are supposed to help you lose weight.

There are a lot of unique and cool packages out there, from vodka to the Homer- and Marge-shaped tins for a season of the Simpsons DVDs. But it's rare to find a package that actually takes the opportunity to communicate a brand benefit. Cool is one thing. But a package that communicates the brand story? That's a great way to get attention on the shelf.

Another company/brand that does this well is Gatorade. I love the cooler shaped package they started using for their powder in 1996. It not only immediately says, sports, it also reminds buyers of Gatorade's most recognized brand image—the Gatorade dunk. And liquid Gatorade comes in a water bottle, reinforcing the idea that Gatorade is sports hydration.

Of course, not all packages can do this. It isn't always practical or affordable. But even if your product must "live" in a boring package, you can use the space to tell your brand story. In-and-Out Burger (their brand message is "fresh" fast food) uses it's paper wrapper to remind customers that the buns are made the old fashioned way and the burger is never frozen. The fry tray talks about the potato, the cholersterol-free oil, and the fact that your fries were cut fresh right before you arrived. Smart.

Want to read more about packaging's place in branding? Here's a decent article, though it doesn't address packages that convey the brand story. Hopefully we'll see more companies take advantage of this opportunity in the future.

Designing Brand Experiences

How much does the design of your package affect your customer's experience? Aaron at Confessions of a Brand Evangelist says about 90% (at least in his experience with Vitamin water). Same with Apple. And he's probably right. I own several Apple products (PowerBook, iMac, iPod, Airtunes). And I still have the boxes for all of them. Why? I'm not sure, but the experience of opening the box is almost as cool as the product inside. It seems wrong to throw them away. If you've ever received a package from Red Envelope, you've had a similar experience.

The way Apple packages the brand experience in its retail stores is just as cool. It's a place you want to be, a rarity for retail stores. This recent interview with Jonathan Ive, Apple's Senior Vice President of Design gives away the secret as to why. One of the last questions is:

"Q. What is it that distinguishes the products that your team develops?
A. Perhaps the decisive factor is fanatical care beyond the obvious stuff: the obsessive attention to details that are often overlooked..."

Apple doesn't just focus on the computer, but on the software interface, the packaging, the way the plug fits into the back of the machine, the way the demos are displayed at the retail store, the way the logo is printed on each commemorative t-shirt—the details that are often overlooked by commodity companies. Everything is aligned to reinforce the brand. It's simple. Beautiful. 

Dell's computers are a good value and perform well. But the extra attention to detail is missing. I don't know anyone who thrills at opening a Dell box, or saves it after the computer is set up. Then there's Nintendo, which in an attempt to engineer so much "cool" into their product, ended up with something very uncool, or at least so difficult to use that it isn't very appealing.

Given how important packaging is to the purchase decision and initial product experience, it's surprising more companies don't spend significant time designing better, more inviting packaging and a better initial experience.