Archive for the ‘Marketing’ Category
You are currently browsing the archives for the Marketing category.
9
Jun
2010
A Word to Forget
As a graphic designer there is one word I hear more than any other. This word is so powerful that it can either end the life of a design or usher it into the limelight. Yet it is a word that is so irrelevant to the quality of a design that it should be, at most, a side note. Everyone should forget this word while discussing designs. This word is “like.”
“I like it.” Angels sing. Success!
“I don’t like it.” The design is a failure. Back to the drawing board.
What’s wrong with liking or disliking a design? Pretend we’re not talking about a design. Pretend we’re talking about Bach. Some folks like his music. Some don’t. This has no bearing on whether or not Bach’s music is good. That Bach’s music is good is definsible objectively. Objective evaluations have nothing to do with likes or dislikes. They depend on a set of standards against which the object of evaluation is measured.
Why is design not evaluated by such standards? Why do clients* rely on subjective evaluations to make decisions about design? They wouldn’t use likes and dislikes to make decisions about a business plan or product development. Let’s home in on the reasons for this difference in behavior.
1. Ignorance
Nobody wants to admit that they are ignorant. It sounds so shameful, but it should not be. I drive on bridges every day. I see them every day. I have a lot of interaction with bridges. But I am ignorant of bridge building. I would not offer an opinion on whether or not a bridge design is structurally sound. The consequences would be obvious and most likely catastrophic.
The consequences of bad graphic design decisions are usually not as obvious or catastrophic (with some exceptions), so it is not so natural to learn what design decisions are bad and which are good through casual observation. Clients are put in the position of having to make these decisions, however. Without education in objective standards, it is understandable for decision-makers to follow their gut — what they like or dislike. Graphic designers should, whenever possible, educate decision-makers on the principles of design. This can lead to better decisions.
Yet even in the face of education, clients and executives often go by their likes and dislikes. Why?
2. Stubbornness
This is another negative-sounding word that is ultimately not so negative. Stubbornness often comes in the form of “Nothing that I don’t like is going out;” or, “I don’t like it, and it doesn’t matter what the designer says.” People in decision-making roles are often in that position because their guts have served them well. Their confidence and persistence have gotten them where they are today. They know their business and they are not going to be swayed against their preferences. There is no panacea for this situation. Trust has to be learned by one party and earned by the other, and that is an enormous, separate topic.
3. Fear
Inevitably, clients are more hands-on when their business is not going as well as they’d like. The reason for this is simple — fear. Fear that the tiniest misstep could be costly. Fear that designers are not invested enough and are not creating the best designs. The client fears that they haven’t been involved or concerned enough about small details. Sometimes they’re right. I think every designer understands this. And it’s not just designers who feel the scrutiny during such times.
When fear behavior persists through good times, however, it speaks to a more fundamental problem. If a client does not trust the designer they have hired, then something is very wrong. Maybe it’s communication issues on one or both sides. Maybe the designer isn’t educating the client properly. Maybe the designer is actually not trustworthy. But the knot of persistent fear will resultant in micromanagement and should be unwound and examined so that the client-designer relationship can become healthy again. Fear is contagious, and if a client is fearful that a designer is not going to do a good job, then the designer is going to be fearful as well.
In summary, design decision-making that involves likes and dislikes is indicative of problems and is ultimately harmful. But it is so common to talk about design using such terms of preference that many will not even know how to talk about design without them. That is what I would like to address in my next blog entry.
*”Clients” refers to both clients and business executives, who are the clients of in-house designers.
25
Nov
2009
Five reasons to post direct links on Twitter
Link shorteners are part of life. I don’t mind them, and I use them. But how many times have you clicked on a link in a tweet and, instead of taking you to the advertised page, you are taken to a page with another link? What about a link that takes you to a page with a little, extra bar at the top? I find these pretty annoying, and here’s why you should eradicate such practices from your Twitter repertoire.
- It’s dishonest. If you clipped out a coupon for a free sundae and brought it to the restaurant listed on the coupon, only to be given another coupon for the same thing at another restaurant, wouldn’t you feel a little cheated? Why do this with links? If you want people to visit your website, put original content on it. If there’s another website you want them to visit, give them a direct link to that website.
- It makes more work. You click a link and, instead of being taken where you expect to be taken, you are taken to a page with a link. And when you click the new link, it opens the page in a new tab/window, so you have to close the first one. This is not endearing in the least.
- Bookmarking becomes problematic. If you click on a link and are taken to a page with an ow.ly bar at the top, for example, and you try to bookmark it, you’re not bookmarking the page you think you are. You’re bookmarking the ow.ly URL.
- Navigating becomes a pain. You click on a link that takes you to a page with the ow.ly bar at the top. You click around the site a bit, and arrive at a page you find interesting. You know you want to bookmark the page, but you can’t with that bar there. So you close the bar. Suddenly, you’re no longer at the page you navigated to. You’re back at the original page, with the urge to kill growing inside your heart.
- There are better ways to do it. URL shorteners like bit.ly can track link clicks without ruining the experience. If you want people to visit your site, and you’re not going to post original content, then at least put up a discussion or some information about the content you’re going to link them to. People will respect you more.
27
Sep
2009
Stock logos and the demise of customization
This past summer, my wife and I discovered homemade ice cream. Sounds nice, right? No, it’s not nice. It’s flippin’ awesome. You don’t know until you’ve tried it. And, like the ice cream, there are many things in our world that we just buy off of the shelf. Donuts, cereal, shoes, clothing, bikes… all of these things are made in stock varieties that everyone just passively lives with. I often imagine how wonderful it would be to have custom-made shoes — shoes made just for my peculiar feet. I have a sense it should be that way; I feel that something has been lost by quantizing the options I have to choose from. But there aren’t any cobblers in the yellow pages.
Perhaps logo design is going the way of cobblers. Only the wealthiest buy custom-made shoes — they have become a luxury. What’s mass-manufactured is good enough for the, um, masses. Maybe only the wealthiest will contract custom logos. As for everybody else, consider this list of prefab-logo mongers that I put together in 1 minute with a google search:
- Iconshock.com
- Shutterstock.com
- Pixellogo.com
- Logosinabox.com
- And now, the potential coup de grâce: Istockphoto.com
Maybe logo design is going that direction, but I don’t think so. I think that there will always be savvy businesspeople who know that their brand identity needs a logo that is part of the uniqueness and differentiation of their product or service. How can an off-the-shelf logo do that? Does a savvy businessperson buy a stock business plan and a stock marketing plan, or do they craft them to suit their vision? Do they use stock product designs or do they engage in the process of creating a unique product? Similarly, a savvy businessperson will participate with a design professional in the crafting of a custom logo suited to their vision and the brand that will arise.
And yet stock logos abound, soon more so than ever with the popular istockphoto.com weighing into the fray. It’s no surprise that I hear a lot of negativity about this new development. I think most of the concerns can be boiled down to these three points:
- A generic logo speaks to a generic identity. Pretty obvious.
- Stock logos undercut the value of professional design. This the biggest concern for smart designers. If potential clients can just go to an online warehouse and buy a logo off the shelf for a fixed rate, why would they consult a professional and pay (generally) more for a custom logo?
- The proliferation of stock logos perpetuates the perception that logos are a commodity, and you can get one anywhere.
These are all valid concerns. Some businesspeople will always look for ways to cut corners. The growth of stock logos makes this easier than ever. But there will also always be savvy businesspeople who will make the better choice and work with identity design professionals to create unique logos for their unique visions. So it’s not the end of the world. I actually think there are some benefits to istockphoto.com jumping on the already existing stock logo bandwagon.
- The istockphoto.com logos will, arguably, be better than MS Word clipart, or Art Bombardment 8 Billion Clip Art Files collecions. They will be created by graphic designers and will be editable and scalable at the very least.
- They will also be better than “logos” created in MS Paint. You’ve never seen such a thing? Really? If you haven’t seen a homemade MS Paint (MS Word) logo, then you haven’t really lived. It’s quite an enriching and affirming experience for a graphic designer.
- Since the istockphoto logos will be made by designers, designers will be paid for them. And since it will be designers all over the place contributing (not just from one company), there will be some diversity.
- Istockphoto.com’s pricing structure seems better than some of the others. $35 for a logo? Really? Would you contract a lawyer to draw up your corporate charter for $35? If you would pay $35 for either of these things, you’ll surely get what you pay for. Istockphoto’s logos will range from over $100 to almost $1000. That’s a little bit better. Stop yelling at your monitor. I said it’s better, not good.
- Istockphoto.com will offer exclusivity on the logo designs. That means that, unlike istockphoto’s stock photos, if you buy a logo, you won’t have to worry about your competitor down the street, or someone completely unrelated, using the same graphic. That’s absolutely brilliant — it’s sound common sense.
- As always, the existence of off-the-shelf logos will highlight the value of custom logo design. A lot of inexperienced businesspeople are looking for a little widget to put next to their company name on their business cards. That’s what they’ll get with a stock logo design. But good logo design isn’t a space-filler. It’s magic. The logo mark goes with the company name and vision like it was born there.
So don’t worry. Because there is intrinsic value in custom, professional logo design, there will always be a need for custom, professional logo design. But as designers, we must be more certain than ever that we provide that value. Don’t give clients logos they could have bought off a virtual shelf somewhere. Give them the power of custom identity.
15
Aug
2009
Being a wizard
When I was a kid, every day had a subconscious undercurrent of excitement that I was going to discover something magic. I believed that there was magic waiting to be found in unused places, just beyond the edge of my vision, waiting to be discovered. I’m not entirely sure why I believed in magic; maybe it was the books, TV and movies. Maybe it was something innate that hungered for the inexplicable. Of course, I eventually became disillusioned with magic and succumbed to the what-you-see-is-what-you-get mentality that seems to be the barricade against disappointment in adult life. Read the rest of this entry »
6
May
2009
7
Apr
2009
Microsoft is acting like #2
A fairly new series of ads by Microsoft has really caught my attention.
First is Lauren, looking for a 17″ laptop under $1000:
6
Apr
2009
Who relates to celebrity endorsements and grandiose ad sentiments?
Gatorade is still the world’s leading sports drink. And the brand has been relying on celebrity athlete endorsements for a long time. I wonder who their target audience is today? It can’t be Generation Y. There is a lot of discussion to the effect of Gen Y does not respond well to celebrity endorsements.
And is it me, or are self-important, grandiose ads like these really tiresome? Ads like these almost always make me feel like the product is not for me. It’s a drink. Get over yourself, Gatorade. I prefer Red Bull’s approach — Red Bull gives you wings. Of course it doesn’t; they know that and I know that. But at least they’re not really trying to convince me that it’s true.
Even so, it seems that there is a place for celebrity endorsements. It just goes to show that liking or disliking advertising has little to do with its effectiveness. I respect advertising that works, even if it’s begrudgingly at times. And I always wonder, is there a better way to do it?
