I do have the tendency to over-generalize -srry- There are sheep but thereâs also tons of critical consumers out there.
The last ones will hopefully demand a revolutionâŚtime will tell. & the sheep will followâŚAs they always do
And to Yo: Iâm sure you have lots of great experiences with brands and corporations. And probably did a hell of a job translating their mission statements into products that fit the brand. But you do acknowledge that branding can get in the way of good ideas and innovative products? There is a flipside, yes?
I am a pessimist and revolutionist and do not want to label each brand evil.
Yet you canât deny the fact that there can be a problem with branding, namely labeling products and people and putting designers in âboxesââŚ
I never see the brand as getting int he way, it facilitates. It is not the end it is the beginning and as a designer you must be able to judge the appropriateness of an idea to that start point. People use trust certain specific brands to uphold certain set of ideals. Betraying that trust can be very counter productive for all involved. The goal is to build on those expectations and to exceed them. Working in this industry has showed that to me time and time again.
I disagree, itâs the oppositeâat least for another generation. All the companies Iâve worked with want a greater global reach because thatâs where all the growth is. And they donât want to create tailored products, they want to sell the same thing, to everyone if they can (and increasingly, they seem to be able to.) These companies have the resources to do it, and the bigger they get, the more efficiently they do it, widening the gap between the small and the big. As a result what weâll end up with is bigger brands ultimately selling to a single global culture.
Look right here at Core77 and the impact itâs had globally. Itâs not creating divergent, culturally-specific thinking, itâs creating convergent, global thinking about design, and itâs doing it by sheer volume.
And where does branding help the end consumer? It makes life easier by delivering on a promise. Just like we trust the choices of certain friends, we treat brands like friends. Thatâs why authenticity is so criticalâyou canât fake it.
Time to change career then ⌠Because I wouldnât want to be part of this oligopoly-world you are describing.
Globalization is not the way to go. Localization is. We can exchange ideas all over the world (kudos to core;). But I do hope that future products will be locally made with local materials and sold in their specific region⌠Global transportation of goods is way to polluting. This new local-economy of materials and global economy of ideas might also re-balance/change the difference between North and South.
There is space for both, globalization is not going away, and localization is rising and is hard to imagine it stopping. Business is about power and size equals power, that will always be the natural domain of large companies. âSense of directionâ dictates that people, some and many, will follow. People follow the sense that someone is a leader, the before mentioned brands especially. Branding helps people belong to something, localization serves the same function of belonging, but requires more promotion because moral status is less powerful than social status.
nxakt is exactly right. There are products that make sense to make globally: there is no need to locally source and spec lightbulbs for example, or heart rate monitors, but there might be a great case for local on demand design and production of other objects.
Subscription to any strict dogma limits the realm of possible solutions.
I almost canât believe what I am reading here. The giving of form is one of the most important and valuable roles of the designer, and one reason I have chosen to spend my life in this profession, and it seems it is being discussed here without any sense of engagement, passion or ownership. Probably most of what we all do could be in the category of coventional form, with slight variations, any of which could be usable. Nearly any shoe, car, camera, fork or building fits into that description. When choosing (creating) a form, down to the smallest detail, I would work for the one that is truly beautiful, that is life-affirming, memorable, and tells a story, makes people smile, and would be kept purely for its intrinsic beauty, and rightness, even after its function is redundant. A form that I would look at 1, 5, or 10 years after I designed it and still feel proud to have created it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds like the designerâs ego is the driving force. Let me ask you, how many do you buy of a product designed by you? One, two? What is your stake in the company selling the product? Majority share-holder? So of the millions purchased, you make up about 0.00001% of sales and if the company goes belly-up tomorrow it is no skin off of your nose. So why should the designerâs opinion about form matter?
A good designer will lay out objective criteria based on the fit between the end-user and brand for the client to avoid the ginormous pissing-match that would happen if the client tries to quantify beautiful, life-affirming, rightness, etc. Subjectiveness cannot be fully eliminated but it certainly should never be a driver for a decision. Otherwise the CEO will dismiss your concept because they donât like blue.
Designing a product has nothing to do with formâŚor maybe a little bitâŚin the end, when everything has been solved and testedâŚand for ergonomics sake off course Everything else is BS with sugar-coating.
âDesigning a product has nothing to do with formâ
" So why should the designerâs opinion about form matter?"
I couldnât disagree more⌠In my post above I didnât say anything about the designerâs personal preferences, or desire to purchase the product for himself. The designer has a lot at stake: His (or her) salary or fee, career, reputation, bonus. This is exactly the same as what the marketing, engineering, and executive stakeholders are risking. If the form of the final product is judged sub-standard to its competitors and customer expectations, regardless of whether it sells or not, the designer will be blamed 100% and face the consequences.
Good designers are experts in creating and refining form and using it to communicate in ways which can be subtle and profound, and their opinions about form matter very much: Dieter Rams, Jonathan Ive, Charles Eames, Walter deSilva, Chris Bangle, and many others opinions about form have mattered enormously.
Why should the designerâs opinion about form matter?
Why should the musicianâs opinion about rhythm, melody and tempo matter?
Why should the doctors opinion about medication and procedures matter?
Why should the authors opinion about character development, plot and narrative style matter?
Why should the chefâs opinion about flavor and texture matter?
I think we agree, but I poorly communicated my point. Let me try again.
The designerâs opinion about the formâs objectives doesnât matter. Or, the designerâs opinion about the design strategy doesnât matter. Or the designerâs opinion about the design DNA doesnât matter. My intent is these three statements say the same thing.
For sake of simplification, I will refer to the above as the design strategy. This is the moment when you are pounding your fist on the table selling the value of the idea. In 4 words or less, you should be able to marry the wants and needs of the customer with the capabilities of the company. The customer and the company are the driver, there is no stake for the designer for the correct design strategy.
But there is no one better qualified to implement the design strategy than the designer. It is strictly tactical function and incorporates intangables like beauty and emotion. It also must be true to the defined objectives otherwise it becomes a giant pissing match. In that case, the designer will be at fault if the CEO doesnât like âblueâ. But if the strategy dictates the customer wants âblueâ and the company can deliver âblueâ, the CEOâs opinion is also irrelevant. That is why I wrote the designerâs opinion about form doesnât matter. The only thing that matters is delivering the value to the customer that the company can provide.
When it comes down to choosing a form, the intangables are too subjective to make an informed choice. I donât like "blue " will rule the day. A defined design strategy will enable a clear path to the best choice.
A defined design strategy is a fancy way to articulate a subjective decision. At the end of the day, it still relies heavily on the taste level of those involved and their ability to convince people.
I agree, as I wrote in a previous post, subjectivity cannot be eliminated, but it can be reduced. While I cannot quantify form, I certainly can qualify form. E.g., I cannot objectively say if 2 forms are âfriendlyâ, which is more âfriendlyâ but I can determine if a form is âfriendlyâ as opposed to âfierceâ. Design strategy has never been the end, it only defines the path.
The part I think is interesting is that if you can put together a good strategy specific to the project and user, thereâs less of a chance that youâre designing for yourself and more for the target user. I guess that would let you be subjective when your making decisions but better informed about the user tastes and company goals. Plus it would give you a less subjective way to defend your decisions
I could imagine the case where thereâs a small company who doesnât really know themselves and may be too timid about taking chances, but for more developed ones Iâd definitely say the brand should be protected - even if it takes some profitable concepts off the table. Have you ever checked out interbrandâs brand valuation charts? The intangible brand can worth more than the entire assets of companies and they have to forego short term profit for protecting their long term goals.
Check out some of the unfocused products marketed under the Harley Davison brand or âfamilyâ style 4-door Porsche (is it still a sports car?). Sure they sell, but IMHO they hurt the brand
I agree in spirit. Iâm not sold that the subjectivity is reduced, just that it is rationalized. A logic structure built on a subjective truth is still in the end very vulnerable⌠and that is OK, really.
Did you know that many food products QA is still determined by tasters? There is in fact a small group of individuals who taste random batches of tea to make sure they go to their respective brands. What we are essentially talking about is the trained EXPERT ability to evaluate subjective solution options.
Because there is room for variance and interpretation, I try to establish a âsolution zoneâ for my team with several base line examples from others as well as some of my initial thumbnails. I always coach the conversation by saying this is not the solution, but merely the definition of the space I want the solution to reside in, it does not have to be anything like the thumbnails I did, but it does have to be BETTER than that base line while still being within the space. By better I always mean more resolved, holistic, and with always a twist of the unexpected. Usually works⌠usuallyâŚ
There is no better expert than the designer to tactically implement a design strategy. That we are agreed.
But the level of subjectivity is not absolute. Razor wire is not friendly in any way. That form cannot be integrated into a design strategy to convey friendly. But how much more friendly is a 0.375" radius than a 0.25" radius? I donât know and I never will. And I am happy about that because it creates a nice job security.
The design expert should educate the non-designer on the meaning behind form. It is up to the design expert to define and reduce subjectivity of the meaning behind form. I personally donât think racing stripes make anything look faster, but that is what has been burned into the US culture. My clients can certainly come to an agreement long before a single concept is shown that razor wire = unwelcome and racing stripes = speed. A good designer will take the time to educate the client so subjectivity is reduced and pissing matches are also reduced.
Be a critical consumer
Because I wouldnât want to be part of this oligopoly-world you are describing.
