In your opinion, do you think designers,sales executives, or production managers generaly is regarded higher (bringing in the money), or do you see thier (all) importance equal. What do you think is the general consensus in ID firms?
My perceived order would go sales exec, production manager (he’s management), staff designer. The designer manager may be higher than productiong, but it depends on the company.
I appreciate your response,
Why do you think sales execs are so highly regarded over the frey? Not looking for a debate.
sales execs and sales reps are the ones that actually bring in the money and i think that it is easier to measure their success and importance because of the sales numbers (not that they are necessarily more important). of course if there is no product to sell if there are no designers. i work in the apparel industry at the design/production end and from my experience the sales reps get all the attention and are more visible, so are regarded a bit higher. the “back room” people making it all happen get the short end at times.
of course, i may be biased because of being on the short end for a while.
I think it all depends on the size of the firm. I recently worked for a very small <7 person firm that didn’t seem to value sales all that much. There was no interest in improving methodology or making sure Sales had the resources, necessary oversight, or emotional support (it sounds a little weird, but on that latter point: sales involves tons of rejection and business development cycles i.e. potential affirming events months down the road at the very minimum…there’s not a great deal of confidence boosting early on, let me tell you). That experiment did not work out and I moved on. I’m now at a 10+ person firm that actually has used an outside sales consultant for 7+ years to improve our sales methodologies and our communication skills. I think I get grudging respect from the designers because of my ID background. Management / ownership definitely wants to see us succeed because without sales success no one has a job. When you look at Tier 1 firms, I bet their Sales people are treated like rock stars! But to sell, of course, you need to have a pretty solid portfolio, which means you better have pretty solid designers.
mothy
-
To have a company you only need one thing: A SALES person to sell something (anything) and pull in revenue.
-
To make more money, you probably want to promote to a wider audience, so you hire a MARKETER.
-
Once you’ve got a few of each, you need to bring order, so you hire a MANAGER.
-
Then you realize you can make more money making your own product, so you hire an ENGINEER. At this point, the marketer is now also telling the engineer what to build.
-
Then you realize you need to differentiate your product, so you hire a DESIGNER. Hopefully the designer will be perceived as an equal with the marketer and engineer.
So the positions, in order of importance, pretty much follow that formula. There are rare exceptions of course, and there are many cases where one person will wear many or all of those hats (James Dyson for instance.)
To have a company you only need one thing: A SALES person to sell something (anything) and pull in revenue.
To make more money, you probably want to promote to a wider audience, so you hire a MARKETER.
Once you’ve got a few of each, you need to bring order, so you hire a MANAGER.
Then you realize you can make more money making your own product, so you hire an ENGINEER. At this point, the marketer is now also telling the engineer what to build.
Then you realize you need to differentiate your product, so you hire a DESIGNER. Hopefully the designer will be perceived as an equal with the marketer and engineer.
I would completely agree that this is the most common history/hierarchy in modern business. It’s got an underlying assumption that the purpose of the business is to SELL THINGS, and that makes sense.
I think there’s an alternate assumption that could be made though: that the purpose of a business is to CREATE GOOD PRODUCTS. This is also valid, but probably less popular because its success isn’t measured by quantifiable profit.
If the latter is your basic assumption, then the hierarchy shuffles around – probably starting with #4 or #5, followed by #1, #3 and #2.
What about a company like Nike and Apple. Are thier designers regarded higher than the others mentioned?
Is it that smaller firms that rely more on direct sales to client with little marketing or advertising budgets hold ther sales exects in a higher regard?
Apple and Nike are rare companies that consider themselves to be ‘design driven.’
Here is the Fortune 500 for example. Not too many design-driven organizations.
Apple is #121
Nike is #158
Nike’s, Mark Parker, started in design and development, but then again, one of our two founders, Bill Bowerman, was a tinkerer. He started by designing and hand building shoes, so it is in the company’s DNA.
As CG stated this is rare, but I think a more modern approach. Look at Burton Snowboards. Jake Burton started out by making snowboards. Apple started with Jobs making computers, and ditto for Microsoft.
While these might not be “design” based, they are creation based. Guys that tinkered with stuff and thought, “hey, I should make a company”… it’s kind of Edison.
Is it rare to find a good designer that is also a good sales exect?
Do you think that both should be separate?
CG is right on.
i want to make a point that the more fluent you are in the other disciplines of business (slaes, marketing, engineering, manufacturing, etc.) the more strength you will carry as a designer. your ability to translate and EFFECTIVELY communicate design into these other department’s terms are SO_VERY_IMPORTANT to grow as a designer. i’m still learning, but i’m becoming much more efficient at doing this.
I love the way cg breaks it down. (…so you hire a MARKETER…so you hire an ENGINEER…etc.)
As a consultant we get to see many types and sizes of company structure. IMO the ‘ranking’ of the designer depends upon where the new product ideas start:
In the company that the Sales guy drives new ideas, the designer goes way down to ‘vendor’ status.
The company whose Engineers drive new product development have a slightly higher regard for the designer, whose role it is to translate their genius into something Marketing will understand.
The company where the Marketing guys rule the roost over the engineers and sales guys in driving new product ideas, we find ourselves much more respected.
I think the above situations happen independently of size, but the larger firms do tend to have a more savvy Marketing staff and therefore fit the third description.
paulH/All,
How do you think design consultancies work (sales,desiners,marketing)such as IDEO, Smart, Frog and the like?
In my experience, designers was looked in a high regard when I was at a consultancy.
Is the hierarchy different in Europe?
Why designers are not viewed in a higher regard when sales are at the helm than marketing and engineering?
Is thier beef between sales and designers?
How do you think design consultancies work (sales,designers,marketing)
I guess cg and my descriptions were referring to the corporate structure rather than consultant.
At multidisciplinary firms like IDEO, Smart, etc, the hierarchy structures tend to be quite flat -so while ID is taken very seriously, so are the other professionals working with them. Any ‘inequality’ would probably be on a person-to-person basis rather than defined by their profession.
Both those companies were founded by designers and are naturally design-driven. However, ID firms that come from manufacturing or engineering roots (PDT, Radius) seem to have a less design-centric structure. So I’d guess the designers voice is not quite as loud as at traditional ID firms.
Why are designers not viewed in a higher regard when sales are at the helm than marketing and engineering?
Is their beef between sales and designers?
Not beef, but another type of meat.
When the ideas for new products come from the Sales staff, the ideas are usually based closely upon either their current products or competitor products -evolutionary improvements or ‘me too’ ideas. The brief for the design is very closely defined (i.e" like last year’s model but cheaper"), and therefore the chance for a designer to prove him/herself is more restricted. The end result is therefore also less effective.
In a Marketing-driven company, the brief is often less restrictive (i.e. come up with a better mouse-trap") and the designer has a chance to bring something to the table that no-one was expecting. The respect level therefore increases.
good thread.
cg has a nice hypothesis, but i would like to propose another-
-
to have a business you first need a consumer with a need.
-
then you need a product that fills that need (enter designer, engineer, developer or sourcing guy)
-
then you need a sales person to bring the product to the consumer.
-
then you need a manager to coordinate between product needs (ie. more design resources or sales people)
-
then marketing and other service professionals (ie. logistics, IT, etc.) step in to further refine the business plan and resources.
that being said, i dont think there is necessarily one way to do things. for every one company product/marketing driven (hard to seperate sometime) ie. apple, nike, you have others that are much more sales driven.
In general, in my experience, the totem pole usally has management at the top (in any capacity, sales, product, business), then sub-tiers or a matrix of other functions.
it’s not that design isnt always seen as top priotrity, but rather that design has a different function in different peoples minds. for some it is just a service to respond to the market, for others it drives. push vs. pull philosophy.
ultimately, it depends on the organization and founding principles. like Yo mentioned a founder who is a “tinkerer” or a designer will likely have a different view of the value of design.
in the end, you get your $ where someone is willing to pay for it.
R
I’ve met successful sales people who sell products no one needs. I think cg is closer.
Somebody above asked if this is different in Europe.
It is! At least here in Germany. In the UK I would say it is mor like in the US.
Why do I say this? I am German but I worked in Toronto and San Francisco too, so I think I can compare it a little bit.
So what is different?
It is the society!
In German speaking countries you have a very high social status if you are an engineer for example. But you belong to the lowest (more or less) class if you say you are a sales rep.
This is maybe because here people were always proud of making things and not so much of making money first. Of course, if you made good things, you probably made also a lot of money.
But here people don’t talk about how much they make, but they can talk endlessly about their newest product.
And since a designer also makes things he has a very high social status ( well, the graphic designers not so much, they are more percieved as crazy artists).
But, this product driven aproach is also slowly changing over here, because you are right: the most important thing in a company is selling stuff.
Just my two cents.