Shame on you Design Continuum....Shame on you!

I think people should be glad that ID is getting some media attention spreading our existance to housewives who may be using our designs. Instead it’s disappointing that people are more concerned about individual’s success rather than the general good.

NBC aired the footage of DC sometime ago(last week I think) and last night. I don’t think it matters whose name gets mentioned. I didn’t know that there’s product design until I was looking to enter college. I wish the footage has helped kids save some trouble.

say word

Good point.

I think the point of this thread was to raise some concern over the fact that DC was taking ALL the credit for a product they helped develop. I see a difference there. After looking at the way things are worded though I think it’s clear that the media managed to spin things a bit and by doing so, they caused a bit of an uproar.

Core blogged a similar topic recently from designobserver…check it out:
http://www.designobserver.com/archives/004942.html#more

ditto

It’s not DC, it’s the media who portrays the story.

If you watch the first clip all the way to the end just before the commercial( not sure if they have it on the clip), the hosts started to talk about the disposable toilet wand and iPod and other products that they think are cool. For those who don’t know will think that they are saying that DC designed those as well. However DC has no claim on them.

You really cannot believe what the media, whether TV or radio or papers, says. They are never neutral or accurate. The media is a business. They tell what sells.

If you think NBC will take 5 sec extra off their commercial time to clarify the story, you are being native. Every second on TV means money.

and that’s why I said that ykh had a good point…I agree completely.

Ok I missed the second part. My bad.

IDSA code of ethics:

Article III: We will compete fairly with our colleagues by building our professional reputation primarily on the quality of our work; by issuing only truthful, objective and non-misleading public statements and promotional materials; by respecting competitors’ contractual relationships with their clients; and by commenting only with candor and fairness regarding the character of work of other industrial designers.

'nough said

Some people weren’t misled.

There is only a few ways to settle this argument or however you wish to call it:

  1. Be proud that they’re both American companies (Joss and Design DIScontinuum)

  2. Why don’t JOSS and Design DIScontinuum meet up (fully loaded) at a paintball challenge - Elimination, Last man standing event.

all dorks.

I was at an entrepernurial dinner event about 2 months ago. The president of continuum was the keynote speaker. The MC introduced continuum as the firm that invented the swiffer. Continuum guy spoke about how they did the initial user research, proposed the idea to P + G as part of a larger design program and showed sketches of how the device was developed. He made no claims about doing the ergonomics work or the syling. It was unclear if they developed the IP around the static cleaning, or if P + G presented it as a concept to develop.

I think it is silly to say that DC didn’t make a claim of design authorship during the today show spot. The journalists were not putting words into their mouths. Continuum deserves to take credit. this post shouldn’t blast DC for taking credit, but blasting JOSS for not trumpeting their involvement loud enough

Businessweek had an article online dated on May 17, 2004 where they clearly imply DC has ownership of the Swifer concept:

Design Continuum, for example, observed consumer cleaning habits in research that helped P&G launch its $1 billion Swiffer mop business.

http://www.businessweek.com/@@XFy594cQKXhCRxkA/magazine/content/04_20/b3883001_mz001.htm

“research that helped P&G launch”

helped

btw the electric company that powered P&G’s offices helped too. in the real world words make all the difference. they can imply all they want. it’s the words that make it legal or illegal. DC appears to be claiming exactly what they can. and no one should have an issue with that imo.

Here are the facts to date.

Joss did the work (with P&G), and a lot of it (design, engineering, manufacturing set-up) but did not come with the main idea. This product created the catagory in North America and established the gold standard. It has been hugely successfull and P&G and Joss deserve their credit for a job well done. This is a special product that people love!

DC has been making the unethical claim that they did the work since the product came out.

As a former Joss person on the program, after hearing about DC’s claims back in 2000, I called a Director at P&G to ask about DC’s involvement. He said “they had nothing to do with it”.

I then called DC to verify their claims. They said they would look into it and get back to me. After that would not return my calls.

It get’s better.

They continued to pitch the work as theirs. In fact, they unkowingly presented it to a former Joss Director after he had moved on to a top spot at an ODM. He threw them out (yeh, a samll bit o’ justice).

And just to clear up any further confusion. Joss also did the design and engineering on the Wet Jet. If anyone needs proof-check the patents!

Come on DC, what do you say?

Why don’t Joss sue DC and screw 'em over? If it’s the truth then why don’t you stand behind it and out yourself? Anyone can post here claiming they worked at Joss when maybe all they are is some disgrunlted ex-DC employee.

all those FACTS dont matter

stubborn SEMANTIC guys like ykhk will give oral for eternity.

“according to my literary calculations calculated on my literal calculator, they never word-for-word said the sole and ONLY phrase ‘we at DC own every intellectual and design property of the swiffer from day one to retail’ so here i go on my knees to deep throat DC”

The problem is here is that everyone is thinking of DC as a little closed-minded ID-only shop. They are not.

Their business includes ID, Mechanical Engineering, Business Strategy, Branding, Graphic Design, Consumer Research, Usability Studies, Ergonomics, Anthropometric Studies, In-House Model Shop Capabilities, Electrical Engineering, Software Design…just to name a few…

I know, for a fact, that Continuum has involvements with clients on any and all of these levels - which seems to vary, especially with the larger clients. I am sure that their claims are just - if you are disgruntled and disagree - sue them. You will lose.

DC is EXTREMELY careful about what they publicize. A multi-million dollar firm would not tout a design that was not theirs. It makes no sense, especially not with one of their few multi-million dollar clients on the line.

no shit, there 500 different people that HELPED on a product, so as the chuck changing intern boy at a screw manufacturing plant that made the standard screw for the Ipod, I can have a full screen glamourous full color shot of the ipod on my online design potfolio. and say i HELPED the existence of the iPod.

helped





—> helped


helped <----

"As a former Joss person on the program, after hearing about DC’s claims back in 2000, I called a Director at P&G to ask about DC’s involvement. He said “they had nothing to do with it”.

I then called DC to verify their claims. They said they would look into it and get back to me. After that would not return my calls.

It get’s better.

They continued to pitch the work as theirs. In fact, they unkowingly presented it to a former Joss Director after he had moved on to a top spot at an ODM. He threw them out (yeh, a samll bit o’ justice). "