Democracy is for Losers
Lately, it seems to me that more and more people are talking about how great this “democratization” thing is. Of course, they aren’t talking about places like Iraq or Afghanistan. No. They aren’t even really referring to making the American system more democratic (although there certainly are a lot of people screaming very loudly at the moment to see if it will work that way). No, these folks are talking about things like web standards and design. They’re bringing it into business and decision making.
Unfortunately these same people live in a country where to want something other than “democracy”, as they’ve termed it, is purely unpatriotic. To say that you’re against this so-called democratization is to be at best “the man” and at worst a crazy Nazi.
So, let’s step back for a minute.
What is the point of hiring a designer? Isn’t the point to have consultation and recommendations? Because, let’s be real, if you could design, you wouldn’t be hiring a designer. So why be “democratic” about it? If you truly want the best possible result, why would you want to have an equal voice in the process itself, rather than veto power?
Let’s be honest for a minute, when it comes down to it, should everyone have an equal voice in all things? Should the layperson really have equal say in the engineering of a bridge as an engineer? Should Joe the Plumber really have equal say in teaching your kids business ethics? Should you have equal say in things being designed for you?
It seems like a hard question to answer, but the answer is a clear no. Of course the client should have some say in a design project, just the same as a client would tell a mechanic which parts of the car to fix or accepting the lawyer’s suggestion to settle. When it comes to the project, however, the point of the designer is to be the expert, the consultant, the artist. It’s important to remember the reasons you hired your agency: they know how the market works, they’ve done their research on the demographic, they have the artistic talent, they have the skills necessary. And you don’t. That’s why they are so valuable. (resist the urge to read “expensive”)
Democracy doesn’t make your design better. (I’ve already addressed the other concept of democratization that really means having lots of people doing the work and paying one, which is a lot more like modern day snake oil sales) Having an equal voice in the process won’t help you. You have something much more important to contribute. As the client, you know your company, the people who work for you, and the people you work with. You (hopefully) know where you want to go and what you want to be doing. You have the knowledge and words, and the designer has the ability to turn that into images. So, I urge you, give up this notion of “democracy” that many are starting to champion, and let the system that’s worked so well for so long continue to be the best it can. This isn’t a government, it’s a market.
Logic.
There’s a period at the end for a reason. It says “that’s it.” It’s cold. It’s final. Unfortunately, it’s also very hard to define right now. The vast majority of Americans (and American businessmen) haven’t actually had to survive this kind of crisis before (at least not as an adult). It’s interesting to hear so many people blame this on everyone else. Whether it’s an evil corporation, or that liberal pinko baby-killer in office, nobody seems to want to take a minute and think. And it’s a problem. Instead of trying to solve our problem or putting our minds together, we continue to pull back and attempt to survive with blame as one of the primary defense mechanisms. It’s used as though identifying the cause of the trouble will somehow miraculously bring us back from the precipice
Well, it won’t.
Since I try to write about design, I’m going to make my point in terms of design. Currently, the marketing world is seeing a dramatic loss. Ad revenues in the first half of ‘09 were down 14% according to the Wall Street Journal, and marketers, ad agencies, and other ad-based companies are seeing huge losses. People are getting cut. Budgets are slashed. Special projects are lucky if put on hold, but are usually tossed in the bin. And it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
We in the ad business could start blaming people. We could blame our clients for being stingy. We could blame the past or current president for making a bad economic situation. We could blame our congress for general foolishness. We could blame global warming if we got really creative (it is what we do after all…). The reality is far more distressing it seems: we have nothing to blame but a clear lack of logic. In this market, one of the first things slashed is marketing and advertising budgets. It’s money wasted that’s not directly spent on business. Right?
Unfortunately, wrong. Marketing is what drives business to stores, what brings in innovation, what informs the people of new products, services and functions, and what makes sure that your product is where it should be. So why, when people have stopped spending money, are these companies placing the burden on the marketing departments (or hires)? When your opponents have similarly slashed their marketing budgets, you continue to play on an even playing field. You’re still competing for the same amount of business while people are spending less. Wouldn’t it make more sense to inform people about your product and promote it more aggressively when your competition can’t keep up? Doesn’t it seem clear that disengaging your consumers only leads to a loss of business rather than a cost cut?
It’s an odd problem to have, and seems indicative of our current situation as a nation: we’re running around with our heads cut off. When was the last time your community banded together to create local economic growth? Locally, I see the Indy metro area tearing itself to pieces to try and compete with different sides of the city rather than promoting the whole area to compete with other metro areas. In the process, we not only divide our city but we also see a plummeting import of tourism in an other-wise tourist friendly city.
It’s time to step back, think, and work together to help things move forward. Blame won’t solve our collective problem, nor will it really make us feel any better to have someone be the scapegoat when we’re still swimming in issues. Let’s be responsible. Let’s be mature. Let’s use a bit of logic.
Design Life: #whyisketchlogos Brand New logos sketching underconsideration
by Josh
1 comment
Almost Famous
So, a while ago, UnderConsideration posed a question: why do you sketch logos. They allowed users to respond at the Brand New blog website or on Twitter using the hashtag #whyisketchlogos. Well, I decided to put in something… amusing: ” The reason #whyisketchlogos is because it would be really awkward to spend hours illustrating it to see that it looked like genitals.”
It seems like a fairly common occurence (read: it happens to all designers) that you take a lot of pride in something you’ve done only to find out from a colleague that it looks like a phallus. It seemed like a really good reason, and I guess they agreed. It seems that the purpose of the question was to produce a new product, and my quote was one of the ones chosen. I’ve now been temporarily immortilized in the pages of the awesome, brand new Brand New logo sketching book:
It’s a pretty stellar book at that. Pocket-sized. Wonderfully textural covering. Smooth pages. Nice typography. This is one of those extremely rare places where design and life meet in a very awesome way.
Sadly, Still Sex-nifigant
The other day I stumbled upon an article that UnderConsideration had a link to on the Quipsologies page. The article raised a point that I don’t think we pay attention to anymore, not because we don’t care but because it’s such a ubiquitous truth that there is no reason to raise it: sex still sells. The article appears to have been written in response to public outrage at a certain Calvin Kline billboard with what appears to be an orgy about to happen. The public was outraged that such advertising could exist, that there were no filters or oversight to prevent such a travesty from happening.
But then the article makes the real point: this has been going on for ages.
Should we be outraged at the continuing process? Should we even be surprised to see such explicit imagery being used in advertising? The problem, it seems, is really the double standard we set for ourselves. When companies like Abercrombie only receive passing criticisms for their use of explicit imagery. Society declares it’s outrage, screams that it shall not tolerate treating people as objects, and raises it’s voice against those who would perpetuate such indecency to our children! Then it sits down calmly, plunks the credit card onto the counter and pays for the pair of jeans and t-shirt it just bought.
What’s truly outrageous is that it’s been happening for a very long time. The article goes into some depth by pulling examples from the last several decades to make the point. It’s not new, and outrage at “new” or more “outlandish” examples betrays the fact that we continue to let it happen, period. As a member of the design community, I understand that it’s a more complicated issue than it looks like at a glance. It’s more than just trying to associate a product and good feelings, it’s about trying to sell a lifestyle. That lifestyle exists, and our society embraces it. We look to the news for drama and scandal. As a society we revel to watch Jon and Kate break apart their marriage vows. We applaud (and almost anticipate) politicians who are crucified to marital unfaithfulness. As a society we don’t marry as often, we have more partners on average than ever, and our sexuality is at the forefront of so many major issues. The advertising we complain about isn’t causing this, it’s the mirror pointing back to us.
And that’s really what it’s all about. We can’t keep blaming ads for ruining our society. We can’t keep saying that the ads make us stumble or that the drama makes us weaker. Those are only reflections of the things we already wallow in. Yes, ending the use of explicit imagery in advertising would be great. Praise, hallelujah! But the real change comes from our society, and the ads will reflect that change, should it ever happen.