Yea. Brilliant. We all know sites built in Flash is what impresses people. Woohoo.

But, DAMN! 12 steps? Graphic design is now a 12 step program? Man. I've been doing it wrong all these years...

I found the navigation a little frustrating and the work somewhat elementary. Baby steps for design stewards in training? Hey y'gotta start somewhere right?

I think its amazing what a big company like IBM (big blue) will pay Ogilvy (big red) to hire Mok (big cheese at AIGA) to tell them to keep what they already have (or just tweak it slightly). At least theres no Futurebrands in there.

Forgetting design for a moment, the writing, well it's just not so good is it?

"As designers, we can help prototype the end state." huh?

This thread is going to turn into another anti-AIGA rant, I can tell already. I'll put my 2 cents in and then get out of the way.

Wouldn't this effort — the Power of Design�— be more effective if aimed at business organizations instead of designers? I know it is part of my job to sell potential clients on this magical power that I possess, but AIGA could help lay a significant groundwork for this.

What kind of information regarding design do you want businesses to know about and understand before you come knocking on their door?

For some reason I find this 12 step program very rule oriented. I thought being a designer and going through the creative process was a personal journey, filled with all sorts of quirky and individual ways to discover a solution.

I think we need to get the hell off our high horses sometimes. I am very happy to admit that my blue plastic colander in the kitchen has sparked a design, or that chatting with my writer friend made a concept evolve.

>Wouldn't this effort ? the Power of Design�? be more effective if aimed at business organizations instead of designers? I know it is part of my job to sell potential clients on this magical power that I possess, but AIGA could help lay a significant groundwork for this.

It does seem like they are preaching to the choir. The AIGA is aiming this at designers instead of business organizations so that we can sell potential clients on this magical power that we possess, wait...

They think they are laying the groundwork.

> Wouldn't this effort — the Power of Design�— be more effective if aimed at business organizations instead of designers?

I agree, and it's been one of the reasons why I didn't think this effort had as much value as AIGA would've hoped.

It's still introspective. It's written to designers, yet breaks down the process in methodical chunks as if it was meant for clients. So is it instructional? Is it a manifesto of sorts? Or is it meant as call for empowerment, meant to unite all designers to serve a united cause? It's unclear, unfocused, and inconsistent.

> the writing, well it's just not so good is it?

The writing is definitely the source of the insipidness in the piece. The language is pedestrian -- under 11. Selling the Solution -- "In most cases, an exchange of time or money will be involved—between seller and buyer, creator and participant, sponsor and beneficiary." Is this supposed to be an epiphany? Hardly. There's a difference between simplicity and banality. I think the ideas in the piece are interesting, but the writing execution is poor and lacks depth.

Delphine Hirasuna is one of the greatest design copywriters ever. She's worked closely with Pentagram and Potlatch for more than 20 years -- and she's the managing editor for @Issue, one of the best editorials on the business of graphic design. I would've liked to see what Delphine could've done with this material.

I'd be shocked if she was already involved. I'm fairly certain she wasn't, because Delphine would've never used a term like "end state." Smacks of Mok-talk.

>Forgetting design for a moment, the writing, well it's just not so good is it?

That has been my main concern with this effort, I'm glad somebody else pointed out. The brochure starts out pretty good, and I'm thinking this could be something I could hand a client, but then it goes into all this "envisioning victory" and "protoyping" that is pretty inappropriate. They have the right steps, the wording is very pretentious.

>This thread is going to turn into another anti-AIGA rant, I can tell already.

Not this time around, we are all grown-ups here and I think we can carry on a smart discussion focusing on this brochure/web thing. Right?

>It does seem like they are preaching to the choir.

In this case I think it was a good idea, even if unintenional, to start with the choir. Maybe this is the first "draft" for a document that could be shaped into another brochure aimed at business.

Regarding the case studies, I would have liked to read about the aftermath, what happened after the desig... er, prototype got implemented? How do you measure the success of the 12 steps? There should be a 13th step added to it that can measure the tangible and quantifiable results.

I would have liked to read about the aftermath

Well, yeah! If we don't look at the end result — greater sales, stronger recognition, more investment, etc. — then all we have at the end of the day is more pretty pictures to put in our design annuals and that is hardly recognizing the Power of Design for business.

Measure success? If that were a priority, wouldn't graphic design competitions be based on the actually succesfulness of the piece rather than how cool it looks? ;o)

@issue...I forgot all about that publication. Is that still being produced? I always had a lot of respect for that magazine. Infinitely better in terms of showing how design (overall...not just graphic) is something to consider.

>Measure success? If that were a priority, wouldn't graphic design competitions be based on the actually succesfulness of the piece rather than how cool it looks?

We should make it a priority regardless of design annuals. I know you are being sarcastic Darrel, but it does raise a good point. Why do we focus so much more on the looks rather than the results? Is it vanity? insecurity? Maybe we should stop concerning ourselves so much with design annuals and just look at them as what they are — really nice, well developed and pretty designs.

I know what you're saying Darrel, but quantifying the aftermath of design is next to impossible in most cases. I don't see how its possible to isolate and attribute direct sales to a specific design effort.

Design is viral. It permeates so many channels of sales and marketing.

And then there's the issue of whether or not it makes a difference if it's good design vs. bad design. In UPS's case, the sheer amount of money they're putting into advertising makes it irrelevant whether or not the new logo works. If you don't qualify it, then examining the business impact of Futurebrand's design effort is indirect admission that the design itself holds neither positive or negative influence. It's a slippery slope, know what I mean?

>I know what you're saying Darrel, but quantifying the aftermath of design is next to impossible in most cases. I don't see how its possible to isolate and attribute direct sales to a specific design effort.

Now, there is a challenge for everybody, how the hell can we measure the effects of good design? Easier bitched than done.

I think talking about design's impact on businesses is the cart before the horse. Maybe another way to approach design and business is this: show that design is essential to business and marketing in the first place. Talk more about the interdependence between design and product, design and positioning, design and branding. Prove to businesses that they can't market without design, and therefore, they can't succeed.

Talk about the essential, pivotal role that design plays--rather than its impact or lack thereof. The effectiveness of design is really up to us to prove on a case by case, isn't it?

That's really the meat of the relationship between design and business. Now if we or AIGA can craft that message convincingly, then I think it would solve so many other issues.

I know what you're saying Darrel, but quantifying the aftermath of design is next to impossible in most cases.

Then, in most cases, the client really needs to decide if spending money on that particular project is really a good idea or not.

This is just as much the client's responsibility as it is the vendor's, of course. Sometimes a project merely is an aesthetic face lift and that, alone, is measured success.

That said, I get a lot more satisfaction out of seeing a client actually come back with REAL results. Of course, like you say, most of the time, that doesn't happen.

I don't see how its possible to isolate and attribute direct sales to a specific design effort.

Well, sales is but one arena of graphic design and but one way to measure success.

Now, there is a challenge for everybody, how the hell can we measure the effects of good design?

First, define a problem. Then there are other ways. User testing. User feedback. Surveys. Polls. Number crunching.

But usually the problem is not defining the actual problem. With no problem, it's hard to make an actual solution that can be measured.

Bottom line, though, is that I'm not sure how much we need to 'educate the business masses' that design is important. For those that know that, those are our customers. For those that don't, I don't see how a Flash presentation on the AIGA site is going to do a whole lot.

>show that design is essential to business and marketing in the first place.

But how can you prove that, without objective opinions and facts? We, as designers, know and understand how design can help a business, but it seems almost impossible to translate it for clients to understand. Plus, there is always that damn ROI (Return on investments) thing lurking somewhere in the conversation, what is a good response for that?

>Prove to businesses that they can't market without design, and therefore, they can't succeed.

But they can, right? I mean, how many businesses with poorly developed and implemented design and marketing have you tried to talk to into hiring you but they don't and claim they have no need for good design, that their business will be just fine without your services.

>The effectiveness of design is really up to us to prove on a case by case, isn't it?

It's interesting that you use "prove" in most scenarios, how can you "prove" design matters? We all have our little subjective mumbo jumbo we throw at the client to impress them, but we can never "prove" that they need good design as part of their business plan. And telling them how good Nike is is starting to wear off.

It seems to me that this "why" stuff is about the scraps that fall from the table with no one "daring" to eat from the main course. What I mean is this... most of this advertising/ marketing/ branding movement is crap imho... it's all smoke and mirrors. We as designers have been setting "brands" since long before that word became "sexy" to use in every damned corporate meeting. But now, the marketing directors have proclaimed themselves "brand experts" and direct us on how to set a look. These "gurus" have no knowledge of color theory, no sense of hierarchy, or skill at leading a viewer thru a design, and I could go on all day, but you get my point. But everyday we let these people drive our work... desperately trying to please them. And to be fair, I am just as guilty of it as the next guy or gal. My point is what I would love to see aiga create a campaign that tries to put "power" back into the hands of the designers. Let corporate America know WE are the real experts in this game, and WE hold all the keys to good communication. Think about it... I have the ability kill the best copy ever written... flush thousands of dollars of photography down the toilet... or on the flip side create a decent ad from "Aunt Martha's" copy... or make your 35mm crap photos look decent. With all that power... "WHY" does so much of corporate America see design as garnish... and not the main course?!

To truly determine the value of design is an exhausting dilemma. It depends on what we consider the value of our discipline to be. Is is an art or a commercial service? Both of these disciplines have different ROI’s, so to speak, and thus different measurement systems. Is the service we provide our real art, or our artistic achievements the true service we provide? According to Bruce Mau (a favorite these days), “design is the conditions upon which the act of selecting becomes art. It is in these moments—rare now in our culture—that one is tentatively permitted to dream of a day when design might merge with philosophy itself, and even lead the way to a true science. And like music—this form of expression would be the pure and unabashed combination and balance of art and science.”

John: I agree that designers have been “branding” long before the word was in fashion—and it certainly was more organic and a bit more authentic without the rhetoric. But, it seems a more incidious marketing approach is at work these days: branding now goes way beyond design, branding is now about selling a lifestyle or a personality, to appeal to emotions. That what is really behind the Nike brand—and it has (sadly) nothing to do with the quality or aesthetics of the logo.

> But how can you prove that, without objective opinions and facts?....But they can (succeed without design), right?...It's interesting that you use "prove" in most scenarios, how can you "prove" design matters?

True, true. We're all going in circles it seems.

Look, I'm not objecting to the need to quantify the value of design. I'm not opposed to the creation of a common language for it either. I just think that there needs to be more substance and deeper thinking than what exists, and what "Why" exemplifies. Without it, it's just smoke and mirror bs, and it's more infuriating because it's created by us, for us. Which makes it useless ultimately.

> John: First, define a problem. Then there are other ways. User testing. User feedback. Surveys. Polls. Number crunching.

I know that there are steps to quantify anything. But as I said, in determining the value of design, are we also guaging good vs. bad? Pattern and frequency? Reach of design application? Cost and comparitive purchasing patterns in a given market, sector, region? The parameters can go on and on.

Where do you start, and where do you cut off? I have a friend who works for a huge well-renowned, international market research company. Her biggest and sole account is Microsoft. She pulls market data for one specifically-targetted, comparitively small product group for MS, and just for defined sales periods each quarter. And just for that service, her company bills MS $2.5 mil a year for the market research.

No one, not even the mighty AIGA, or Clement himself can afford to quantify any case study on this legitimate level. The problem then, is that anything less is conjecture, subjective, and therefore, defeats the purpose of the attempt in the first place.

I'm not sure where this is going, other than a statement of frustration at the whole thing.

No one, not even the mighty AIGA, or Clement himself can afford to quantify any case study on this legitimate level. The problem then, is that anything less is conjecture, subjective, and therefore, defeats the purpose of the attempt in the first place.

I dunno. Probably not the big branding case studies, because I do think a lot of those are smoke and mirrors.

But there are simple things.

I designed a business card for a client that had an embossed logo. He said that every client he's handed it to takes a few minutes to play with the card. Measured success. People made an immediate connection to the company and company's visual brand.

I had another client where we emulated their network software in Flash. They were then able to reduce their on-site demos from 3 days to two. A direct and significant savings for the company.

It's those kind of responses that makes me happy. It really has nothing to do with the aesthetics per se...just that I managened to make an impression on the way they do business.

I think one needs to try to bring that basic type of feedback to the table when presenting past solutions. It's hard, though. Did 'that' logo REALLY benefit that company? Well, they said it looked nice. Their brochure looked a little better. We can certainly judge the logo on it's aesthetics (and is usually what the design annuals are for) but maybe we *can't* actually say if the new logo was really did any good (or harm) for the client. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't it. Maybe it just made the CEO feel better.

And sometimes that's OK too.

So, my point?

I don't think I have one.

Sorry.

...and that's why I said the responsibility to "prove" the value of design falls on us on a case by case basis.

Then Armin went and gave me shit on it.

My bad.

Business has, since industrialization, tried to emulate logical machines. Profit must exceed cost. Only then are you successful. It has imposed this machine order on human beings. Take for example a simple employee at a retail store. This person must clock in at the proper time, they must never take a longer lunch break, they have to wear black pants.

People are not machines. They often do not think logically. The only thing valuable to the machine is something that it can quantify. This is the fundamental error of business. Unfortunately, design is something that is very hard to quantify. It is a fundamentally human practice, and when you try to integrate it into the machine, it just doesn't fit.

Add to that the fact that everyone can buy a copy of photoshop and what designers do can then be done by everyone. Since the only thing that is quantifiable about design is the product, when everyone has access to the means of production, the machine ignores qualitative value because it can't process it. What you end up with is horrible design done by programmers or marketers because they can produce just as much product as we can, for a better price, and the machine loves better prices.

Business needs to be humanized, or else design will die. Not just designers, but everyone associated with business will benefit from this process.

For example: everyone who's been late to work because their dog vomited on the carpet, or anyone who couldn't take time off work to see their mother in the hospital, &c.

The only thing that won't benefit from changing business is the machine. The machine will go away, obsolete as monarchy.

Design will be recognized for its importance once the machine is gone. Humans can see. Humans love well-designed space. Humans love subtle communication. Machines do none of these things.

> Business needs to be humanized, or else design will die.

So what you're saying is that quantifying design is a useless pursuit because it robs us of our humanity and turns us into soulless androids of capitalism. Right? Or are you just saying that it's not possible to quantify design because it's a human pursuit that just can't be valued by logical, methodical, empirical methods?

Either way, it's a truism that's noble but a little idealistic.

Like it or not, commerce is a machine. It's a machine that we all use, feed, and extract from everyday. It's measurable, repeatable, and methodical. It's not always logical, I'll give you that.

And graphic design is a commercial industry, which by definition, makes it a machine that serves a machine.

So while designers themselves are not machines (except perhaps John Maeda), we operate a machine (design), and we feed a machine (commerce) everyday. And if both machines go away, well then, we're all going to be shit out of luck, aren't we?

So sorry to perpetuate the rhetoric here -- I think what we're all talking about is how to master and operate within this machine -- not ignore its significance and role.

So I disagree. Businesses don't need to by humanized for design to exist. Bad design can exist quite nicely within large corporate machines -- Microsoft is a perfect example. The question here is not one of humanization, but of value. Not moral value, not humanist value, not artistic value -- but business/economic/commerce value. Value of design to businesses.

The AIGA exists to serve the business of design. Show designers how to efficiently make design, and convince businesses to pay for it -- which admittedly, is a very business/commerce-driven perspective.

"Why?" you should ask? Well, that just happens to be the title of the document being discussed.

Tan,

Like it or not, commerce is a machine. It's a machine that we all use, feed, and extract from everyday. It's measurable, repeatable, and methodical. It's not always logical, I'll give you that.

It doesn't have to be that way. I don't have to eat commercially packaged food. I can grow my own.

And graphic design is a commercial industry, which by definition, makes it a machine that serves a machine.

When I read this comment it becomes clear to me that you have wrapped yourself up in the business of design. I imagine that you cannot concieve of anything being designed without a client financing it.

Design can exist on its own. I can design things in my house. I can make booklets and sell them myself. Design is a form of art. It isn't just a componet of the business machine.

It's just that it's easier to get paid to do it for other people.

The question here is not one of humanization, but of value. Not moral value, not humanist value, not artistic value -- but business/economic/commerce value. Value of design to businesses.

Business is run by people. Business benefits people. Why should we pretend that business isn't something that is run by people? People have emotions. Businesses don't. They should.

I think that all the justifications of "Why?" are problematic because they are trying to legitimize, in business terms, what designers do. What design can do for business. Outline a strategy that businesses can look to so they can see what they're paying for.

Which is all well and good, considering the design environment we are in right now. Businesses are thinking in machine language. What benefit can I get from making this annual report look fancy? Perhaps my market share will go up, &c.

I want them to think in human language. I want them to realize that people with complex emotions are creating these images, that people

with complex emotions are viewing these images. Companies don't feel responsible for their advertisments (example: tobacco companies) because they view people as a machine would: as a quantifiable resource. In short, as the money in their pockets.

To use an anology: companies that care about good design are companies that are like the people who dress well because they know it will make people think differently about them. Companies that don't are like people who dress in sweatpants and free tshirts. To some people it just doesn't matter how they look on the outside.

But we care about our clothes. We know that people pay attention to those sorts of things, and as human beings, it is our responsibility to pay attention to how we communicate.

A business person shouldn't need any justification for that.

I can't wait for this movie to come out.

luumpo -- I think we're looking at different tiles all from the same floor.

I see and agree with your humanist viewpoints.

It's just the old adage -- designers are often too self-centered to understand and speak in the language of business. Is it because what we see is on a higher plane? Perhaps -- but I'm a designer, so I know better than those corporate cronies, dammit!

Seriously though, I hear you.

We're all just commercial artists thinking we're more and coming up with fancy titles like 'brand consultant', 'image analyst' and crap like that.

I agree with luumpo. The 'machine' overall is the problem...albeit overall...not just with graphic design.

I'm moving to a commune.

I saw an interesting quotation once that read quite simply, "nothing kills a bad product like good advertising." So often I think people get wrapped up in design that they suddenly believe that holy jeez it can do everything!

Well, it can't.

I think Tom Watson, Jr., former CEO of IBM and probably a bigger champion of design than knucklehead pariah Steve Jobs (still gotta love him though, right?), remarked that design cannot sell a shitty product, it can only maximize the selling potential of a good one. Makes sense to me.

There's gotta be some resolution on what design can and canNOT do in order for people to "get it" or for it to have any clear and present value. If WE have to convince ourselves, then why should anyone else believe in design when we're all stumbling around blindly? Walking around my five-year high school reunion I felt pretty gosh darn proud to be working for the firm I work for, but found that its tough to explain to others what exactly we do. Eventually I just said that designers "communicate information and ideas in a meaningful and memorable way. For me, that approach usually involves telling a story of some sort, like with..."

I'd prefer not to minimize the value of what we do by saying that it's just about making things look pretty and so on, but then again, if given the choice between that or some pretentious, over-wrought, I-wannabe-a-Harvard-MBA McKinsey/Accenture/BCG leadership motivational "make these your primary action items" (10 bucks to the bored schmo who can site that reference) schlog, I'll say "I make things look cool."

I was reading an article about a now defunct but formerly very cool "advanced practices" design/ad group in Dallas recently, where they were talking about their ever-so-hip ad designs for the original Hummer. It was grungy and trendy, by all accounts, and pretty sweet. And then some doofus starts talking about how every last mark and scratch and whatever else "served a purpose." No it didn't. It looked neat, and it wouldn't have looked as neat without them.

And then of course there's my new favorite--"experience design." "What do you do?" "I design user experiences!" "So...do you like conceive of new narcotics or something, because that's the only line of business I know of that refers to its patrons as 'users.'"

Designing experiences...well shit, why don't we just start rambling aimlessly and saying "proactive", "empower", and "paradigm" periodically and then say "process this" and "process that."

There comes a point when logic, justification, rationale, and explanation starts to kill any sort of magic that once was there. I'm waiting, just WAITING, for someone to start designing something or creating a "process" for such mysterious things as getting laid, getting yourself and your partner off while getting laid, and God forbid, falling in love.

I think, and I could be wrong, that if design has HALF the power some designers claim it does, we wouldn't need to talk about it or make bizarre attempts to promote it. No one has to convince me that nukes are powerful fucking weapons. We just sort of accept it. I'm not saying BY ANY MEANS that design is not very powerful; in fact, I'm saying that I'm so sure of its potential that I don't bother to talk about it. Remember--nobody needs a designer. They need to do something else; design is a tool that can amplify that ability.

It's like rhythm--if you have to ask, you don't got it.

Another rant:

Anyone else seen that new book from Taschen called something like "Top 100 Graphic Designers of the 21st Century"? My God what a load of shite. Shoulda been called "100 Commercial Artists Who Give Bernardo Taschen a 4-hour Erection."

In this book there was an unusually heavy emphasis on firms that did some really sweet looking stuff, but it was stuff for things as difficult and complicated as: music packaging! Fashion advertising! art galleries! award show calls-for-entries! and my all-time favorite, "famous designer lecture posters"! And then there was some experimental/personal work and a lot of theoretical garble about "what design is."

If that's what this increasingly silly profession defines as "complex problems in need of simple solutions" then its no wonder people regard graphic design with a bit of skepticism. I know I sure do after seeing this book.

As a pseudo-response to bradley's first comment:

I seriously think that the reason people don't care about design any longer is mostly because of a misguided belief that content is the only thing that's important. This "it's the thought that counts" mentality is helped by the communization of design tools: i.e. that people started using design software that they could install on their $1200 porn machine. Suddenly, everyone can "design" something.

People think that what they say is more important than how they say it. I think none of would say that how we say it is more important, lest we be branded sophists, but we at least think that each is equally important. And that's why we're different than other people.

I would say that we are in the job of making things look cool. Is that so bad, really?

I think we do more than facilitate communication. I've always hated the talk of "problems" and "solutions" because it implies that there is only one way to "solve" something (and also only one way to parse the problem.) If all we did was "solve" the problems of unclear communication, we'd all use helvetica and everything we do would look the same.

We do two things - make things look cool, and facilitate communication. Often, facilitating communication is most easily done by making things look cool (people tend to ignore ugly things.)

>Anyone else seen that new book from Taschen called something like "Top 100 Graphic Designers of the 21st Century"?

I saw it. And I agree. I think one of the requirements was that your work be "eye-candy." Smart design was not on the checklist.

Good call Bradley.

In regards to Luumpo's comment:

Yeah, I agree--is that so bad? I don't think so.

I also think that yes, how you say something often equates into what you're saying...there are way too many examples of this and I don't know exactly where to start but...yeah. You know what I mean.

In regards to Armin's comment:

Now that I look back on what I said, I feel that I was a bit harsh...but it annoys me, still. First off, the global obsession with "top 100 lists" rarely if ever makes any sense--its like we should just go ahead and declare that grapes are superior to cherries.

Fundamentally, a lot of design is STILL subjective. But even if you insist on having a top 100, how can you not mention a firm like Cahan & Associates, or Louey/Rubino? Or maybe Design: M/W? And tons of others out there? I guess its all just political and I should fret about something else.