. . . then there's the point of view expressed here (scroll down a bit to the article titled "Rick Wagoner resurfaces").

Sure GM gets it. Look at what they did with Saturn.

Darrel, GM absolutely does not "get it". My first Saab was a 1986 900, and I've driven them ever since.

The 2001 9-5 was the last gasp of good (Swedish) engineering, design, and attention to detail before GM fully took over the brand. Sadly, our 2004 9-5 is inferior in many ways including the following:

1. the leather is cheaper

2. they removed the individual driver's seat settings

3. the gas mileage is a little worse

4. the sound system doesn't sound as good

5. they removed the parallel parking feature in the rear-view mirrors

Some of these points are cosmetic, some are functional; all indicate an insidious cutting to improve profit. Not to say that profit is a bad thing; but I am a disappointed Saab-lover — disappointed enough to look elsewhere next time. And I suspect that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Anecdotally, I've noticed that the daily service check-in lines at my dealer are smaller and I can now get someone on the phone on the first attempt.

Combine all that with the new Saab SUV and the Saab body with a Subaru power train (plus an asinine hood scoop)... I smell the rotting body of a once-great brand.

You can't cut your way to greatness.

Like Target (don't get me started!), GM is merely playing lip service to design as an advocation.

Give me a break. Saabs were shop cars long before GM merged with them. My wife had a 900 convertible with vanity plates that read SLAAB—what a piece of crap car. She had it in the shop monthly, sometimes weekly.

There's nothing great about Saabs from a performance stand point, and it's sad to hear they've dropped things down a notch like kingsley states. That said, Saab's aesthetic will always appeal to designers and architects, whether or not they're under GM.

Jason, I found that since Saab engines and bodies are so well built, people (including myself before I learned the Zen of leasing) tend to keep them longer. At 5-10 years the ceiling starts to sag, interior sun damage is more noticeable, and the electrical system — as well as non-metallic pieces like valves and gaskets — begin to decay; turning them into "shop cars".

You weren't specific. Could I be describing your wife's car?

There are more things in the world than performance: comfort, safety, seat warmers... A Saab ain't a Mustang; and contrary to what my wife would say, I never needed to pretend that I was driving on the Autobahn.

Saab's aesthetic will always appeal to designers and architects, whether or not they're under GM.

Jason, thanks to GM Saab no longer has an aesthetic. These days they are ordinary as jell-o (and almost as attractive).

on GM & design

They may be on the way to getting it, but I doubt they've Got It yet:

1

It takes a long time to turn a behemoth like GM around, and they have been churning out crap cars for at least 30 years straight.

2

One small example. Take a look at the new Pontiac roadster (Solstice photo gallery). Probably the prettiest Pontiac ever outside. Inside it's the same abominable black plastic that all the cheap 'n' nasty cars are full of. (And they used Serpentine on the gauges.) One would hope, for GM's sake that the drive & engineering quality would be enough to distract one from the ugliness of one's cockpit.

This reminds me a lot of this discussion…

GM getting or not getting it does little for the majority of us reading this site — and to that end, same goes for anything that was written in Fast Company's Design Masters issue (other than Brian Collins' piece). It's easy to lobby "design" when you are talking about cars, engines and leather seats… Design sounds fancy. We all clamored for design to get more recognition but what we have gotten is simply a buzz term that means nothing more than, at least in the light that it has been painted, "organize your business in a way that doesn't make you look like a complete jackass or ignorant". GM having a "design" category in their blog means they just have another category to talk about cars, engines and leather seats. It's really non-impressive.

If I were — and I will — to talk about large(r) companies that get design, I would talk about how they present themselves (whether it's a product or service), how well they communicate their values through an all-encompassing experience and how succcesful they are in communicating their ethos to consumers. This is not merely talking about packaging or a logo, but about the overall experience and relationship with a product or service. When I have a positive experience from beginning to end I assume that their inner organization is well "designed" but it is the manifestation of that that most consumers can judge and where I think design can really have value and where we can see which companies get it.

So, a few examples (other than IKEA, Apple and Target), which may or may not be debatable:

Jimmy Johns. From their VintageModern look designed by Planet Propaganda to the ordering system to the loud music to the superb and fast-served sandwiches to the people they hire, they achieve a comfortable “Responsible Punk” vibe that is hard to resist. Plus, their guacamole is to die for.

Urban Outfitters. They know what they stand for: chic and hipster. And they exploit those values with chic and hipster everything. From their chic and hipster employees to their chic and hipster annual report. (More on Urban Outfitters in an upcoming post).

Banana Republic, Gap, Old Navy. Regardless of your opinion of their homogenization of clothing, they have designed products and store experiences that meet expectations every single time. Those expectations may be low for some, high for others, but they consistently deliver. They have also "designed" a very convenient network where you can order a pair of jeans online in Atlanta, have them delivered in Chicago and, if you don't like them, you can return them in New York. Whether you want to pay $80 for a nice striped shirt at Banana Republic or $15 for a nice striped shirt at Old Navy you know what you are getting.

Harley-Davidson. Clearly, spot on. H-D gets it. It gets its audience and knows very well how to deliver. Plus, it's one of the few brands where people outside its core audience find it cool and desirable. And, everything about H-D is well designed, from their bikes to their annual report to their retail stores.

And there are many more examples. Some on a larger scale, others on a much smaller one. I really believe that design can have its biggest effect when it touches the end user. As well, I see the value of "design as process", "design as organization" and "design as great headline for business magazines" but let's remember that we are all working to satisfy in one way or another how the end user will experience a product or service, and it better be well designed — and all that that entails.

Well said, Armin.

Design is part of the larger experience. It is more than a logo, it touches on everything that a company is and does. The way it conducts business and the way it handles customers.

I'd like to think that all this talk of "design" in business magazines and Target commercials means something promising for the design community and the American consumer experience as a whole - in a "design for the everyman" kind of way. I've read the Wired article cited in this write-up and I think that Mr. Pink makes some good points. However, the cynic in me believes that all this talk about "design" is merely lip-service, the latest business catchphrase.

{sigh}

While I commend GM for it's apparent newfound openness to sharing some of their process, I can't help but recall a recent news article I saw on TV about the fundamental issues that GM faces; namely a bloated register of present and past employees who cost them 5 billion per year in health care coverage alone!

The annual cost of prescriptions for their retired employees runs at 1 billion, and $1500 from the sale of every new GM car goes toward paying their healthcare costs. No wonder profits are way down. They're swallowing them all.

A related article: http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-fi-gm21jul21,1,7186134.story?coll=la-headlines-business-invest

It's sad to see that despite the number of new models they've released in the past year or so (clearly with an emphasis on design, although I still would never buy one), they face much bigger issues that won't go away for a long time.

Design may not be able to solve their problems, yet.

Hmm...lots of car fans in here. ;o)

And, yes, well said, Armin.

Design may not be able to solve their problems, yet.

No, but Canada seems to be the solution. Apparently Honda decided to build their latest factory in North America in Canada despite huge tax breaks by US cities due to Canada's health care system.

who cost them 5 billion per year in health care coverage alone!

I read this as well. This is more a societal issue than design, of course, but GM has real power here to force the issue on insurers and the medical community. GM could stand up and say, "We're not going to compromise the health of our employees and alumni by cutting benefits further. Instead, we're going to pressure the insurance companies to tighten their belts and develop real solutions to this problem."

The point is that companies that embrace design and creativity — in all manners — as a cultural ingredient of their organization find ways to solve issues without resorting to the standard layoff and slash and burn tactics that are only short-term answers at best and long-term problems at worst.

Hmm... part of me wants to say GM does get it. The evidence is their support of fashion and design: they are a major sponsor of the annual fashion show where I teach - yes, I know, good PR... and perhaps using design as an explotative commodity, but what major corporation doesn't do it?

The other part of me - the design snob - wants to say that they don't get it. But let me be a reasonable person: just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's not design. In this case, it likely means that they have a different set of design values than I do. It's easy to write off design that one doesn't care for as "not design," but it's also foolish.

M Kingsley, i think if we get started on this we're just going to revisit our dialogue from this earlier discussion. I agree with you that there are design quality issues affecting the post-GM Saab, just like there are with post-Ford Volvo and post-Daimler-Chrysler Merceds-Benz. But I don't think that GM is ignorant of design or how it affects automobile purchases. They may not have played all their cards right; perhaps they're redesigning the Saab for the wrong audience. Isn't the Saab SUV evidence of that?

One other related point to this discussion: the Harvard Business School recently made a point that the MFA is the new MBA. Is it any wonder that NBC has extended 'The Apprentice' to have a Martha Stewart edition? Design is popular and business sees its value. When all the products are the same, design is the only differentiator.

Andrew Twigg’s comment is:

One other related point to this discussion: the Harvard Business School recently made a point that the MFA is the new MBA. Is it any wonder that NBC has extended 'The Apprentice' to have a Martha Stewart edition? Design is popular and business sees its value. When all the products are the same, design is the only differentiator.

And the MBA is increasingly sliding towards MFA worth. As the article points out, even white-collar, "MBA" jobs are now being exported, and a mere MBA may not be enough anymore to guarantee you success. Which raises another question: when do they start outsourcing the creative work to the same extent?

> When all the products are the same, design is the only differentiator.

I have heard this get thrown around a lot lately… What exactly does it mean anyway? A distinctive package? A better kerned Helvetica Medium? A better logo? Or is it simply a way of saying "do good business" in a term ("Design") that sounds groundbreaking? Of the articles I have read — and I'm sorry I can't cite any at this point, I probably should — all are so far fetched from the daily concerns of designers doing distinctive packages, kerning Helvetica Medium or doing better logos that I have yet to see how all this talk about design benefits our profession or how it makes us more legit.

****

"Hi, I'm a designer" I say, "Really? What do you do?" he asks, "Well, I'm a graphic designer, I manage projects that involve creating identities, web sites or annual reports that meet a strategic purpose", he stares blankly… "I see, so you don't design iPods, cars or potato peelers with fat handles?", "No, I don't". We both walk away.

Or something to that silly effect.

Good points. I think maybe the gist of it is that the design process (a process not exclusive to graphic design let's not forget - to your point about doing good business) is something more businesses are adopting in order to allow themselves the potential to innovate.

If differentiation is the key to building a unique brand, then the design process is becoming more of an obvious to start when conceiving of how to position your self/product/company. As we already know, it allows for exploration and discovery, perhaps resulting in solutions not readily apparent at the outset.

In GM's case, it seems to be starting to make a few dents in the armor of the company traditions, and will hopefully help them to guide themselves out of their current situation.

That, and doing good business.

I have heard this get thrown around a lot lately… What exactly does it mean anyway?

Well, to me it means that a lot of the products you get from one company are, from a feature/benefit or functional standpoint, indistinguishable from one another. To keep with the automative example: the typical family sedan is effectively the same whether it's from Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, Kia, VW, Lexus, Nissan, etc. More to the point: the differences between the Nissan and the Infinity or the Honda and the Acura are mostly aesthetic differences. Some would argue that within these options you're getting the same quality, so the decision ultimately comes down to whether you like the aesthetic of this one or of that one. Does this one have leather seats? Does that one come in moonstone black? Which headlights do you think look better?

A better example would be butter. Is there any difference between Land O' Lakes and Safeway or some other generic brand? Not really. The difference is in the packaging, the brand, and pretty much nothing else.

Of course, there are problems with this argument. My partner, who went to culinary school, will tell you that there are subtle but important differences between certain types of off-the-shelf unsalted butter. And of course, with automobiles, there's a history of performance and a trouble track record. So yes, maybe there is sometimes more to it than aesthetic.

But personally, most of my purchasing decisions come down to the aesthetic, when all - or pretty much darn near all - other things are the same.

Don't any of you ever feel that when you're placing copy for client brochures that you've read it all a thousand times before? It's all saying the same things, only the layout changes...

Oooh. Corporate design and cars, just my alley.

>"We're not going to compromise the health of our employees and alumni by cutting benefits further. Instead, we're going to pressure the insurance companies to tighten their belts and develop real solutions to this problem."

Actually, the corporate health care issue all boils down to malpractice litigation legislature nationally, as well as state to state. Few states will consider putting caps on malpractice claims, so litigants can be awarded tens of millions for individual suits. That risk and its legal cost is the direct, primary cause of rising health care costs. It's also the primary reason why many health care plan providers will avoid operating in high-risk states like California and Washington — therefore driving costs even higher due to a lack of choice and competition. The legal cap/health-care issue is a spiraling, dire crisis that threatens every corporation in America, not just the big ones like GM.

In Canada, I believe there is a cap of around $200,000 for most malpractice suits, or something like that. That sucks if you happen to be the victim, but it alleviates and allows affordable healthcare for tens of millions of people. Seems like a fair trade.

>900 convertible with vanity plates that read SLAAB—what a piece of crap car

I'm with Jason. Saabs have always been pieces of crap. Sure, it has eccentric Swedish design sensibilities, but the engineering and build qualities of the car has always been abysmal. Whatever you may think, GM has infused modern-day manufacturing technology and dependability that Saabs have never known before. Yet loyalists will unexplicably still pine for the old days, when they had to endure electrical problems, archaic engine block designs, and hand-assembled interiors. Not to mention availability of parts and service.

...

But back to the topic at hand.

The reality is this. Overall, consumer products globally have vastly improved over the last few decades. Manufacturing technology has improved in everything from shampoo to automobiles. Consumer specialization in product development has improved—meaning that companies like P&G knows exactly which flavor of Crest appeals to kids vs. adults, or men vs. women, etc., and kill the rest. And companies like Honda have learned enough about their consumers that they can engineer in exactly the right technology and features that will suit the biggest majority of consumers, along with the fewest variations in product/model offering and production.

Everything has become "good" — at least good enough for the average consumer. But what has happened as a result, is a homogenization of offerings, and a sense that these enterprise offerings no longer appeal to the individual consumer. Furthermore, there's a lack of any emotional ties between product and consumer, as well as a sense of skepticism for authenticity.

Case in point — Jeff and Mark long for the olden days of Saabs, when design was more distinctive (hence, appealing to an individual group of Saab loyalists), and the product had more of the eccentricities that made it a Saab instead of a GM car (hence, making it more authentic).

Where am I going? Well, the factor that can solve many of these issues is design. Or smart design I should say. Smart design can infuse a bland product/brand with more emotional traits. Smart design can make a mass-offered product/brand feel like it's intended just for individuals or a specific group (Nike, Subaru, Apple, Jones Soda). Smart design can make a product/brand feel more "authentic" and give it a sense of history (Abercrombie & Fitch, Harleys, Sony, Fossil, Restoration Hardware).

So design is a means for differentiation. Sometimes it is literal in execution, but more often, it refers to a more holistic approach than just identifiable packaging or a unique product feature.

Since I turned 16 I've been driving Chevrolet's (except for a time in my mid 20's when I drove a Jeep). I'm 31 now so that's about 15 years worth of being a Chevy man. I'm not going to touch on the design and reliability points of each vehicle, only the one I'm driving now. It's a 2000 Chevy Silvarado pick-up. I live in Texas and while I may not haul hay everyday, it's come in handy on more than a few occasions.

To speak briefly about it's reliability: It just turned over 130k miles a few weeks ago and it's a pretty good split between highway miles and city miles. It's been in the shop zero times. Chevy knows how to build trucks. It's a pretty simple and basic design and they've been doing it for a very long time; it's hard to mess it up. My next vehicle is going to be the same thing. However, I wouldn't buy a Saturn, Cavlier, or any other small/mid-size coupe that GM makes. They just doesn't build them the same way, which is dissappointing.

The design of the vehicle is outstanding. It handles like a car, takes curbs and bumps almost as good as a Jeep, and is resiliant like a tank. The knobs and dials on the inside are large and easy to see and access. I've heard complaints that it resembles Fisher-Price toys. The thing is, everything inside was built for large guys who are probably wearing thick work gloves in the middle of a hot summer day. Big hands and possibly wearing gloves: you want the knobs to be big and easy to get to. It's a truck, and it was designed to look and feel like one for the people who are likely to drive and work with one.

(Just a side-note: my wife drives a 2002 Dodge Dakota and the letters in the display that shows what gear [automatic] she's in looks like the letters were stretched vertically. It's quite ugly.)

There are some SUV's even, such as Toyota's 4Runner, where the interior feels just like a car. The seats are narrow, and the knobs and dials and handles are small. I can only assume Toyota designed the 4Runner to appeal to people you want the benefits of driving an SUV (height, protection, etc.) but don't want the feel of a truck.

I'm surprised no one has brought up Volkswagon as an example. I believe they clearly "get" design far more than any other car manufacturer.

>Don't any of you ever feel that when you're placing copy for client brochures that you've read it all a thousand times before? It's all saying the same things, only the layout changes...

I've been working on a lot of technical documents over the last four years and to be honest, not entirely. Yeah sure there are similarities but the only thing that's ever really the "same" is the promise to deliver solutions and the tone used to carry that message..

Speaking of cars, I like the visual and interaction design in my VW Golf (VW being a big 'design company'), but I'm actually not happy with it. It seems like a conglomeration of good design decisions plopped onto a less-than-well-constructed car. That and my wife's Mazda is way more fun to drive.

Anyway, veering away from the cars...

"Why are Apple, Target and Ikea still unique in their markets even though most everyone agrees that they on to something big?"

Because a well-designed product (and I include print and interactive work here) usually requires a well-thought-out process, business model, and product, which is nearly impossible in most business environments. Most CEOs are professional business people or specialists at doing one thing without any intrusion and asking them to hand over control to designers (or a design staff) is the equivalent of asking them to wish upon a star. Then add less-than-talented middle management who are really just echo chambers and...voila: good design is thwarted before it gets out of the gate.

> Then add less-than-talented middle management who are really just echo chambers and...voila: good design is thwarted before it gets out of the gate.

Not to mention the unfamiliarity with good design neeeding a decent time frame.

(Loved the echo-chamber analogy, by the way.)

Scenario 1:

Middle Management: Hey guy, how are you doing?

Designer: Oh pretty goo-

Middle Management: Greeaaat... listen, we need a couple of diagrams built for this new document that we're putting together. We want it to really knock the socks off our potential customers and we know you're the guy to do it.

Designer: Oh, okay that sounds cool. When do you need them by?

Middle Management: We'd love to show it to our department manager on Friday.

Designer: Hmmm... well today's Thursday and I just got back from lunch...

(awkward silence)

Okay, when can I get the content?

Middle Management: They're working it up right now, you should get it in an hour or so. You should also get the content for the brochure then too.

Designer: Oh! So you need the diagrams and the layout for the brochure from me by... tomorrow?

Middle Management: Yes! Oh yeah, can you run it by Jim, Bob, Jane, and Mark to make sure it all looks okay to them since it includes sections from their areas, then we can show it to our department manager at our 2 p.m. meeting.

Designer: (blank stare)

Middle Management: Okay, thanks guy. Let me know if you need anything.

Actually, the corporate health care issue all boils down to malpractice litigation legislature

Wow. I can't believe how far off topic this post is going. Fun!

Tan, it sounds like you're reading from Rove's talking point newsletter.

The last stats I've seen show that malpractice lawsuits account for less than 1% of our health care costs. Significant? Eh. Sure. Are there are things we need to fix first? Absolutely.

I agree with your points on design adding emotional responses to products.

voila: good design is thwarted before it gets out of the gate.

Ouch. So true, though.

I take my last comment back. Apparently limiting malpractice *isn't* a significant factor on reducing health care costs:

http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.

. . . or you could try a national health service of some kind. it helps a bit.

. . . or you could try a national health service of some kind. it helps a bit.

Pshaw. That's crazy talk. ;o)

OK, back to design. Armin, it seems as you you are pooh-poohing these design articles and commentaries in business magazines since they aren't directly pertaining to the specific subcategory of Graphic Design. I agree that they aren't necessarily a direct help for graphic designers, but surely they help spread general awareness of design in general, do they not?

For instance, Old Navy wouldn't be as succesful if it were just a cheap store with hip decor. It'd be succesful, but there's no doubt that it's print and television advertising has played a big role not to mention it's branded clothing...certainly that's graphic design related. And Harley...one of it's succesful attributes is a HIGHTLY managed brand identity from packaging to signage to the actual products they build.

So, I would like to see more business-media focus on better graphic design, but at the same time, I certainly welcome ANY talk of design and business in the media.

For example, the recent target redesign of all their medicine bottles and labels made the mainstream news. That's a start. Hopefully. ;o)

Hey, don't lump me into Rove's army, please.

That article refers to the actual costs of medical litigation. I'm referring to the threat/risk/liability of malpractice litigation, which does greatly affect medical costs (confirmed in the article), which would affect medical insurance even more.

Plan providers aren't stupid. They weigh the risk of operating in a high-risk market, and adjust their pricing accordingly. Whether or not that becomes the true cost is secondary, the point is that they have little to no legal protection, and therefore, must prepare themselves for the worst.

Change those conditions with a cap limit, thereby reducing the risk, which will ineviably result in lower medical coverage costs.

All I know is that a couple of years ago, 3 major healthcare plan providers pulled out of Washington after a litigation cap limit was killed in state legislation, and a major detractor of the bill became our state attorney general.

Of course there are other significant factors, such as the cost of prescription drugs, but unreasonable malpractice litigation — or even just the perception of it — leads to higher malpractice insurance, and yadda, yadda, yadda.

While I appreciate the tangent into design/medical costs, let's get back to the heart of the matter. Design is not just lip service, and the current focus on look and feel is happening at a time when we need it.

Historically, design has saved the economy before. Look at what followed the depression, WWII, and the Cold War. Fantastic products and goods were thrown at Americans through product design and industrial design. Print designers painted images of what the new home would look like or how the modern man/woman could take on a new & improved life.

Lester Beal made the electric company look sexy in 1937. GM forecasted a world of tomorrow at the 1939 World's Fair Futurama exhibition. Eames demonstrated how to make your room look like a museum around 1948. (Yes, 1948. Target's doing something very similar, and their products are done by designer stars the likes of Eames.) Henry Dreyfuss sold us on sexy telephones and streamlined cars; Raymond Loewy made the cover of Time in 1949. Following the Vietnam war, disco, deco, hot rods, and "fashionable clothes" made of polyester were must haves. We saw a design/commerce induced rebound after a meager recession in the 1980s. Walkman:

Design has, and always will shape commerce by fulfilling consumer needs, wants, and desires---especially after or during turmoil. Following previous catastrophes (like our own 9/11 and Iraq), soldiers wanted comfort when they returned from the battle fields to their wives; women looked at ways to ease the complexities and difficulties of caring for the home.

After the depression, WWI, a Cold War and a meager recession we rebounded. We rebounded then as we will today because of what? Technology. Automania. Design. These factors shape society, culture, and the economy. It's not just about look chic.

Darrel, I'd love to see you craft this into a much lengthier discussion/manuscript—one that addresses the relationship between commerce, design, and catastrophe. GM turned heads with Futurama, and it looks like they're playing the game again.

Hey, don't lump me into Rove's army, please.

Phew. I know you weren't THAT far out there. ;o)

Darrel, I'd love to see you craft this into a much lengthier discussion/manuscript

Homework? I dunno...

why does design have to come from a big company...

i think you see design come from smaller companies, because it's something the founders/principals want to see...

it's impossible to get everyone in GM working on the same page, and make things all designed... to many ideas, to much input, to many revisions in the board room, to ever make any progress...

about companies that 'get' design... what about companies such as Miele or OXO... their products are created with a single purpose and goal... simple, elegant, and are created the way they are...

ultimately a vehicle, like a human is just the same bits underneath with a different skin on top... how is that designed? just to look pretty? once the interface of human-auto interaction has changed... give the industry credit for being design conscious...

the end...

My overall response to the BIG blue-chip companies harnassing design is that it's nothing new. It's always been there, just buried, siloed between research and marketing, and never tapped until too late. It's never been the focus of the CEO or the employees. Now as businesses come to understand what design can do, and how we as designers can help leverage brands and services, it's being put on the agenda, included in every discussion, and heralded as a champion.

Take look at this weeks BusinessWeek. Specfically note that when companies as large as P&G, and GE embrace design, integrate it into every pore of every strategic operation, every economy will take note.

A.G. Lafley, P&G's CEO, and Jeffrey R. Immelt, GE's CEO are at the core of the new movement. Lafley started it when he took over in 2000, but Immelt's conversion to creativity when he became chief executive in 2001 is giving the shift to creativity more momentum. Because of GE's size and scope, when it moves, the economy moves with it.

And Lafley sits on GE's board, so these two CEOs now talk about creativity/design/innovation/strategy and exchange ideas of what works and what might work. Isn't that exciting to think that design is actually being discussed, and executed from so high up?

What timing! Armin, it looks like Fortune heard you and wrote an article on the power of GRAPHIC design in business:

New Shelf Life: Same product + better packaging = improved sales.

Hmmm.

I was thinking about trading in my MINI for a Solstice, and still am to a degree because I like the idea of having a roadster and having yet another excuse not to drive other people around.

Ultimately it'll come down to which is faster and which can hold the golf clubs easier.

One thing you can count on at ANY time in history is people talking about change and the future--either because they can't think of anything else to talk about, or they want to sound important. Or they simply want to evade reality.

The companies that "get it" simply "do it" rather than "talk about it." GM seems to be a talker. And outside of the Solstice, their cars are fugly. Gimme a 3-series any day.

As far as companies who "do it" go, they're focused on the basics, the extraordinarily simple but oft-overlooked facts of human beings and their behavior. To assume that we're undergoing a "massive" change strikes me as incredibly ignorant; I know people like to talk about how huge the "information revolution" is, but in historical terms its not. Any previous revolution (agrarian, then industrial) in human society led to explosive population growth. Not so the case here. It's just different for us personally, and there have been some changes but not nearly as many as there were 100 years ago. History is much bigger than what happens in a decade or two. Just ask a geologist.

The unfortunate thing about most American business is that they want to average EVERYTHING.

The companies who get it? They look for the anomalies and follow them instead.

>OK, back to design. Armin, it seems as you you are pooh-poohing these design articles and commentaries in business magazines since they aren't directly pertaining to the specific subcategory of Graphic Design.

Sorry, didn't mean to leave you hanging Darrel.

It's really not about poo-pooing business magazines for their lack of "graphic" design talk, it's poo-pooing the idea that "design" is creating awareness about our discipline through these business magazine articles or through Target ads. Design is a process inherently imbued in human beings: it means you assess a situation, you consider its solutions and the implications of these solutions and then you find a way to implement a solution considered to be the best or at least the one that makes the most sense — all this through a constant process of informed research and testing, to varying degrees. This translates into everything from choosing what and how to cook for dinner to what and how to organize a multinational corporation. And this is what business magazines are latching on to, which in my opinion is basic common sense applied through, hopefully, non-stupid decision making. To call this a "design process" seems awfully buzzy.

What I find missing and what I think is relevant to graphic, web, motion, environment designers is how business decisions and frameworks get translated into convincing communication expressions — I am not arguing anymore for "good looking" interpretations of business strategies, but for interpretations that mean something and that are visually (even sensorially) translated into a convincing message. Business articles focus on things like the iPod because they can track Apple's market value in the business section of any newspaper since its launch; business articles can't focus and have yet to find value in the presentation of this product — which I argue is a business decision delivered through a design application, and not the other way around, which is what is being championed, design = good business — and how the user reacts to the visual cues revolving around this product.

All I'm saying is that "Design" being used as headline for business magazines may not bring the desired awareness we seek. It may benefit firms like IDEO or Yves Behar's Fuse Project, who get constant play but I fail to see how other disciplines of design — the ones responsible for interpreting a company's ethos — would.

I agree with what you said, Armin.

Though maybe with one difference...I think a lot of the magaizines are trying to push the concept that 'design by spreadsheet' isn't going to win as many customers as 'design by creative thought/experiementation' might. Perhaps these articles aren't making that clear enough, though.

Cars, faddish clothing, and bourgeois toys are the only indicators of “getting” design? Am I the only one depressed by this?

Tan—Few states will consider putting caps on malpractice claims, so litigants can be awarded tens of millions for individual suits. That risk and its legal cost is the direct, primary cause of rising health care costs. It's also the primary reason why many health care plan providers will avoid operating in high-risk states like California and Washington — therefore driving costs even higher due to a lack of choice and competition.

The fact that California has a cap on pain and suffering claims (and high malpractice rates) may tend to indicate a fault in your theory.

Gunnar--

Design is one of the more bourgeois things I know of. And graphic design one of the guiltier parties, too. Only graphic designers would talk--gleefully--about kerning in times of turmoil! ;-)

What I think is missing, by the way my example would be UBS, is that it's not about the final product of design, it's about the process of design. Design thinking is newest twist on business's way to beat the competition. But, personally, I could have told them that five years ago (and I did try to tell my employer at the time, but they didn't want to listen).

What's most important is that designer's, no matter whether they are graphic, product, web, etc. need to be able to own this space and command it without allowing 'business' to take it as their own. How one goes about that, I haven't quite formulated yet. But I think the failure to do this, will result in the further commodization of graphic design. (Not to start a commodity/not a commodity argument)

We all need to work together to help educate the public about the value designers, by way of their thinking, can bring to the table. And while I applaud the work that Target has done, I still think they did it with one mistake, the quality doesn't seem to match the aesthetic. And no matter how good it looks, it should still work just as well, if not better.