I know it's not an answer or example to your question Tan, but in response to Debbie's point: "If people all over the world choose this particular Burger King logo because they liked it. My question would be, did they? Did they chose it? Over what other Burger King logo?

Don't be mad at me Armin... but I'm going to recommend another book that isn't strictly about design. But it's relevant to this discussion and I think Tan (and others interested) may find it interesting. The book Pattern Recognition by William Gibson is amazing and made me think differently about branding and the impact that logos have on me personally. In the story, the main character (named Cayce) is a coolhunter whose job in the realm of marketing is to identify what brands are good, which ones will no-doubtedly be successful.

How does she do this?

She has a brand allergy. She physically reacts at the sight of Tommy Hilfiger or the Michelin Man. Pretty interesting, eh?

> Did they chose it? Over what other Burger King logo?

I think what logo it was chosen over is irrelevant. Her point is that consumers choose what they want to choose. And that the choice is an end as well as the driving force for the design. I guess what Millman's saying is that we are ignoring the needs and responses of consumers, and choosing to believe what we want to believe. And that it's wrong.

I don't share the opinion, but nevertheless, it's a valid observation. And it's difficult to find proof otherwise.

I don't mean to sound defeatist either.

It does sadden me when companies — branding consultancies and their clients — treat focus group outcomes as religion. As someone, maybe Armin, pointed out previous, people gravitate towards what they are familiar and already comfortable with. Hence, if a new design *feels* like something they already know, then they'll like it. Something that pushes people's buttons will most likely fail the focus group test.

Debbie Millman did make an interesting comment regarding the Minute Maid redesign of several years ago by the folks at Duffy. She said that she didn't drink Minute Maid, so the redesign didn't matter. Well there's some concrete evidence that a 'new' look to the category didn't influence that person, someone in the design and branding business, to give it a shot. For me, design does often affect what my purchases are. I like the design of the Thomas E. Wilson packaged meats (also by Duffy). I bought it and gave it a shot. Here's the real upshot of packaging: if the product isn't any good, then packaging means nothing. I bought it, cooked it, hated it, won't ever buy it again. A prime example of product not living up to package.

In the case of Apple, I believe that their current good design is the ONLY thing keeping them at their 4-5% market share. What has consistently done them in is their inability to deliver these great products at affordable prices with availability. I always remember them launching new Mac models in the early 90's and then not being able to meet demand. I think they are fumbling the iPod and iTunes Music Store as well by not having a Windows-ready version when they launched it. It is one thing to support your fervent constituency, but that will not grow market share. They ignored the other 95% who are clamoring for a common-sense way to purchase music online. In the end, it is a combination of these failures that keep Apple from returning to a greater market share.

One thought to throw in as this discussion gets going...

Consumerism in a lot of ways boils down to people buying things that they hope will make them happier, more satisfied, etc. After all, doesn't advertising just tell us over and over that we're not Okay? I think it's a lot more than the "design" of advertising that sells us this idea. The role of "good" design in this system is minimized, especially sitting on a shelf at Wal-Mart. The desire for the product has already been aroused in the consumer, and now they just need to go buy it, as fast as possible and probably as cheap as possible.

So I guess I'd say that the role of good design is to last longer than that initial urge for the product. It is thought and care and craft put into something that someone got suckered into buying, and will probably have around for awhile.

Pretty jaded, but with a little hope and purpose for the things we make...

Tan, you wrote:

leave 100 well-designed packages and 100 badly-designed packages on a shelf at Walmart, and eventually both will be equally consumed. Does it really matter which package design was consumed faster?

Of course it matters which sells first. A packaged goods company doesn't rely on sales over eternity. It relies on sales over a relatively short period of time. Additionally, a store like Walmart will obviously prefer to stock products which move off the shelves quickly over products which do not.

So, should good design lead to more/quicker sales? Well, if that's what the client is paying you for then it should. In that scenario "good design" is that which moves product. Otherwise we're not designers, we're idiosyncratic artists with no responsibilty to anything outside of ourselves.

But, not all design is created with that mandate. Clients, not all of them for sure, understand the benefits of long term branding and identity and will ask for, and occasionally recognize, design that creates and forges their identities. Design that seeks to do more than move product.

Given that goal, sales are irrelevant.

At least that's the way it seems to me.

It is thought and care and craft put into something that someone got suckered into buying, and will probably have around for awhile.

I agree. I bought a couple Graves appliances from Target because I liked the design. But they are cheaply made from some nameless Chinese factory, and as a result, are flimsy pieces of crap.

But nevertheless, I like the designs enough to overlook the manufacturing faults.

But! I am a designer, and my consumer choices are admittedly skewed.

you can't look at branding like it is the only thing that defines or affects a company's performance.

what are the indications that apple's branding has limited it's growth? it is more likely that it is something else holding the company back.

is target getting their ass kicked by walmart? walmart is in it's own league. target is an extremely successful company. it's niche is between let's say the walmart/kmarts and your jcpenneys/kohls. it's successfully branded itself as an upscalish discounter who values good design in it's products, packaging, signage, etc. this is apparent to consumers. target is definitely not in financial trouble.

good design cannot save a company on it's own. it can sure help though. and the opposite can be said of bad design.

BTW: target's branding and advertising is incredibly good. they also have the largest in-house creative studio in the country (probably the world) with something like 500 employees.

I like the designs enough to overlook the manufacturing faults.

Would you buy them or others in the line in the future? I think it is very important to note that if the product itself doesn't live up to the selling promise embodied through advertising and/or packaging, then it doesn't really matter what kind of a box it comes in.

about the quality of target's branded goods in their stores..

i haven't noticed much wrong with what i've purchased there. i don't doubt that some of it may not be the best quality.

i swear i don't work for target. ha ha. i do know a few designers who do though. and you can't work at a design firm in minneapolis without working on projects for them!

you can't look at branding like it is the only thing that defines or affects a company's performance.

Designers make the products as well as the packaging that goes around them. Some other designers concepted and had the displays built, and others planned the store layout. Some planogram company developed a book for the manufacturer to communicate the laying out of that month's product to the retailer and some other design team wrote, concepted and presented a branding campaign to market the aformentioned product.

As Jonsel also said - I think twice. Good design starts with the original concept of the product or service. Then good business ideally integrates design, brand and business throughout the rest of the process till I get to buy 'it'. At any point it can fall apart - I don't think packaging can save a bad product - but bad packaging can't always harm a great product.

It does matter which package design was consumed faster - assuming that the slower consumed ones made a product that was both made and marketed incorrectly.

I was wondering this very fact the other day looking at a box of Red Oval Farms Stoned Wheat Thins. According to Trader Joes they sell like crazy and I wondered if screwing with the package design would make them sell any better - and how could you argue that there should be a redesign?

Web site

I guess the only thing I could come up with - would be to do so if new and different customers are necessary. Otherwise - the packaging does build up equity in the shoppers' minds and it is silly to screw with that unless business demands to do so.

The flipside to jonsel's point about Apple is this: Think of the choices you make regardless of design. For example, I'll buy any book by David Foster Wallace, no matter what typeface or jacket design it has. I'll drink Coke no matter what jingle they have because I love the stuff. I buy the cheapest of almost everything at the supermarket, because it's all basically disposable and/or identical. All other factors being equal, I will buy the better designed (read: most aesthetically pleasing to my taste) thing, but all factors are not equal in the marketplace. Products differentiate themselves independent of design (meaning graphic/packaging design, of course), as with the packaged meats (though I can't fathom not enjoying a delicious bit of packaged meat).

Another example of the irrelevance of design : The NY Times Bestseller List (requires free registration, sorry; but look at any national bestseller list). Book jacket design helps sell some books, but bad design sure don't hurt some other books.

Just because I am a designer, I don't feel compelled to complain that people don't appreciate design or that they buy things that are badly designed. It sounds like we're saying, "Boo-hoo why don't people have good taste like me?" No thanks. I'm bothered very little by bad (by which I mean bad-ugly, not

good-ugly), schlocky, corporate, banal, dark-side design (unless it's my own work, in which case I'm very bothered by it, of course). I guess I feel that it's inevitable that there will be bad design, not only because of focus groups and decision-by-committee, but just because there can't be only design done by the best. There aren't enough of the best and many wouldn't deign to do things that need to be done. In that regard, large firms like Landor and Pentagram pull of some miracles by getting any good work made, and a lot of it is good. A world designed by Karim Rashid, Chip Kidd, Stefan Sagmeister, Landor, Phaidon, Frog, etc. would be a kind of visual fascism. No thanks.

"Even if it is true that commonplace advertising and exhibitions of bad taste are indicative of the mental capacity of the Man on the street, the opposing arguement is equally valid. Bromidic advertising catering to that bad taste merely perpetuates that mediocrity and denies him one of the most accessible means of aesthetic development."

- Paul Rand

To Sam's point, and something I thought of but didn't put into my post: good design on-shelf should impact first-time sales more than recurrent purchases. Like Sam, I chug Coke because I just love the stuff. I could care less what its package looks like. Ok, that's not true, but I'm still buying it, even though I'm not in love with the newest design. But in Apple's case, I never went in for MP3 players until the iPod came out. (This is more product design than packaging though...) Simply put, when you are in unfamiliar territory, design can have a greater impact on what you purchase. But as we all seem to agree, it's not 100% of the deal. There are just too many other factors.

Tan:

There are some logic errors in your examples.

Apple: Apple is a very healthy company driven by quality design. They have a healthy 5% market share (many companies would kill for a 5% share of their market).

Target: Target isn't getting their 'ass kicked'. They aren't as succesful as Wal-Mart. Note that the Starck products failed namely because they weren't necessarily good design. They had aesthetic interest, but they really didn't cut it as being total solutions (IMHO, of course).

That said, it is sad to see Wal-Mart succeed on the level it does. I believe that is a failure of Americana, mroe than anything. We live in a country that judges most things on how cheap it is.

As far as package design goes (as opposed to the design of the actual product) I'm not sure if it should or even can directly increase sales. Again, price is what people are after. Second to that, they want what is inside the package. The package is almost more of a reminder that they bought this particular company's product, IMHO.

How does "good" design affect consumerism?

Well, marketing certainly feeds into american overconsumption. We love that crap.

If good design = lower cost product (which it can) then that certainly provides a major advantage for a particular company.

Other than that, there is a market for well designed products. I think both Target and Apple are good examples of that. They can't appeal to all people, because a lot of American's simply don't understand or appreciate why the quality of a product is perhaps something to consider before price. Not sure how to change that mentality, though I do think it is one of the bigger problems we face as a society.

good design on-shelf should impact first-time sales more than recurrent purchases.

Isn't package design meant to reinforce a product's identity and therefore encouraging recurrent purchases? I'm not sure if package design has that much of an impact on firt-time sales at least when compared to the marketing efforts of said product. (With the exception of the quality of information on the package, which certainly will affect comparison shoppers.) Even as a graphic design, I don't recall the visual qualities of packaging at the supermarket affecting my purchasing decision for any first-time purchases. I DO read labels and price tags, of course.

All good points gentlemen.

But I still assert that Target and Walmart operate in the same circles. Their marketing methods may differ, but they sell the same things, and mostly for the same prices. Yes, there are a number of reasons why Walmart is more successful than Target -- but I'm asking whether or not Target's emphasis on design is helping them be more competitive. Their TV spots may help to differentiate them, but is good design affecting their bottom line?

And if I heard all of you correctly, no -- design doesn't matter because it all comes down to price, value, and quality of product. Right?

All of the comments so far have given justified reasons why design alone can't boost or save sales. Ok, I agree. But they sound like excuses. I still haven't heard any real proof of why good design is better for consumers than mediocre design. Basically, why should the focus group choose a good Burger King logo over a mediocre Burger King logo? I mean, they sell the same damn things, and as long as people buy their burgers -- who really cares what the wrapper or cup looks like?

The same can be said of Minute Maid, toilet paper, etc.

We optimistically hope that good design brings value to products -- and ultimately raises "the most accessible means of aesthetic development (Rand)" for consumers. But why is that better, and if so, where's the proof?

And I still think 5% of market share for Apple is pathetic, regardless of their other problems. I just don't think people care that the machines are cool looking, and they don't care that the boxes and instructions are intuitive, beautiful designs. The public just tends to choose mediocrity because it's what they know.

My last question -- is good design destined to be consumed by a minority of people? Build a better designed mousetrap, and only a few will rush to it. The others will continue buying the mediocre version till it runs out.

>> Is good design destined to be consumed by a minority of people?

Perhaps the difference between good design and bad design is not which sells first off the shelves, or which is consumed by the most people, but instead good design is the design that lasts. Bad design gets plowed under in a rebranding campaign (pace Mr. Rand). This is the way it is in art, literature, the history of all ideas. Quality endures on its own merits. It's as if quality is patient, waiting for the noise to subside so the signal can be heard. In this regard, it's crucial that designers care about design more than the public--it's up to us to preserve the important work when the CEOs decide they want a new look.

I still haven't heard any real proof of why good design is better for consumers than mediocre design.

I don't think it matters who its for - good design is always better than anything less. The question is, do consumers notice good design over mediocre?

I don't think Apple is concerned with marketshare in the same way Dell is. Apple is concerned with a mode of competitive advantage that is quite different than the other players in its industry. As such - it leads in innovation. It pays the price for being an innovator and cements its position by considering the design of its products as well.

I don't think Apple is a good example of good design failing to increase marketshare. Too many other factors are needed to consider.

I always consider the AOL approach - where AOL succeeded in capturing a huge market very quickly because of how simple and easy it presented the internet to people and enabled them to use it. It catered for the lowest common denominator of customers and as such made it simple for all kinds to sign up. Does this mean its design was bad? No I think their design of the AOL software was great. It worked for them and the 13m users at the time.

Apple's design is so strong, so specific that it doesn't always speak to people who don't consider an aesthetically beautiful object necessary to work on.

In the same way - people walking down a grocery store aisle aren't really considering well designed packaging thats going to sit inside a refrigerator or cupboard.

I think good design works, in packaging, when I have to make a completely uninformed decision and I have a choice between two similar looking products.

Bad design in this case is when I don't even consider an option because it simply doesn't look like it should be in my choice of product.

In the case where consumers make an uninformed choice - design is everything. The design of the marketing, placement and so on. How else does the organization communicate the value proposition?

Once you've made your decision - then you're opting into the whole promise of the brand and if it doesn't add up - the product fails in some way or the instructions are crap in describing how to assemble it - then you might not repeat that experience again. Which is in every way an experience of design as much as it is brand.

Unfortunately we don't all have the money to afford only buying De La Espada furniture (if we should want to) when an IKEA chair will do the job. We can't all pay the price for original, innovative and well designed products. We seem to tolerate the cheaper version and all of it's failings.

Darrel wrote about Walmart:

We live in a country that judges most things on how cheap it is.

One thing that's easily forgotten is that we live in a country with an ever widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. "We" are so focused on how cheap things are because "we" bury ourselves in debt and overspending.

The sad part about this is by spending so much at Walmart, and you can see this much more in smaller cities and towns than larger cities, "we" run our local business out of business, killing local jobs for the people who really need them-"we" who shop at Walmart because we have to in order to make ends meet.

Good and Bad design aside, design does matter when it comes to packaging. If someone is looking for the cheapest thing and the package doesn't look cheap, it won't be picked up. One could say that the cheap looking thing isn't good design, but it did sell the product, and I would venture to guess that there was a designer out there with orders to make the package look as cheap as possible. If you accept that assumption, then you can judge all the generic branded packaging with the criteria of: Does this product fulfill the brief of looking cheap, but in an aesthetic and useful way?

My first comment. Not my last.

To start, I lived in Savannah for four years, they have five Wal-Marts in the vicinity. They close one and open two new ones.

In the last year, Target has had a real interest in opening a store there. The closest one is near Hilton Head Island and many people including myself have made the trek, just to go to Target.

Target was interested in a relatively undeveloped area called "Sandfly", the residents held meetings, protested and petitioned. Target pulled out to keep the community happy. Two months after they pulled out Wal-Mart applied for the area and was received much better and construction is underway.

Why do we need a third Super-Wal-Mart? Because that is what we are lead to believe we need. Just like PC buyers. Consumer penetration is the key to there success. How many Apple stores are there compared to PC carriers? How many more Wal-Marts are there to Targets?

People will buy what is readily available to them. Why order a Mac from a catalog or on-line when they can waltz on over to Sears, Best Buy, Circuit City... and investigate and purchase a PC that is right in front of there eyes.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Macs. I've been in love with them since I saw one when I was 8 in Macy's during Christmas in 1984. I still remember the day.

Back to the question. "Good" design affects consumerism only when it has the oportunity to penetrate the market. Along with "good" design a certain amount of consumer awareness is needed before a product can take off and revolutionize the market.

If a consumer could take a side by side comparison test with a Mac and PC, dispell the Mhz myth, see how "good" design doesn't mean less productive and really experience the benefits of a user-friendly interface, Apple would have a greater market share.

As for Wal-mart and Target, the people that venture into Wal-Mart are there for value. They are obviously looking for something cheap, if not, they why don't they shop at Williams Sonoma, Sak's or buy Bose. Target's well designed merchandise is a little more in price and if people are shopping for value (Wal-Mart customers), they'll stick to the cheap stuff.

I now live two minutes from a Target, I will not be going to Wal-Mart unless I absolutely have too. I am not looking for cheap, I am looking for "good" design cheap. That's Target and I'll spend an extra $3.00 for a wood kitchen utensil drawer over a plastic one.

Sorry for the long message.

> And if I heard all of you correctly, no --

> design doesn't matter because it all comes down

> to price, value, and quality of product. Right?

In the US, I'd say it comes down to price (how cheap is it) and if the neighbors have one. I don't think the overall quality of the product has a whole lot of influence in this market.

Overall value doesn't seem to be a big concern either. People just want it cheap. Now. Even if over the long term it costs them more. (0% financing until June! How can we NOT pass up that leopard print sofa? You mean it will cost us more over the 10 years we pay off the credit card? But who cares? It's *0% financing until June!*)

I still haven't heard any real proof of why good design is better for consumers than mediocre design.

Of course better design is good for the consumer. It makes the product more usable, more comfortable, nicer to look at, better made, etc. It does *not* mean it will sell better, just that it is a better product.

I do think you/we need to clarify what you are referring to as 'design'. Are you talking about design overall, or just packaging design?

And I still think 5% of market share for Apple is pathetic

Think whatever you want, but most CEOs will tell you that a 5% share of a market is pretty impressive. Apple is consitently in the top 5 computer manufacturers world wide. You are somehow equating an operating system's market share with a company's product sales market share. Two completely different things.

My last question -- is good design destined to be consumed by a minority of people?

In the US, at least, yes. 'Designer' products are considered a status symbol in this country...not a right. Look at housing trends. Look at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Applebees. We want cheap and status quo.

Damien, I have a slightly different argument as to why AOL was succesful. AOL software isn't that good. Never has been. I think it's an example of how marketing can win over bad design anyday. AOL simply knew how to market the service (send everyone 243 CDs and get them to believe that AOL *is* the internet).

Unfortunately we don't all have the money to afford only buying De La Espada furniture (if we should want to) when an IKEA chair will do the job.

IMHO, I find IKEA to be really good design. And, as a plus, it understands that good design should also be affordable. IKEA is an anomly in this country, I think.

And ben makes excellent points as well.

Ok, we're heading off in a huge tangent now... ;o)

If a consumer could take a side by side comparison test with a Mac and PC, dispell the Mhz myth

Again, this is an example of marketing winning over. The Mhz myth isn't a myth. Macs are slower than most PCs out there.

Again, for the sake of this discussion (does design win market share?), you can't compare a Mac to all PCs. You can compare a Mac to a Dell, or a Gateway, or any number of PC manufacturers, but not to every other competitor in the market as a whole.

the people that venture into Wal-Mart are there for value. They are obviously looking for something cheap

Remember that 'value' and 'cheap' are two different concepts. I don't think many people that shop at Walmart are too concerned about value.

Time to end the lurking...

This is a great discussion, and there have been some great points made, but I think that in general, there is one huge point that is being missed: Wal-Mart employs designers too.

Their design is simple and strong, just like their brand image. White text on blue background. Sans serif everywhere. A star, a smiley face, these things are huge in the success of Wal-Mart. And while we as designers (or arbiters of taste, or the educated consumers, or whatever we see ourselves as) may recoil at the base-ness of the design, it is one that is aimed squarely at their target market and one that succeeds at every opportunity. You don't see designers or hipsters on their TV commercials, you see soccer moms and the elderly. Soccer moms and old folks love smiley faces. They could give a rat's ass about us because we go to Target instead. Their market is locked up tighter than Fort Knox, and a lot of that has to do with the simple, friendly environment that they present through their design and branding.

Remember that 'value' and 'cheap' are two different concepts. I don't think many people that shop at Walmart are too concerned about value.

Yes - but the perceived value for Wal-mart customers might come from their inexpensive products. I think Wal-mart customers would say that value is a high priority - as price helps determine that for them.

Wal Mart is kicking Target's ass because they have a predatory expansion strategy, not because people have bad taste. Most towns don't have a Target. Maybe if Target started opening ten stores in a town to choke out the competition and then closed all but one, everyone would have cutesy tea kettles and furry photo albums, but we'd all have the same cutesy tea kettles and furry photo albums!

> It is one that is aimed squarely at their target market and one that succeeds at every opportunity.

Yeah! Welcome to the discussion Bob. You make some excellent and valid points that I want to expand on.

Now I'm not saying that Walmart is devoid of design. This is not a criticism on the design of Walmart's facilities or their marketing materials. It's more of an observation on the value that the store places on marketing "design". And by "design" -- I'm referring to the aesthetic entity of product and packaging that differentiates itself primarily through a designer brand or image. Yes, yes, everything is design. But you know what I mean -- Target's Mossimo, Graves, Starck -- product lines that's meant to sell based on its design merits and "high-design" brand recognition. (I hate that term, but....)

But what I'm saying is that Walmart's brand image...make that their expertly-crafted brand image...is one of blandness, mediocrite, and value. Now mediocritie isn't necessary a derogatory term here -- it means of moderate or average value. And as you've sorta pointed out, this caters exactly to Walmart's primary audience -- soccer moms and the elderly.

Therefore, Walmart's uber-success versus Target is one indication that marketing "mediocritie" is a much more effective strategy than marketing "design". Is it an indicator of the value consumers place on design in general? Sadly, yes. Is it the end of the world? No. As a designer, am I saddened by this truth? Yes.

So this gets back to the beginning. As Millman asked: if Sterling creates a mediocre Burger King logo because their consumers prefer it -- does it make it bad design?

And many of you seem to think Walmart's prices are cheaper than Target's. I honestly don't think that's true. If you took 80% of the common products that both store sell, I'd bet the farm that they are similarly priced. The remaining 20% will split between stores on any given week -- some will be cheaper at Walmart, some cheaper at Target. You only perceive that it's cheaper, which proves the effectiveness of their brand propaganda.

And to Rebecca's point, I realize that there are many other stategic factors to why Walmart is taking over like locusts, but we are simply focusing on one aspect that's relevant to this discussion -- marketing "design". To dismiss the comparison by blaming other factors is selective denial.

There are many markets, not one.

So WalMart is the biggest discount store, so be it. Expect a lowest common denominator look to most of what is sold and how these goods are presented. These stores will be filled with price conscious shoppers. Will these shoppers want tastefully rendered plastic versions of Louis XVI chairs? Probably not. But they may want T.V. storage units stamped out of particle board covered with faux veneer Contact paper. And what difference does it make?

Is there nothing more than class/education snobbery behind complaining that the Burger King logo isn't up to Cranbrook standards? Is this loathing of the design patronized by the WalMarter shoppers or loathing of the WalMarter shoppers themselves?

I don't think many people that shop at Walmart are too concerned about value.

People can get more bang for there buck at Wal-Mart than most places. Yes, "value" and "cheap" are two different concepts but they can be applied to the same subject. By "cheap", I mean inexpensive, not "cheap - falling apart five days later". When I shopped at Wal-Mart I was concerened about "value - fair price" of a 24 pack of Angel Soft, it was the same price as the 12 pack of Angel Soft at the grocery store. Cheaper in price and a better Value, in the fact I got more for a better price.

The Mhz myth isn't a myth. Macs are slower than most PCs out there.

There is a Mhz myth. A 2.4Ghz Dell, Gateway, whatever PC you choose, is of the same speed as a 1.25Ghz G4. Different type of processor calculates Ghz differently, the architecture of the chip is structured differently. Motorola can pump the same info out of a smaller Ghz chip as Intel can out of a larger Ghz chip.

And quite frankly, with the speeds we are achieving can we really see the difference. Pretty soon we will not be able to differentiate between chips. It's like cutting something in half, then half again, and again... we will soon be at a point where we can't see the difference.

Ben wrote:

If someone is looking for the cheapest thing and the package doesn't look cheap, it won't be picked up.

If I'm going for cheap, I'm going for cheap.

Back to Target, Target brand product's packaging is well designed and as cheap as generic brands. If you were to going down the isle and you come across cans of peas, one Target brand (nicely designed packaging) and FMV brand (not nicely designed) and they were the same price, who wouldn't go for the Target brand. It looks better and since it does it seems like a bargain. "Hey I'm getting this "designer" can of peas for the same price as the generic."

Cheap in price doesn't have to look cheap. If brand "y" came to me and asked for a package design, I would design to the best of my abilties, reguardless of how much they pay me or how much the product will sell for. I'm not a picky man. I would not say to them "Well since your can of peas is going to retail for 49� and Del Monte sells their peas for 69�, then the design should be less attractive than Del Monte's" I would design the best damn package for peas as I could and hope they come back for carrots and asparagus.

Cheap is cheap, reguardless of design. But why not design something interesting for a cheap product?

What would that do to the advertising and marketing industry if brand "y" looked better and out sold the major companies?

Would that cause companies to redesign their ads and packaging?

Could you start a design revolution by making generic more appealing than it's competitors, beyond price differential?

> Is there nothing more than class/education snobbery behind complaining that the Burger King logo isn't up to Cranbrook standards? Is this loathing of the design patronized by the WalMarter shoppers or loathing of the WalMarter shoppers themselves?

Whoa here. I don't think it's a class/social thing -- let's not go there.

But are we talking about visual/design taste? Sure. After all, we are designers, and this is a design forum. And evaluating, judging, being design snobs is what we're all trained and paid to do -- is it not?

And clearly, no one is loathing anyone. This is just an observation of the value of design with consumers. We're talking consumer patterns, trends, brand stuff. Clearly, this is not a direct or indirect slam on the soccer moms and grandmas that shop at Walmart. My mom shops there too.

And many of you seem to think Walmart's prices are cheaper than Target's. I honestly don't think that's true.

Around here, (Midwest) that's pretty much true. Wal-Mart is typically the cheapest place to pick up a household item just as Home Depot is the cheapest place to pick up a home improvement item.

Is there nothing more than class/education snobbery behind complaining that the Burger King logo isn't up to Cranbrook standards?

THAT is the biggest problem I have with America. We treat 'design' as some sort of thing that only the rich/educated should appreciate. Do I loathe Wal-Mart shoppers? YES! Is that snobbery? If it is, then that's sad. People shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart for all sorts of reasons. Europe gets that. We don't. (Now this is turning political, isn't it? ;o)

More politics:

There is a Mhz myth. A 2.4Ghz Dell, Gateway, whatever PC you choose, is of the same speed as a 1.25Ghz G4.

The myth is that Ghz is the only speed factor. All chips are made differently, and are optimized for a variety of purposes. Other attributes also play a factor on the speed (or perceived speed) of a processor such as bus speed, RAM speed, HD speed, Video card(s), etc, etc.

If you don't believe me, set that Dell and Mac next to each other. ;o) (I use both side-by-side at work).

we will soon be at a point where we can't see the difference.

As long as companies produce bloated OSes and bloated software, we'll always need faster machines. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

Could you start a design revolution by making generic more appealing than it's competitors, beyond price differential?

Who cares what the can of peas looks like? If I save 15 cents with Brand X, I'll buy brand X.

> THAT is the biggest problem I have with America. We treat 'design' as some sort of thing that only the rich/educated should appreciate.

You went there even after I asked people not to. Now you must be whipped.

Bad! Bad!...now hang your head in shame. And you must listen to a Billy Ray Cyrus CD for the rest of the day.

"Even if it is true that commonplace advertising and exhibitions of bad taste are indicative ... the opposing arguement is equally valid. Bromidic advertising catering to that bad taste merely perpetuates that mediocrity ..."

- Paul Rand

The larger picture of the a consumer-designed culture is the worser the package the more likely you'll find shit inside. Shit food. Shit shoes. Shit toothpaste. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, and stains like shit... Hey, guess what... its probably gonna be shit.

(sorry, I dont do Shakespeare well)

Tan said: Therefore, Walmart's uber-success versus Target is one indication that marketing "mediocritie" is a much more effective strategy than marketing "design". Is it an indicator of the value consumers place on design in general? Sadly, yes.

My translation of this is "Marketing beauty is a less effective strategy than marketing value". I think this is largely true. Certainly in the discount sundries market. (Significantly less so in the luxury furnishings market...)

Does that mean graphic design is undervalued? No. It just highlights the difference between good (beautiful) design and good (effective) design. As Bob mentioned earlier, design that communicates a product's position effectively is highly valuable in Wal-Mart's case. The two need not be mutually exclusive, as in Target's case, but one is more fun for us as designers than the other and is therefore better. I believe good (beautiful) design also happens to also elevate the quality of our culture, but that ideal and the realities of many markets will probably always be in confilct.

And Tan, if you had only name checked Garth Brooks I caould have said something about "friends in low places" and been kinda clever. Where were you, man?

So this gets back to the beginning. As Millman asked: if Sterling creates a mediocre Burger King logo because their consumers prefer it -- does it make it bad design?

and...

And that the choice is an end as well as the driving force for the design. I guess what Millman's saying is that we are ignoring the needs and responses of consumers, and choosing to believe what we want to believe. And that it's wrong.

I don't think we all are - but I also think we need to from time to time. Design without the consumer in mind. The example of Starck's work is a good one - his juicer for Alessi is apparently inferior to a good five dollar juicer from... perhaps wal-mart. But it stood on the counter as an icon of "good taste" and design sense of many. A different type of consumer perhaps.

I think we need this balance - in saying, consumerism pays the way for some to expeirment and suggest, what if the customer doesn't always know what it wants.

The Macintosh is another example of this - where no one described they wanted a version of a mainframe computer on their desktop... but when it happened - it seemed to take off.

Its sad when we don't need to do our best to get the job done. Its sadder when we simply don't. But also - we shouldn't be so hasty to slam people's value-driven choices when we have things like IKEA - which help many more people integrate better designed objects into their lives at a price they can afford.

Who cares what the can of peas looks like? If I save 15 cents with Brand X, I'll buy brand X.

I agree whole-heartedly with you about saving 15�.

But I think you are missing the point, if we gravitated to a well designed and cheap product, the more expensive companies will copy that design and or try to improve upon there existing design. Make design as competitive as the technolgy industry (used to be and still is to an extent). Thus giving designers more work. Helping those of us in a rut or have our pick at jobs.

Making us happy little workers with big wallets that we can spend at Wal-Mart or Williams Sonoma depending on you, not what you can't afford.

Look what the original iMac did for product design. After the brightly colored machines became popular, every electronic item came encased in bright translucent plastic. You could hardly find a product that didn't have a variation in color. Calculators, fans, blenders, etc. And then came the rip-offs with e-machines and if I'm not mistaken Compaq ( can't remember) Would that popularity in package design result in the same boom for our business?

As long as companies produce bloated OSes and bloated software, we'll always need faster machines. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

I agree, I think Adobe Illustrator is progressively getting slower to start up and quit.

I had a Powerbook 150, it could only hold 12mb of RAM and I shrank the OS to run on only 2mb. It still started up faster than computers today that run nearly 45x faster in Mhz. 33Mhz - 1.42 Ghz.

Where were you, man?

Sorry to keep you hanging bro. Country's not my thang.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned OXO...that is a company that has enjoyed success based solely on the design and quality of their products.

As for Apple;

I would never buy a computer based solely on the design of the case. I may drool over all over it, but if it doesn't do what I need it to, I'm not dropping a few grand on it. But even if the roles were reversed and PCs looked a hundred times better than a Mac, I would pick Apple every time.

I think the reason isn't releasing iTunes for PCs right out of the box is to encourage people (fence-sitters) to switch. I recently upgraded to OSX for that very reason. I may not love everything about it, but I sure do like the music store.

A 5% share may not sound like much, but when you're talking about 5% of a world market, that a whole hell of a lot of people.

Country's not my thang.

Don't go calling Garth Brooks 'country'. ;o)

Oh puh-leeze, Garth not country? Now I can buy into Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash as being 'Western' and not 'Country', but let's go so far as to elevate Brooks out of Redneckville.

I'm a Texan originally, so my redneck-meter is qualified, Darrel.

As Felix said, if it sounds like shit...and it smells like shit...

Anyway, we're headin off the dirt road here.

> A 5% share may not sound like much, but when you're talking about 5% of a world market, that a whole hell of a lot of people.

Ok, ok...5% is goddamn marvelous. Are you all happy now?

But one last thing about that 5% -- the demographics has largely remained the same. Creative industry, K-12 education, and Mac loyalists. Despite the Switch campaign, Apple survives largely due to our need to replace our own damn macs. Let's not kid ourselves that there's significant gains in new customer territory for Apple.

Damn! I posted snarky commentary in a different thread. No wonder nobody commented. Here it is:

This is not in any manner relevant ti the discussion and is only intended to provide comical relief.

I don't care how much market share Apple has, I don't care how bad they are on delivering their products on time and I don't care about the fact that new computers only ship with OS X. Why?

Because they have this white boy singing "baby got back" and that makes everything alright.

Ok, I'll comment on your snarkiness.

I admire that your race is still trying, but I'm sorry -- white guys belting rap/hip-hop is just unnatural. Stick to caucasion stuff like Simon and Garfunkel, guys.

I can't explain the Beastie Boys though. Freaks of nature.

>I admire that your race is still trying

Don't look at me man. I'm no whitey. Now, a mexican doing rap is a pretty cool thing. Here I go... baby got back... y no puedo mentir

>white guys belting rap/hip-hop is just unnatural.

But funny as shit.

The stuff played on 'country' stations is about as far from country as you can get.

Garth has some catchy tunes, but he's just a pop singer. Nothing wrong with pop singers, but what world needs now is a nother pop singer like it needs...(ok, now I have THAT song stuck in my head...)

Damn. How did this thread end up here?

Let's not kid ourselves that there's significant gains in new customer territory for Apple.

Apple claims that a good chunk of their apple store sales are going to new consumers.

What Apple has done with good design is that they've been able to keep their machines from being commoditized. Most of the major PC manufacturs are now commodity manufacturers and, as such, can only compete on price. Apple has played it smart and has been able to sell its machines at the highest profit margin in the indusstry.

Apple, obviously, is NOT after the Wal-Mart crowd. ;o)

I admire that your race is still trying

The human race?

I got 2 words for you people: Johnny. Fucking. Cash.

Oh right, design! Right, whoops.

I recently saw a half-Mexican, half-African-American dude sing a punk rock song about Dungeons & Dragons. While smoking a cigarette and wearing a jumpsuit.

Oh right, design!

Does branded goods mean quality goods?

how important are branded goodsto you?

what ur opinion about my title?

why do u buys branded?

what branded mean ?