I think reaching a compromise with a client is very rarely about design, it is really (and quite possibly unconciously) about control. The client pays, so the client wants to feel they made some decisions that affected the final outcome.

One of my underhanded and evil tactics as a freelancer was to put something blatently of kilter so the client would be able to find it, and tell me to fix it. The fix would retrun me to exactly the way I had intended it to look, and the client felt like they were involved. Win, win.

Sort of a reverse psychology game. The risk being that they do not catch it or atually like it.

Perhaps underhanded and evil tactics to get the design you want should be a topic some day!

Debbie, do you mean to say creatively courageous or politically courageous? There's certainly a big difference between saying "No, I won't let you stray from your brand's color palette" and "No, I won't design a gun catalogue." Convincing a client to go with a stronger logo or type treatment or annual report concept is not, I think, courage. It's a skill for sure, but more of a business skill or perhaps a matter of professional aesthetic ethics (I call it! TM on "aesthetics ethics"™).

I have occasionally turned down projects with "No that's not really the kind of work I do" (adding to myself "because you're an asshole"). But this isn't what you mean, I think.

Regarding the question "Whose responsibility is it to ensure that good design work goes to market? Is it ours (the creators of the work), or the clients (the selectors of the work)?"

The solution--and the responsibility--is clear: give the client only excellent work to select from. (Kind of goes back to the show-one-option discussion.) Which makes it our responsibility.

Whose responsibility is it to ensure that good design work goes to market? Is it ours (the creators of the work), or the clients (the selectors of the work)?

I would say the end user, client and designer.

With the caveate that you have a good client.

Whats courageous?

Change. Clients need to understand the value of risk and leadership. No courage= no risk + no reward. Kinda cliche, I know, but true...

>Whose responsibility is it to ensure that good design work goes to market? Is it ours (the creators of the work), or the clients (the selectors of the work)?

It is the creators responsibility to ensure that "good' design goes to market, but like Girff stated, it is about control. The client pays, the client gets what they want. A car salesman that absolutely loves red can suggest this color to a customer, but if said customer wants a silver car, silver it is.

One can apply this to any profession though, I mean to get into this in the RANT discussion. Instead of a chemist working on Viagra at Pfizer they could be working on a solution to clean water in India. How about Sammy Sosa teaching baseball to kids in Cuba and not cheating when making millions? It's all over, again it's not a good thing, but it's reality.

>No, I won't do that job? No, I won't change that logo? You can't do that to that brand, product, logo, etc?

Boy do I wish more designers did this. Unfortunately http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/first/" target="_blank">First Things First is food, shelter, clothing, medicine, beer, etc. to most desigers. See above.

I think, and this is pretty unfortunate, only when one achieves a level of unique style such as Carson, Mau, Sagmeister - only then can you influence "good' design going to market. It's a whole other discussion if those three are actually "good." Just trying to make a point.

One of my underhanded and evil tactics as a freelancer was to put something blatently of kilter so the client would be able to find it, and tell me to fix it. The fix would retrun me to exactly the way I had intended it to look, and the client felt like they were involved. Win, win.

I remember reading an article from a freelancer dubbing this the "Hairy Arm" method. Back in the days of shooting photostats, he had a very difficult client who always had to change something to get his say in. Until one late night when the photostat ended up with the silo of the designers' arm on the edge. The client, upon reviewing, said "Just get rid of that hairy arm and we're good to go."

I've never done it myself. It has to be VERY blatent - in which case you look careless - or you risk being stuck with it. I stick to the only show what you are happy with concept, whether that's one idea or five.

When it comes to clients making suggestions that I disagree with, I always use justifiable lines like "but that would make it too similar to XYZ logo" or "if we put that much type on a page, it will be considerably less legible." I can be stubborn, but I've never turned a job away midstream because I didn't like where it was going. In the end, it is the client's say, and for some all the persuasion in the world won't change their mind. If they're wrong, it's their business that will suffer.

>If they're wrong, it's their business that will suffer.

Great way to look at it. If the client doesn't value the designers professional opinion, which they obviously must since they hired them, it's their loss. Or their shareholders which is even worse.

>Convincing a client to go with a stronger logo or type treatment or annual report concept is not, I think, courage. It's a skill for sure, but more of a business skill or perhaps a matter of professional aesthetic ethics.

The convincing part, true, is a skill. But I think the underlying message here, is that designers have the chance to alter the visual landscape of the world. If shit goes out, then things will look like shit.

The convincing part, true, is a skill. But I think the underlying message here, is that designers have the chance to alter the visual landscape of the world. If shit goes out, then things will look like shit.

The convincing part becomes courage if you refuse to do what the client wants if you do not believe it is the right thing to do. It is somewhat easy to have an opinion and a persuasive style or ability and quite another thing entirely to be able to walk away if your design ethics cannot be maintained.

Sam-- I meant creatively courageous, as opposed to politcally (think Milton's Ten Steps to Hell in that regard). I think creatively courageous takes more guts than politcally courageous. Politically courageous assumes you won't take a job because of a political belief. Creatively courageous assumes you have taken the job, but will also take a creative stance that must be upheld by the client.

I would like to interrupt this discussion to officially welcome Debbie as the newest Speak up author. We all know she took a beating from some of us, but managed to find the positive in all of it. Not an easy task considering some of the comments.

Anyway, I'm excited to have Debbie at Speak Up. And this will probably make Rebecca very happy — more women!

Sorry for the interruption, carry on.

If we're talking graphic design, which is typically *not* the product itself, then it's the responsibility of the marketing team.

If we're talking about design in general--in the commercial world, then it's the consumer's responsibility, as they have the voting power that trumps both the design firm and the manufacturer.

Great way to look at it. If the client doesn't value the designers professional opinion, which they obviously must since they hired them, it's their loss.

And your loss as well. If you're client is hurting business wise, I doubt that coming back to you is going to be their first priority.

It's a skill for sure, but more of a business skill

It absolutely is a business (or more precisely, sales) skill. Selling a solution is like selling anything...you need a good sales pitch and a good saleperson to throw the pitch.

That's one lesson I've learned in this industry. It doesn't matter HOW good/right/ideal your designs are for the client, if you or someone on your team can't sell it to the client, there's no point.

The single most valuable person in a design firm, IMHO is the pitch man/woman. The person that get's the client, and then sells them the solution. I've seen many that aren't very competant at that, and a handful that excel at it.

I recently got into grad school in the Netherlands at St. Joost Academie and was asking a Dutch designer I know here(in Montréal) about being a designer in the Netherlands. She told me that until she came here, she had NEVER had a creative conflict with a client. She told me a story about how she had no idea how to react when a client here told her that THEY were paying her so THEY had the final word. The way she explained it to me there just seems to be a greater understanding of the role of graphic design as a profession and a greater respect for those that are trained as graphic designers in the Netherlands(and I presume in Switzerland, Germany and France as well). How do we communicate that understanding here and where does it come from in (parts of) Europe? Perhaps a longer history/tradition in the profession?

I think of myself as a competent designer, but a horrible business person, much less a salesman. Am I doomed to a failed career here in North America? I guess we'll see in two years time if I can't get my work visa abroad.

The single most valuable person in a design firm, IMHO is the pitch man/woman.

I think you're right on this point. The first point of contact establishes the relationship and whether there is a mutual trust or just a vendor-client coexistance. Many times firms are so eager for the work that they promise the world. This roots the power firmly on the client side and leaves the design team zigging and zagging with the client's whims.

I was frustrated time and time again by my last employer for not asserting themselves as the hired experts. I sat in on a meeting where one of my bosses explained to the client that we would certainly offer our ideas, but that, in the end, we would do what they wanted. Disappointing.

The client pays, so the client wants to feel they made some decisions that affected the final outcome.

sooooooooo true.

I subscribe to what a few of you have mentioned. Throw bones along the way and let them feel like they are justifying their job to make decisions. If they sku into something that I think will fundamentally affect the outcome of the project, I usually make an educated ‘shpeel’ on the creative justification, mention that their stance is "subjective and if they want to make that call, it's their decision, but will it ultimately make a better product in the end?"

That usually build enough doubt in their mind that they stick to the plan.

hehehe (with an evil giggle)

She told me that until she came here, she had NEVER had a creative conflict with a client. She told me a story about how she had no idea how to react when a client here told her that THEY were paying her so THEY had the final word. The way she explained it to me there just seems to be a greater understanding of the role of graphic design as a profession and a greater respect for those that are trained as graphic designers in the Netherlands(and I presume in Switzerland, Germany and France as well).

My family is from Switzerland. I can't place why this is, I wonder too Kevin, but it is so true. Hopefully you will experience this and can shed better light on it. I tried to get work in Zurich but they are having just as much of an economic slump as we are.

Without question, it is an "American" issue. I work with quite a few Brits and they were amazed at the quantity of work that is shown to clients in this country. They were used to showing only one or two design options in the UK, preferably one--and that is it. I believe design gets more respect as a business disclipine in Europe. American clients somehow feel more "secure" expecting more design options--and they seem to get it. We allow this to happen.

In creating a better platform for me to be able to be heard and part of producing meaningful work I've adopted a 'get-out' clause for my terms and conditions. I usually have to detail it quite specifically for each project I work on, and discuss the scenarios in which it might be adopted.

But it exists to ensure that if we both, the client and myself do not feel that we are going to be successful in our endeavour or achieve the goals we defined - then we have the right to cancel the project on the terms specified in the 'get out clause'.

The terms of what we deem successful are worked out within my definition phase of working with the client. If we can't find a good enough or solid reason to do something, either we change the scope of work or call it quits.

It has helped to make us both clearly focus on what is the measurement of success for the project. Whether it is just to complete something, to develop something completely new or it will achieve the marketing goals set prior.

It gives me a platform to explain that if the project is successful for them, then it is also for me. It essentially strengthens my position on their team and makes us all responsive to achieving collective success over or own individual agendas.

I've used this clause twice, here in the US to show a client where it would not help our original goals to continue in the path we were. While in the UK there may have been a greater awareness of design and respect for specialist skills, it certainly is paid any more for it.

I think it goes down to how you begin to work with someone/a client. If you are unable to chose or attract the type of work you can do best, or the type of people you want to work with then it can be hard from the outset to feel you have the position to be informative or inspiring.

There's some design advice that I heard recently that has resonated with me, try to design for what the client needs rather than what they say they want - it's easier to give them exactly what they say, but your not adding much design value. I think your taking a smart risk, but it's still a risk that takes courage to do.

>What is the most courageous thing you have ever done

Man, once, in a meeting we were presenting some logo concepts right? We had three really strong options from which the client could choose, we felt really confident going in. So we get to the client's office and settle in, the usual weather chit-chat/icebreaker and we start showing the logos. We got no reaction from the first logo, then the second one... nothing. We figured third one would be the charm and then... nothing once again. Dead silence in the room, nobody knew what , or if to say anything. Then the client takes a deep breath and goes on this long winded speech on how we didn't listen to him and how much disrespect he has for our profession and... it was awful. I was not going to take it, so after he was done, I asked if I could speak, he nodded. I started by explaining what a big mistake he was making, that it was the worst decision he could make for his business and that he should be honored that I was working for him. After that I stood up, put one foot on the chair to help me get on the conference room table and stepped on the logos we had shown, just stomped the shit out of them, I think I might have even spit on them. As a capper, I unzipped my pants and pissed all over the table, then said something like "How you like 'em logos now?"

Then I woke up and went to work.

How do we communicate that understanding here and where does it come from in (parts of) Europe?

I'm not a sociologist, but I think this is really more of a social issue. Our country is different than Most of Europe (and other regions, as well) in terms of:

- We're pure capitalism. What matters is money. The bottom line. Hence, Wal-Marts, Home Depot's, Applebees, and Vinyl-clad McMansions. We love our Generica.

- Lack of broader life-values. Again, the dollar controls. We focus mainly on career, independant wealth, and assets. We don't tend to, overall, appreciate things like socialized services (no higher taxes!), more time with family, closer ties to extended family, less work (more vacation) etc.

- Lack of design skills. We don't really teach design to children. We have a few art classes that get lost early on. Music is volunatary. Problem solving is restricted to Math based classes. We really don't encourage independant thinking (Though that *is* changing in areas where magnate schools exist).

The problem is really more of our American way of life. Design (and I'm not just talking graphic design) and other 'perks' in life really aren't on the radar of most consumers.

It's rather sad.

Semi-relevant item lifted from DefineDesign.org today:

Grossman: Could "open source" solve some of this - in the computer industry at least?

Norman: You don't do good software design by committee. You do it best by having a dictator. From the user's point of view, you must have a coherent design philosophy, and I don't see how that could come about from open source software. The person who's done it best is Steve Jobs, and he's well-known for being a tyrant."

An interesting comment from Don Norman. Perhaps the easiest way to get better graphic design in the hands of clients is to get them out of the design-by-committee process.

When that does happen, I tend to force the client to be one person. I will only work with one contact person. That person then needs to deal with the design-by-committee issue, and, sure enough, they soon realize how much of a PITA it is and tend to say "OK, let's just get this done between the two of us". ;o)

Then I woke up and went to work.

That was pretty damn courageous....

I have a truism that I believe in -- If you give the client exactly what they ask for, they'll eventually fire you.

Bill Cahan also has a great truism -- If you and I always agree, then one of us is unneccessary.

I've always tried to involve the client where I think it makes the most sense to have them involved. Because in the end, it is their money that's being spent -- so they have a right to feel ownership of the end product. But that doesn't mean they need to full participate in its creation, nor does it mean that they can direct the designer's actions. A designer doesn't always have to agree with a client's request. It's our job to challenge, invent, and resolve.

I started out in the biz working at a bunch of firms that always presented multiple options. I never quite understood why that was expected or why the client was the most qualified to judge and choose a design. But then, I interviewed and met a well respected designer -- Kerry Leimer of Leimer Cross, and he changed my perspective completely. He said right from the outset that their firm didn't believe in multiples. They have a thorough process to involve the client, but in the end--their design team is the one who chooses and recommends the best solution for the project. The way he presented the logic of that thinking blew me away. They had been working this way for more than 15 years, for a number of nationally-known clients that come back time and time again. To me, it was the most courageous, ballsy approach I'd ever heard from a designer. Yes, it was a little cocky too -- but hey, it worked.

I changed as a designer after that epiphany, and quickly adopted and worked on a process to follow that thinking. It's been nearly 8 years since then, and I'd say 70% of the time, I follow the method with much success. I'm still working hard to make that 100%. I have no excuses as to why it shouldn't be that way.

No client is worth my design soul. But I also don't believe in leaving a client high and dry in the middle of a doomed project. I think it's irresponsible and unprofessional not to finish what you've agreed and have been paid to do. But hopefully, you will learn from past mistakes and can preempt similar patterns when you see it coming.

In one of the other threads, I told a story about telling a client to "Stop fucking around with the job, and let us do ours." It felt courageous (and good!) at the time, but in hindsight, it was unprofessional. I could've handled that much smarter.

Throwing tantrums, attitude, or justifying personal convictions with clients is juvenile -- and does little more than make you feel better. That's not courage, it's ego. Courage takes much more effort.

...and welcome Debbie. Awesome to have you.

T

I think it was David Carson who once said:

Design is a service but I'm not a servant.

>That was pretty damn courageous...

It was clear that it was a dream, right?

If they (the client) are wrong, it's their business that will suffer.

Is a designers business not hinged as well? More work for clients means more business for designers, but bad work on the clients behalf will unlimately kick everyone in the ass.

Craig frazier appears to keep a tight grasp on anything coming out of his studio. Everything from him looks good; he's either a tyrant or one helluva salesman. Or maybe both.

One of my underhanded and evil tactics as a freelancer was to put something blatently of kilter so the client would be able to find it, and tell me to fix it. The fix would retrun me to exactly the way I had intended it to look, and the client felt like they were involved. Win, win.

In my opinion, Griff, that's pretty dicey. What happens if they don't make the change? You've compromised your design and you're stuck with it. I'm glad this worked for you, but I would never risk it myself. I am of the world that you better give them what you like, what is good, the best that you got because if you don't you're the only one who can answer for it. Yes, they may make a change or have an opinion that is unsavory, but you didn't compromise anything. You did what they asked...you came up with some really good design solutions. You solved their problem the best way you knew how.

Subjectivity is part of the game. And so is selling, discussing and justifying your ideas/work. It's not my favorite part, but everyone has such a different eye, a different way of seeing the world and it's our duty to let those clients see the world through our "trained" eyes. We have to guide them. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But I get satisfaction in trying.

yeah Armin -- we know it was a wishful dream.

not even the mighty Me-hi-ca-no would urinate on a conference table in the middle of a meeting.

but wouldn't it be fun?

I am from Spain, although working now in LA, and also find peculiar —and sometimes annoying— the amount of options and choices it is custom to show the client during the development of a project. I guess it has to do with the differences in the culture of service. But let's not forget that it's their —the clients— business/product that we are talking about. How is design different from the architect that refuses to add a particular feature to the house you are building because he/she thinks YOUR home will look better without it?

And mind that I said look, because when we have this kinds of arguments with our clients they are more often than not a matter of aesthetics. The real, deeper needs of the client regarding a project —whether it is a house or a logo— admit very little discussion.

Being myself a stubborn designer I admit that in some cases those arguments are the result of me being unable to see the world from the client's perspective.

In other cases —and this is also a common mistake— the client has failed to choose the right firm or person for the job. I saw this often during my magazine days, (a photographer would be hired for a particular fresh/edgy/new style from his/her portfolio and then asked to shoot something different, usually more commercial, but without being clear about it. The result: nobody happy).

In this kind of situation is our fault accepting the job in the first place.

But if our arguments are solid, it's part of the job description being able to communicate them to the client and to convince them of the proper way to proceed. If we can't convince the client that a particular image is the right one to communicate an idea, how are we going to convince the prospective audience?

I think it was David Carson who once said

David Carson may only be quoted on this site with a slur attached. Urgh, no more Carson!

Welcome Deb. Its nice to have your input permanently.

To follow what Tan said, all but for the Cahan's silly but characteristic comment, I think there are two parts to what a client often asks for.

A client will often ask for an end deliverable - 'we need a logo, a web site or brochure'. And in turn I/we will sell them a process to get to that end.

Otherwise we can simply go, "Here-" handing them a logo," Here's a logo I made earlier".

I seek to work with clients who want the process from me, with an idea of the results that they want to achieve, if there's no clear idea of what the deliverables might be. If a client comes to be asking for a specific deliverable, then I will work carefully to understand why, and what for. The process allows us both to consider either the value or measurable result from the proposed deliverable/design and look at other possibilities for achieving that.

I think it takes just as much courage from a client to implement what might come out of this as it does to put yourself in a frame of mind to go beyond what you might have invested personally.

I don't think you can go through the process without involving the client. But we can consider that the client might not always know or understand what we did to finally come up with the visualization of our work.

I think we need to take a certain amount of responsibility for the work we do, consider it as if we were accountable for it long after we've handed it over and work with our clients to help them manage or build on it.

I don't ever advocate leaving a project half-way through but if the client is about to change the scope of work, or add elements to the process that you simply cannot work around, then you need to consider if you still can deliver something that you could be held accountable for.

I think respect for design in Europe comes from the history of Guilds and the role of arts and crafts in each European country. America was responsible for changing design practices through manufacturing and industrial organization developments in the 1920s. I think that might possibly change the way the two sides of the 'pond' consider design in life/society.

Sorry about the double post.

Glad to see others reading "No Logo"—good book

Question:

Are we a service industry? I hear that thrown around alot. Aren't all industries service industries? Most industries have customers/clients and they exist because they are providing a service or product...so why is it that the graphic design community is constantly reminded that "We are a service industry" and "The customer is always right" motto is part of that?

I had a situation just a couple days ago where the Marketing Director was explaining to me what he wanted in such detail that he was drawing layouts for me. As much as it irritated me, I decided that I would make an honest attempt at making his solution work in the interest of a long-term relationship, Well, after almost 4 hours of struggling with his half-baked idea I became utterly convinced of its folly. I then went back to the single solution that I had previously presented and made some adjustments based on his now-much-clearer goals.

First thing I did was show him why his idea wasn't working. He said, essentially, "Keep trying." I told him unequivocally no, explained why I wouldn't in detail and then showed him my revisions to the original ideas.

The project is now in production with further revisions to my original direction.

Sort of a happy ending, I guess. The whole process sucked out some of my enthusiasm for the project, however. I should also note that I am an in-house designer, so long-term relationship issues are pretty damn important.

Not exactly a Profile in Courage, but somehow the story seemed to fit...

> Are we a service industry?

Companies either manufature a widget that serves the consumer, or the service is the widget -- which categorizes the "service industry". Graphic design is more the latter -- the intangibility of "graphic design" is the widget that we sell and produce.

So no, not all companies are in the "service industry". And yes, we are a service industry.

But that's not a dirty word -- nor is "the customer is always right" something to live by. That bullshit probably came from a Wal-mart employee manual somewhere (Walmart. Always.). The customer is the one with the checkbook, but that doesn't mean they're always right. Nor should you be ashamed to work in a service-sector industry.

Glad to see others reading "No Logo"—good book

I'm probably going to No Logo hell for this comment, but I was more interested in reading the book to see what other marketing people were doing... I felt No Logo was pretty biased. I haven't had time to read Fast Food Nation, but from what I hear it's a bit better book all around.

> Craig frazier appears to keep a tight grasp on anything coming out of his studio. Everything from him looks good; he's either a tyrant or one helluva salesman. Or maybe both.

Felix -- Frazier doesn't have it all figured out either. Sure he's well known now for his illustration work -- but remember, he used to be a designer. A designer whose studio didn't quite thrive until he himself morphed into an illustrator. In the process, he let a bunch of people go, including long time employees and clients.

Courageous? Sure, but in a different way altogether.

And I'm sure he'd admit that he's failed as much as he's succeeded at design and the selling of design.

Anyone who claims to have it all figured out is lying.

If they (the client) are wrong, it's their business that will suffer.

Is a designers business not hinged as well? More work for clients means more business for designers, but bad work on the clients behalf will unlimately kick everyone in the ass.

Craig frazier appears to keep a tight grasp on anything coming out of his studio. Everything from him looks good; he's either a tyrant or one helluva salesman. Or maybe both.

Yes, in a client/designer relationship, all are affected by the final outcome. Leaving subjective aesthetics aside, let's look at economics:

Bad design gets produced >>> No one buys product/service/whatever >>> Client loses money >>> Client doesn't hire designer anymore

All lose. Maybe should've fought harder to get that other design chosen.

But the questions come in on whether it is worth jepoardizing the relationship with the client (by being courageous/stubborn/cocky) to get a particular design produced? We're all wrong sometimes, no matter how confident we are. As much as we pride ourselves in understanding our client's biz, they know it better than us, or at least they should.

And I can't vouch personally, but I've heard Frazier can be difficult to work with (from ex-coworkers who hired him to illustrate an AR). The project turned out great. Won awards. But it didn't sound like they'll be using him again.

The project turned out great. Won awards. But it didn't sound like they'll be using him again.

Why? If it turned out "great" they owe Craig an apology.

I don't ever advocate leaving a project half-way through but if the client is about to change the scope of work, or add elements to the process that you simply cannot work around, then you need to consider if you still can deliver something that you could be held accountable for.

Ahhhh...accountability. I was wondering if that would come up in this discussion. I think that being held accountable for our work is the most profound way to stimulate courage. But I think that accountability is more than ensuring good design goes to market for ecomomic reasons. It is being responsible to the practice of design as a discipline--not as a garnish to snare consumers or seduce an audience.

But the questions come in on whether it is worth jepoardizing the relationship with the client (by being courageous/stubborn/cocky) to get a particular design produced? We're all wrong sometimes, no matter how confident we are. As much as we pride ourselves in understanding our client's biz, they know it better than us, or at least they should.

Where does courage end and cockiness begin? Are they one and the same, or can we discern one from another?

I am not ashamed of working in a service industry nor do subscribe to "the customer is always right" philosophy (I think Disney started that) HOWEVER, there are alot of account people who have adopted that philosophy and we as creatives are forced to adhere to their demands at times.

So the designers can be caught in the middle. Trying to create good design, trying to keep an open-dialogue with the client, while the account exec says yes to impossible deadlines or changes that could be avoided. I have heard this argument before, from other designers and creatives. Do you think there needs to be an open dialogue with the account execs who, in this economic climate, are in the constant state of trying to keep the "customer" happy no matter what? Do they hinder the design process?

I am lucky enough to work with Account people who "get it". Who politely say, "let me talk to the designer and I'll get back to you". But others aren't as lucky...

The evils of account execs is a completely different discussion on its own. Most agencies employ the structure of account exec and designer as a system of checks and balance. But if you ask me, the relationship inevitably leads to internal conflict. I work with a number of account execs in my firm -- and the best way I can characterize the relationship is 'controlled civility mixed with mutual respect'. But it most certainly isn't 'love and harmony'.

> Where does courage end and cockiness begin?

Courage means doing something you've never done before. It means standing up for your belief or opinion. It means having the confidence to lead instead of follow. It means you're open minded, and expect the same from the client.

Cockiness means you don't value anything if it doesn't come from you. It means you think you know something is right, rather than what is best for the problem. It means you want to "win" rather than getting something solved.

We've all done a little of both I think.

The customer is always right.

That is true. Your job is simply to take your solution and make sure you 'sell it' based on their 'rightness'.

client: "The logo MUST be red!"

If the right solution is blue, then you simply need to sell the blue solution in a way that makes the client still feel right.

This goes back to the importance of a good salesperson.

Of course, 'the client is always right' does *not* mean you always say 'yes'. It's just that you need to understand that you need to sell the client what they think need. That may be what they literally asked for or it may be the complete opposite. Either way you need to sell it to the client and get them on board.

A good account exec (salesperson) will make sure that the graphic designer's vision and the client's vision, no matter how literally opposite they may be *are* the same thing in terms of how it is perceived by both sides.

you need to understand that you need to sell the client what they think need

Ugh. Should be: what they need. (Though, at times, if you need to pay the bills, then, yes, you need to sell them what they think they need. ;o)

Darrel, not intending to be antagonistic - but thats simply a silly thing to say about a client demanding a logo to be red. I've never had a client come to me and say, I need a blue/red or any color of anything without asking first what I thought.

I think we have to distinguish what is on offer here. A final product and the services rendered to come to the decision on which is the right product. Some designers go away and produce their magic - others work with the client to produce magic.

But I think that accountability is more than ensuring good design goes to market for ecomomic reasons. It is being responsible to the practice of design as a discipline--not as a garnish to snare consumers or seduce an audience.

I absolutely agree and if we could do a combination of providing value-based pricing to our clients as well as having some sort of accreditation for providing a standard of service that is recognized by national or international bodies of design then we might find it easier to convince certain types of clients of our insights. But this is difficult when the perceived value or skill level of design is seen as what it only takes for someone learn photoshop or some other desktop software.

We may produce that 'blue logo' for a client but give them no idea what it means to have a blue logo or even the strategy behind behaving like a blue logo company. Thus our design is limited in its total impact. We have to learn how to communicate to our prospective clients that design can start from when the original seeds for the project are being sown. Then it is easier for us to explain the virtues of a blue logo over a red one and not have to do what Armin did in his dream.

> I've never had a client come to me and say, I need a blue/red or any color of anything without asking first what I thought.

Damien -- I know Darrel is simplifying here, but I've had clients come to me asking for specific elements in a logo. It may not be a color, but they'll ask for a 'swoosh', or a scripty type, or some other trite element. Eventually, they'll ask me what I think about it.

I'm sure this sounds familiar. Very rarely will I ever get a client that gives me Carte Blanche. Every client comes in with preconceived expectations and design preferences.

And yes, you take their request, throw it into the bin, and later see if it has any value to the project. Most of the time, it won't.

> We have to learn how to communicate to our prospective clients that design can start from when the original seeds for the project are being sown.

I agree. I've found that the key to success is this: when the client asks for a specific element or look, use that step to show all of the other factors involved. Show them all the competitor's logos that are red, or swooshes, or scripty. Educate and involve them at that point -- letting them know that they're heard, but not necessarily prudent. Analyze their preferences, and work with them to compare it against the project objectives. Find out if they hate blue, or like b/w photos, or hate small type, etc. Take their limited information, and expand it even more -- showing them that as a designer, you see a hundred times more red logos than they do.

If this step is done before before the design phase -- then there's no need to sell or justify why their logo should or should not be red. It'll already be settled.

Tan - absolutely, and you're right about Darrel's comment. I just never 'had it that simple before'.

I think that also a logo is never just a logo - its a system and often an integrated system. And perhaps we need organizations to consider design in terms of systems and that changing something 'here' does have an effect something 'over there'.

True Damien -- clients never see a logo as a system. Usually, by the time a client talks to a designer -- they think that they have everything figured out already, and the design execution is just a tedious step they have to manage.

You know what? I sound a little too cynical in this thread.

Not all of our clients are borish morons. I've been privileged to have worked with some amazing clients too. And I'll admit that in more than one occasion, a client's pushback or unreasonable demand has led to some of my best work.

Swallowing your ego and really listening to the client once in a while takes lots of courage too.

The project turned out great. Won awards. But it didn't sound like they'll be using him again.

Why? If it turned out "great" they owe Craig an apology.

I don't know the full details, because I wasn't directly involved. It may be an oversimplification, but what I heard was he was not open to suggestions and reluctant to make any changes to his ideas. Which meant the client did not enjoy working with him. Whether the project turned out better for it, or whether it ended up closer to his or the art director's vision, I can't say.

My point is we all have to make a decision in situations like this - which is more important: our vision for the project or the client relationship. My answer to this varies depending on the situation. We just have to accept that if we ruffle a few feathers to get the better project out, we risk affecting the client relationship. Because when a client goes to hire a designer (or a designer to hire an illustrator) more is involved than just the ability to produce a great project, personality can play a big role.

One time I did a poster and program for a small theater company, and the roommate of one of the actors called me a few weeks later to see whether I'd be interested in redesigning some of the information sheets for the law firm she worked for. I sent her some more appropriate samples of my work, and she sent me the existing info sheets. Each of them focused on a particular area of law and how well the firm had served its clients.

Everything was fine, if boring, until I got to a sheet that talked about how well the firm had defended a company which freely admitted wrongdoing in a sexual-harassment suit. The firm bragged about its ability to reduce damages awarded to the plaintiff, diverting attention to what looked like a weak attempt at "sensitivity training" for the company.

When I spoke to the woman, I brought up my concerns, giving her the opportunity to show me how I had misunderstood something, that really it was a good solution, not just getting a company a little more slack. Instead, she got incredibly defensive and told me haughtily that I'd never be 100% happy with any client I worked for. Yes, I responded, but I'd settle for 80% happy, and I turned down the job.

Can I turn this question back on Debbie? I'm curious to what extent you or Sterling have been able to really bring this courageousness to the table? Is there too much money on the table to risk standing up for what's right?

It takes real balls (courage) to stand up for what is right. And it also takes a lot of self-confidence in knowing that what you are standing up for is indeed objectively the right stance. I have stood up for things that I have felt proud of and walked away from opportunities that I felt were unethical/unhealthy/design-compromised and have had two long-term reactions. To wit:

One: Pride that I did what I did (turned down a job, challenged or walked away from an impossible client, stood up to tough colleagues, etc)

Two: Chagrin that I gave up an opportunity that I ultimately regretted (see above, different circumstances)

Courage is an extraordinary word. I asked this in this thread before: what is courage, what is cocky? You might think you are being one way when in retrospect you realize that arrogance or insecurity actually played as big a role in your behavior as your intended “courage.” You just might not have recognized it at the time.

Freedom is often just another word for nothing left to lose, right? Design aesthetics aside (only because they tend to be subjective, and if you don’t agree, just read today’s thread on “Good/Bad Consumer Brands”) I find that people (including me, since this was asked of me personally) often make decisions about what they can stand up for based on what they are standing on. It may seem arbitrary, but I think that if you feel confident about your business, confident about your talent/abilities and confident about your point-of-view, it is easier to stand up for what you believe in, full stop. Diminish anyone of those on any given day for any number of reasons (especially if you are broke), and I think if we are really, really honest with ourselves, we might find that perceptions, beliefs and actions may vary.

But since you asked: I’d love to say that I am consistently courageous, infinitely ballsy, incredibly dead-on with my business decisions and always right about my design aesthetics. But I would be outright lying. What I can tell you (and I am not being defeatist here, Mr. Sockwell—let’s not go there...) is that I try. I try to act out of courage as opposed to fear. But I still make a lot of mistakes, have some regrets and wish I’d done a few things differently. But I am still trying and I still (and will always) want to be right ; )

My favorite approach to this is "you're paying me too much for [fill in the blank]."

You're paying me too much to let you go ahead with that photo/illustration/typeface/logo. In other words, you're paying me too much for me not to give you my best work.

It's great in that it challenges them and helps them remember why they hired you.

If your client is asking for crap, it's your responsibility to tell them so. Doing that gracefully is the toughest part.

No, I won't do that job.

A couple of months ago, a new, prospective client asked me to create a logo for his company. He said he was particularly drawn to the graphics on the Matrix Reloaded web site. He forwarded the font files and a mock-up of what he wanted. After I received his files, and checked the Matrix web site, I was annoyed to find that he wanted exactly what appeared on the site. I called him back and explained (in more professional language) that I didn't feel comfortable creating a logo that was a clear rip-off of someone else's design. I said it wasn't a good idea for my business or his. He understood my concerns and took his business elsewhere. Phew!

Who's responsibility is it . . .

Both of us (designer and client) have a responsibility to ensure good design reaches the consumer. In the above example, is it my responsibility to keep that logo from being created? Not solely. I feel I did what I could: I explained why it was wrong and why I wouldn't participate. I stopped the logo from being created by not doing it, and hopefully planted a strong doubt in the client's mind to have someone else do it. Now, it's up to that client to take the responsibility.

First off, I don't see where the "gotta show em a whole lotta stuff" rule came from. If you listen to your client's needs and go back to your drawing board [never "draw" with them] then you design a solution that truly works. Period. If you have a legitamate second or third, fine. But most of the time I find it to be beating a dead horse for the sake of presenting more than one idea—which is dangerous. I can honestly say when I've been forced to present more, the client usually picks my first idea. And this is 90% true of logos, too.

Often, when a client makes comments I simply ask them what THEY perceive to be working/not working and then I reluctantly go back to the drawing board to summize their issues. Sometimes they are right when something isn't working, but they don't know how to tell me. If they knew how to do it then they wouldn't need me.

This doesn't mean that because they said to make the logo bigger I do. They are simply saying "I don't see my logo." Which is often a simple white space issue. I tell them, don't tell me WHAT to do, tell me what you don't like and I will solve it in a way that is best for the design and their end product.

I also think that just because firm XYZ presented twenty half-assed concepts doesn't mean I should too. Once one designer does 50 comps the client expects it from other's because So-And-So did it that way. And going along with this, because the client requested it, is why in America we as designers are getting what "we" deserve. NO ONE stands up for anything anymore out of fear of the almighty dollar.

I've stood up many, many times. I am now known as "difficult" and can't get a real job to save my life. But I sleep well at night. And I work with clients worth working for. Hard on the wallet, but good on me mentally.

> First off, I don't see where the "gotta show em a whole lotta stuff" rule came from.

Jamie -- you'll probably be interested in reading this thread about multiples.

I hear ya.