Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
A Service or Product?

In nearly every discussion of design and its effect on business and society, there’s a tendency to refer to designers (and advertising agencies) as being in the “service industry,” because ostensibly, designers provide a service to commercial enterprises or social organizations or whoever happens to require what we do. It’s as if we don’t really think about it anymore, we just assume that we provide services to paying clients—and naturally, every now and then someone makes a joke about how designers are basically hookers, whoring themselves out to the highest bidder and so forth.

I don’t get it.

In addition to the designer’s everlasting quest for validation and appreciation, there is also the designer’s never-ending complaints about feeling marginalized or misunderstood by their clients and the world in general. So to combat that relevant problem, we talk about educating the client, we discuss methods of making people in general understand our “service” and why its worthwhile. Sometimes there’s more grumbling about it than other times but I’d argue that its an on-going issue that we haven’t quite figured out how to correct, and rather than justify the situation by claiming that “people just don’t understand what we do,” the responsibility falls on designers entirely. And the problem stems from how we think about what we do, and how we describe the role we play.

Design isn’t a service at all, rather, its more like manufacturing—we do, after all, depend on making things and executing ethereal ideas, bringing abstract messages to life through books, posters, ads, mailers, objects, web sites, and whatever else might be relevant to the challenge we’re given. Process is important, process is good, process can determine the outcome of the final product, but it ultimately comes down to what you DO and what you CREATE. There’s no middle ground here, the most complex and dynamic “process” in the world doesn’t amount to jack squat unless the end result is brilliantly produced. Obviously we all realize this but we’re not doing much good for the field by thinking about it in illogical terms.

Another danger of thinking about design as being a service is that it puts far too much power into the hands of those who know nothing about it—yes, there are still clients who make bizarre color choices and insist on stupid typefaces and the like, we all deal with this frequently. In actual service industries, such as hotels or dining, the “client” traditionally runs the show and we judge good service by how responsive those serving us are, how well they listen to what we want or need. I find that most design firms and advertising agencies operate in this fashion too, excusing the foolish decisions a client might demand by saying “they’re paying for it.” Yes, yes indeed they are, but they’re not paying for an afternoon at the local spa or salon, they’re paying for a product that they don’t understand how to make. A product that services them only in the sense that it provides beneficial results. That’s it.

So forget the notion that we’re “serving” anyone…what we make, what we design should accomplish the objectives set out by the organization soliciting the work. That’s real service. And I’m confident that if people looked at design and advertising as a product, we’d get a lot more respect.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
PUBLISHED ON Jun.30.2004 BY bradley
Tim Lapetino’s comment is:

I can't really agree with this completely, Bradley.

Sure, as designers, we don't want to become the "customer is always right" producers, where we execute unwise or ill-informed ideas. And so we're not merely here to "please the client".

But at the same time, we're *not* just churning out objects, because that lessens and devalues our contributions as designers. If clients think that we are little vending machines, where they can push a button marked "brochure" or "logo", and get some little *product*, we've dropped the ball again.

Designers have an insight, a skillset, a methodology--Bradley, you called it a process. Anyone can put together a "product" or thing for a client. But we're paid to create (creative!) solutions to problems, use our visual communication skills to answer a client's needs, even if they don't realize exactly what they are. This process, this high-level clear thinking about communicating emotionally, rationally, specifically to an audience--this is a major thing that makes us so valuable as designers.

So, maybe we're somewhere in the middle--we're providing a service (our creative process leading to design solutions) as well as a product (whatever actual physical object results from our creative methods). But it's got to be a balance, b/c we can get pigeonholed by going too far either way--as Bradley mentioned, making us "yes (wo)men" to our clients, or just becoming little designer factories.

I found a quote (lost the attribution, though) recently that helps me keep this in balance in my mind. Someone said, "Satisfy the unexpressed wish." And that makes sense--because it's a recognition that my job is to provide the client with *something* that meets his/her *felt* needs (produce a product), but also speaks to the *actual* needs (service) that I discover in my graphic design wisdom. That's the balance I try to strike.

On Jun.30.2004 at 09:53 AM
Feluxe Socksmell’s comment is:

I’m confident that if people looked at design and advertising as a product, we’d get a lot more respect.

depends on if your product is any good. good earns respect... and a lot of graphic design out there just isnt all that good.

On Jun.30.2004 at 09:59 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

I don't really get this either. We're a service that produces product. I'm not sure how thinking product vs. service equates to respect or a lack thereof.

As for the 'putting too much power' comment, that has more to do with project and client management than whether you see yourself as a service or product. The best advice I've gotten in terms of looking at design projects is to fully embrace the fact that the client *is* always right. If at anytime you feel the client is wrong, then something went wrong with the project.

If the client is wrong and is insisting on a pink background, then somewhere along the way you failed to properly sell them the right answer of the blue background.

If the client is absolutely a mess and dictating everything, then you goofed up by taking on this client to begin with. ;o)

On Jun.30.2004 at 10:29 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> I found a quote (lost the attribution, though)

From HOW, August 2004. Last page, Design Sign Off. Rick Landesberg.

I have mixed feelings about this whole product/service issue. I wrote about it not long ago too. It's tough because in the end you are objectively providing a product that is tangible, viewable, judgeable and measurable (even if just literally). Putting a price on a logo is easier than putting a price on the creative process that leads to the logo. Most clients are not willing to pay for the latter. Or even put up with it.

I'd say that a nice case scenario is where you can charge for the creative process in the back end but sell the client on the product in the front end. A better scenario is making the client understand why they are being charged for a process, not a product, and have them actually write you a check under that argument.

I'm not sure if selling design as a product is the best idea. But I don't think it's the worst either. Same applies for selling it as a service.

I think I have mentioned 37 Signals approach before, scroll down to "Typical Design Engagements". Now, this is a no bull shit approach (and bull shit is something we do a lot when selling design… yes, don't kid yourselves): you pay me at least $7,500 and I'll refine your web site. It's easy. Instead of saying: you pay me at least $7,500 and I'll redefine your web site to meet and exceed your customer demands in this crowded economy and marketplace and through are proprietary process which involves brain storming, ideation sessions and thorough research we will be able to not only refine your web site but redefine and extend your brand. Now, who would you give your $7,500 to?

I'm not disagreeing with anyone who puts big emphasis on their process when selling design, but how effective is it? It's a rhetoric question. I know it can be effective.

On Jun.30.2004 at 10:41 AM
justin m’s comment is:

Graphic design is a service industry. Graphic designers provide a service that leads to a finished product. We are more consultants in a traditional sense than anything else. People come to us with an idea or problem that requires an expert solution and help them to find that ideal solution.

At times we do make the final product such as a logo, web site or PDF brochure but most of the time we do not as in the case of a book or a printed material material. I look at graphic designers as service providers/consultants because of this.

Traditional consultants provide answers and solutions to questions asked by clients. How can we minimize overtime while keeping the same level of current output? or Who is not vital to the organization? The consultant goes off, does a bunch of research and writing, then comes back with the solution they see fit for the question asked. Once they provide their answer it is up to the company to make the decision whether or not to implement the solution provided.

The same happens in graphic design. We need a mailer that explains A, B, C and D. or We need a manual for product X. We go off with the inormation we are given, do some more research and then design a solution that satisfies the client's needs. It is still up to the client to decide whether or not to implement the design that is presented to them. If it is printed material I would venture a guess that most graphic designers don't print the final product off at their office, unless of course they work for a printer.

We may make suggestions on where to print it, what paper to use, the size, etc but ultimately we do not actually make the final product. We provide the answers on the what, where, when, why, who, and how.

Graphic designers are closer to plumbers, electricians, and doctors than a manfacturer or cabinet maker which always produce a final product for their client.

So forget the notion that we’re “serving” anyone…what we make, what we design should accomplish the objectives set out by the organization soliciting the work. That’s real service. And I’m confident that if people looked at design and advertising as a product, we’d get a lot more respect.

I agree with this in that our product is our service. That is what we must help people outside the profession understand and respect. We go to school to learn how to provide that service in the best possible way and that is how must educate people.

On Jun.30.2004 at 11:41 AM
Tom’s comment is:

Sometimes I'll stop by SpeakUp during a crazy day and read some new post and it really refreshes my mind. What a great thought Bradley. I mean, think about it, who was more service oriented(the customer is always right) Paul Rand or Futurebrand?

Who cares if it is what's been drilled into our head for 50 years, or if there is a lot of bad products called graphic design. Let's compare the Oldsmobile process to the Mercedes process. I prefer the service a Mercedes provides. Is this subjective and contextual, perhaps but there is nothing like "orbiting the hairball" to see an alternative solution.

On Jun.30.2004 at 02:19 PM
Armin’s comment is:

> who was more service oriented(the customer is always right) Paul Rand or Futurebrand?

Tom, Rand was quite the crank from what I have read and heard. I'm sure there are many lovely (men and women) account executives at Futurebrand who provide better "customer service" than Rand.

On Jun.30.2004 at 02:40 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

Graphic design is a service industry.Anyone who thinks the point of graphic design is produce objects is a serious paper fetishist who should not be allowed near a Hallmark store or a bin full of shopping bags without supervision. Anyone who thinks “service industry” means “doing whatever the customer says” (or, for that matter, anyone who thinks “the customer is always right” means that a business should redefine itself on the whim of anyone with change in his pocket) knows little enough about business that s/he would be a poor choice for a provider of graphic design services.

On Jun.30.2004 at 03:08 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

Sorry. Make that “Graphic design is a service industry. Anyone who thinks the point of graphic design is to produce objects. . .”

On Jun.30.2004 at 03:11 PM
Feluxe Socksmell’s comment is:

better "customer service" than Rand.

Arm, ple re-read Rand's thoughts on design. there is a strong argument for him being a corporate (service) suck-up when you think about some of the allegations- one of which is that the majority of graphic designers are wrong and the majority of clients are right (not quote but thats the jist).

On Jun.30.2004 at 03:14 PM
Armin’s comment is:

I will mister Socksmell.

On Jun.30.2004 at 03:45 PM
Mike Purdy’s comment is:

Graphic design is a service, I've always been pretty sure of that, but understand the conundrum.

I once tried to explain to someone that ABC had paid a lot of money for the ABC logo. They answered with "Someone paid that much for a circle and three letters?"

I replied, "No, they paid for the process of creating it. Rand went through dozens of sketches and tests, making sure it would look good on, letterhead, on tv, on a truck driving down the road and sixty mph, etc."

In that sense (probably an idealistic sense), graphic design is a service. Unfortunatly people don't see you sketching, or testing, or printing it out at a quarter inch high to make sure it remains readable. They only see the circle and three letters, so it's easy for them to think you sell logos.

On Jun.30.2004 at 03:50 PM
sheepstealer’s comment is:

We start our careers as service providers. Only after years of experience and success do we move into the world of providing a product.

A creative director who I respect greatly said, “If the client had the time to do this project themselves, would they still come to you?” If the answer is no then you are providing them with a service—the service of your hours to lessen the number of hours they have to spend.

If the answer is yes, they would still come to you regardless of their workload then you are providing a product. The product of ideas. Or the product of results.

Think of the people out there who provide such a product. There are clients who would come to a Pentagram or a Cahan because they know that the intangibles delivered are not available elsewhere. Especially not in the client's office, no matter how much time they have to spend on the project.

So what productizes design? Is it reputation? Is it results? is it great ideas?

I once heard another brilliant designer say (I can’t remember who) that the idea costs $50,000. The time it takes us to produce it is free.

But my experience says that I have to spend a lot of time being the service provider if I'm going to build the track record of success and the arsenal of great design samples. Only then will clients come to me to request the product I have to sell.

On Jun.30.2004 at 04:21 PM
Tom’s comment is:

Armin - that's my point. The proliferation of the brand conglomerates(FutureBrand) sell the process, i.e. the service vs.(maybe Rand is the wrong example) an extremely talented designer who is known for his/her results.

The final piece(logo, brochure, etc.) is not the product, the results are the product.

On Jun.30.2004 at 05:22 PM
Patrick C’s comment is:

Graphic design is a service industry. It is absolutely not a product industry. But it does get messy at some points.

Companies that create content management systems and sell that code are providing a software product that is plugged into a web site (which is a service). But it is the graphic designer that provides the service of designing the web site not the product of the content management system.

Web sites are intangible, thus they are not products.

The problem you make when you try to move graphic design from service industry to product industry is that you remove the very elements that make graphic design graphic design. You have to remove, for lack of a better term, the customization and personal attention.

What I really irritates me about designers who complain about not being respected etc. is that they come across as if this is the only industry in which this happens. Here's the news: it happens in every fucking service industry that exists. ALL THE TIME!

We are having a new War Museum built here in Ottawa, designed by world famous architect Raymond Moriyama. During the design phase a veteran's group was able alter some aspects of the design because they didn't agree with what Moriyama had decided. Do you think these veterans know shit about architecture?? Of course not. But they got their way. Imagine what Moriyama thought of that.

I don't believe that there exists a product in graphic design that can be sold as such.

On Jun.30.2004 at 05:32 PM
Matt Waggner’s comment is:

I think Gunnar hit the nail on the head: when do you say "no" to a client? If the answer is "never," then your abilities are a product, and you cheapen the profession through your actions and flimsy ethos.

Bradley—the "problem" with design since the Macintosh (not that I had any part of it before, mind you!) is that clients aren't paying for a product they can't make themselves: "graphic design" has been part of many secretaries' job descriptions for over a decade. (I talked with my mom today, who said she just found a "cool aquatic font" for the cover of this booklet she made for her boss.) You can't stop progress, or so the saying goes.

At the same time, I dig your description of graphic design as manufacturing: as a barely closeted lefty socialist, I feel I should mention that this mindset very much influenced the Russian Constructivists, and through them the Bauhaus. The part they had which you didn't describe was a social agenda, in their case furthering the revolution and the Communist project, in yours ... ? Up to you... I think it's great great great to write manifestoes for professional practice...

Graphic designers don't seem to have a huge, codified agenda these days, in this micro-community or any other, but I think there's a real split between firms that offer an agenda and firms that offer "professional results" and "broad experience."

On Jun.30.2004 at 10:42 PM
jb’s comment is:

The mix of responses here suggests to me that graphic design is in a state of flux between the two. I would argue that most signs point to a migration of design from a product-oriented field to a service oriented one. What follows is a list of some ideas that popped into my head for each category...I am weighted towards service-oriented ideas for now b/c I am too tired to think any harder...

Product Oriented Ideas:

- Designers are often characterized (willingly or not) by specific titles (user interface designer, book designer, etc) that tie them to the products they make.

Service Oriented ideas:

- Designers often refer to those who benefit from our services as "clients," rather than "customers"...we attempt to build lasting relationships, rather than shipping of a project (product) and closing the door.

- Designers are now talking more about the needs of users, clients, etc. So while we are creating a product, it is the job of design both to innovate, but also to make existing products more easy/pleasant/useful. Often the role of producing the product is handled by the printer, programmer, manufacturer, etc.

- The idea of "experience design" that has been an active AIGA discussion topic in the past few years hints at a possible avenue of extending design past its product-centeredness and towards a more service-oriented field, where designers are aware of their simultaneous roles as the shapers + responders to social and cultural practices and artifacts. The idea that designers do not only affect the design of the product (signage for instance), but that we have an affect on the entire experience that a person has in the place where that signage exists implies more of a service or cunsultant role for design.

Feel free to add/subtract/divide/multiply to this list...

On Jun.30.2004 at 11:21 PM
Tan’s comment is:

We're a service industry.

But product industries pay more. Much more. And they tend to have fewer, bitchy clients.

It's also easier to claim ownership of a proprietary product than a service. So lots of design firms are "product-izing" their service, processes, and deliverables. That's why you see freaking "TM"'s and "SM"'s everywhere — branding, web development, etc.

Simple startup meetings become "Discovery Pads�," online surveys become "Quantitative WebQueries� (QWQs)" and other productized, bullshit things like that.

Product-ization at your service.

A small portion of design productization does truly make sense. But the vast majority of it is marketing gobblygook that's invented for the sake of clients.

On Jul.01.2004 at 12:36 AM
Steve Mock’s comment is:

I'm working on a college composition textbook. Working very closely with the authors to integrate the design and visuals into the philosophy of the text. In effect, I feel I am helping to write the book. (If ever there were a design opportunity to make a difference = textbooks. Four color? What? Design? What?)

We had to work very hard to convince this megapublisher that design matters. Especially now. (Have you seen textbooks lately? They're like... all text. ;))

This is an extremely refreshing break from the marketing-advertising work and it's been a gas. And it's good work, if I may say.

My questions are: Is this a service or a product? What are other types of design work that are NOT marketing-advertising-turd polishing endeavors? What if you are designing something to be sold as stock?

As this business gets rendered down to nothing more than price and service, the only thing of value we have in the end is creative product.

On Jul.01.2004 at 08:02 AM
John Lee’s comment is:

Creativity aside, design is a business. You are paying me for my craft, my expertise, my taste, and ultimately, my time.

On Jul.01.2004 at 08:45 PM
Rob’s comment is:

I've personally never liked to use the word 'service' with my clients, whether they were internal or external. Instead I've positioned myself as a 'partner.'

My job, is to work with a client to solve a problem. I cannot solve this problem without their insight and input, which makes the work relationship-based and most simply put, a partnership. This may be way too simplistic, or I could just be a semantic snob, but I just think a partner is more valued than a service provider.

And design should be highly valued.

On Jul.01.2004 at 09:07 PM
Tom Dolan’s comment is:

Design is a service. Architecture is a service. Sure there are deliverables, and the quality of the construction drawings that the architect provides to the contractor are important, but one does not pay an architect for their drawings, they pay for his design. The contractor actually 'delivers' the building, just as the printer often delivers the designer's work. We then often become job administrators and overseers — another service.

Certainly there are issues of business management and 'respect' attached to this, but I fundamentally disagree with Brady's assertion that customers think a product is worth more — you can buy a logo on eBay for $39 — good luck competing in that marketplace.

On Jul.02.2004 at 09:15 AM
george’s comment is:

design is a service industry. justin m was right, imho, in that we are consultants who get hired to go through a process with the client (sometimes a long and suffering process! hahaha), the end result of which is some graphical thing that we've produced. if you separate that thing from the process that made it, then you could say that we are in a product industry...but then you'd also be cheapening design a lot more than you would by calling us whores. client involvement in the process...the process that is in essence the service that we provide the client, is what makes our work truly valuable. it's the difference between designing things that just look cool and designing things that actually serve a purpose.

but then I read this line in the original post over again -

they're paying for a product that they don't understand how to make.

and it got me thinking about graphic design in relation to more "functional" product design, like automobiles. you could beg all you wanted and pay as much money as you wanted, but Mercedes still wouldn't sell you an SLR that didn't run. so should we treat design more like a functional product that we must hold up to certain standards? I tink we should, but to suggest that clients (or consumers) don't understand any part of how to make design is to overestimate what we do, creating a smoke screen to protect a set of skills that we don't feel are valuable enough to the world. (when are we going to collectively get our self esteem in order here??) I understand a lot about how cars work, and I still have the respect for auto manufacturers (and designers) to pay lots of money for their creations. I'd venture to say that some of the best clients understand quite a bit about design and still hire designers to build their communications materials.

On Jul.02.2004 at 10:48 AM
Frank Lin’s comment is:

Hmmm...What an interesting dicussion!

To me, the Service vs. Product debate isn't a case

of choosing either one or another.

Let me bring up a comparison with the subject of

Light energy.

Light energy acts like a wave yet this is accurate

for about 80% of the time. Another concept is used

to explain other properties...

The point I am trying to make is: Graphic Design is

a hybrid of both service and product.

The fact that there are hack services that offer

logo and page templates, proves that design is

tangible hence a product.

Yet the customization and the creative process that

goes into producing a very specific or personable

design is something within the realm of service;

such as how a car dealer can customize your car or

a tailor can adjust the length of your jeans...

But to me, the reason why design isn't valued by

the average person, ISN'T related to any of this at


With all things visual, people tend to lump design

into the realm of illustration.

They look at it from a standpoint of technical

skill and craft.

-"Look at how much detail is in it!"

-"Look how real it looks, it must have taken


It also doesn't help that many illustrators say

they are designers, when in actuality, they are


There are illustrators that CAN design well too,

but I'm not talking bout them.

My Dad can look at the IBM logo and say, it looks

like a Plain Jane, or that he could design it


He fails to understand the process...

But so does everybody. Perhaps it is inherent

for people to admire technicality over intellect.

My Dad doesn't know that the mark of IBM was

designed to be simple and memorable, to identify

not beautify.

I think the question at hand is: Do designers

need to re-evaluate the visual vocabulary we

use? Do we need to look back to the 1930s when

many logotypes were essentially illustrative?

Can we then get respect?

Will my Dad then not think he can do it himself?

WILL we then get respect?

p.s. Or if we do a typographic mark, raise the

bar>> make it much more witty, with double or

tripple puns?

Either way, not that it's right but: people like

to see things and say "WOW".

On Jul.02.2004 at 01:44 PM
Bradley’s comment is:

Yeah, I still think we're creating a product, personally. You've got a bunch of different people in one setting (a firm, agency, whatever) that all do different things that ultimately contribute to the creation of SOMETHING. Sure, I can see that design is a service...in the same way that dealing with a BMW dealer or something like that is akin to a service. Our product is the service. I for one don't want to be perceived as a service provider...that just opens the door to all sorts of abuse that isn't really necessary. But I guess the traditional perspective will remain the same...

On Jul.03.2004 at 03:27 AM
Chris Rugen’s comment is:

It seems that, at some point in the discussion, the words "process" and "service" got mixed up. Because of this, the idea that designers don't provide a service, but provide a product got its foothold.

In the design situations relevant to this discussion (which is about client respect), I serve the client. We all do, with varying degrees of success. 'To serve' means 'to work for'. The only reason the word 'service' sounds pejorative is because of its association with servitude and servants. That's because that's what they do. It's all they do. They serve in the generic sense. We are designers. We design. We design for the client, for whom we work. That's got nothing to do with process. I agree completely that most clients don't care about the process, but that doesn't mean they want a logo or a website that wasn't thought through.

Also, saying things like "our product is the service" is a semantic game. In that sense, everyone provides a product and the discussion becomes pointless. The important point is that we engage in an activity for the client. The activity yields a result. Sometimes the result is advice, or a logo, or an identity, or a piece of collateral, or a website. But it's a end result, the accompanying product, that comes with the service.

The client doesn't pay me for my 'process' or my 'product' (regardless of what they believe before speaking with me), they pay me for my work, which yields a product. What the client wants from me is not what they pay me for. If the client doesn't like the logo and decides to end the relationship, I still get paid for my work. That's the arrangement. If they don't understand that, then the relationship is ill-defined. They pay me to design for them, and I do it. That's a service.

But whether or not you buy this argument, I believe that a product-oriented view of design devalues what we do, reinforces stereotypes concerning creative professionals, and puts us in a prime position for a good screwing over. Do I like this mentality? Not necessarily. I put a lot of my time and effort into the end result and the end result becomes important to me. But that's not what I get paid for in a business arrangement, which is what design is most of the time.

Product-oriented thinking leads to a spec-work mentality, which I am not in favor of as a means of functioning professionally. It also leads people to believe that what we do is black magic, creative mumbo-jumbo that is unimportant, that we need to be 'controlled' by them in order to get what they want. This leads to the 'do this, do that' mentality. They become tired of our process (seeing it as a quirky journey that must be endured on the way to The Product). It creates a wall between the client and the designer, which is exactly the opposite of what should happen. Design is give and take. It's about exploration, not dictation. In the relationship, the client brings needs, resources, and knowledge, and the designer brings skills, resources, and knowledge. Good design work capitalizes on all of these.

Someone without auto-repair knowledge wouldn't lean over their mechanic's shoulder and tell them to fix their car's brakes differently, because they don't know how, and they understand the importance of expertise (because of the stakes involved). They pay for their knowledge and authority (particularly if they trust them). They pay the mechanics because they can do things they can't. The idea that the end result is The Product means that the client pays for the end result. This encourages the client to clam up until the end, where they can assess The Product'. This also creates a mentality where payment can be withheld for a 'bad' product that suffered because the client believes that the work and process aren't important. If the designers behave ethically and professionally, they should be paid for their work. End of story. In a service situation, the contract is entered before work is done. In a product situation, the contract is entered upon purchase (after the work is done).

I understand the perspective being presented, about how the client doesn't care about this or that and just wants something nice. That's happened to all of us, I'm sure. However, I very strongly believe that when they look at the final product, they are judging one outcome, not an absolute. If they don't like it, it can be changed. The design work is the key to the arrangement. I also very strongly believe that a client's apathy about the vagaries of typeface choice, and the 10-minute explanation of a logo, and the crazy design process info graphics doesn't mean they don't care if you're a good designer. It just means the speaker isn't communicating properly, or they want something they can't have: good design without the resources for good work.

As bradley said, "It ultimately comes down to what you DO and what you CREATE. There’s no middle ground here, the most complex and dynamic “process” in the world doesn’t amount to jack squat unless the end result is brilliantly produced."

I couldn't agree more.

(If you've gotten this far, thanks for enduring my lengthy discourse. This topic hit a nerve for me.)

On Jul.07.2004 at 01:08 PM