At least one thing is for sure: no matter where you are if your work uses blue and/or green you'll be fine.

How does this apply to design? I guess all the time, when a client comes with results from a focus group and that group has overwhelmingly asked for a blue logo encased in a swoosh. Then you are almost screwed because numbers don't lie.

I have always found focus group results very interesting, stiffling at times, but in other cases very good to start a design project, because they give you a direction of what your client's target audience will respond to.

On the other hand, why would you want information from a survey when, let's face it, people answering surveys at home are usually not very cooperative. Only once have I taken a long survey by phone, and by the 10th question I was just answering with the first option of the multiple choice.

So, in conclusion to my ramblings... good or bad for design? I'd say good. But not too good.

I think.

And if everything else fails, just hire Ramona.

I knew I had heard of Komar and Melamid before, but I couldn't remember it was with the painting elephants. Those paquiderms rock!

But it's exactly the inaccuracy of these surveys that is ironic. Numbers do lie. I guess that's kinda the issue, is design a qualitative or quantitative process? Obviously its both. But when there's too much focus placed on the quantitative you end up with work that looks like those paintings. I mean they're awful!

Design is not a democracy

>Numbers do lie.

Not to an executive who gets a really nice chart with powerpoint graphics.

>But when there's too much focus placed on the quantitative you end up with work that looks like those paintings. I mean they're awful!

They are awful, but apparently they will be accepted by the majority of the people. Not that that makes it right though.

>Design is not a democracy

What exactly do you mean by that? that only the designer and client have a say in the process? this might spark some good discussions.

I would have never thought that this would be Italy's least wanted. I mean... a power ranger, elvis, and a very generous depiction Mr. David... c'mon, it can't get any better than that.

And the Chinese most wanted! now, that's just plain bizarre.

This is such an interesting project : )

>What exactly do you mean by that? that only the designer and client

>have a say in the process? this might spark some good discussions.

Certainly statistics are useful to inform the designer about the audience’s cultural sensibilities, as well as to setting parameters and constraints.

As for basing design decisions on such data, we all know the consequences of designing by committee, which essentially is what it comes down to when using statistical data as an end instead of the means to design

In essence, its fine to use such data as a starting point, but just that, a starting point

I think that to a certain extent the discussion thus far, though interesting, is missing the point I was attempting to make/raise. These paintings were more or less statistically generated out of 'market' research. And the end results of basing creative decisions on this research are UGLY paintings. Not ugly to ME, as an 'educated artist', but just plain ugly. I believe if you were to show the 'most wanted' painting to the majority of the population of the target country, they would find it ugly as well. Why is this? How can there be such a great divergence from 'factual' data to actual representation?

From a designer's standpoint, I think the overall sentiment has been that statistical analysis provides a good starting point. It certainly does give more information to start with, but perhaps it is not the right TYPE of information and convention is the only thing that makes us continue to think it is useful?

Just some thoughts.

>How can there be such a great divergence from 'factual' data to actual representation?

I guess that's where designers come in, where we take all the data and try to solve the client's problem while creating a visually pleasing solution.

>but perhaps it is not the right TYPE of information and convention is the only thing that makes us continue to think it is useful?

Perhaps. I prefer a client say they want something "edgy" or "traditional" than saying "I want something that appeals to the 56% of my target that likes to pee standing up". As vague as these definitions are, it's easier to translate feelings or ideas than numbers and data.