Why does there have to be a line? Doesn't advertising have to be designed? Since I worked for an ad agency, does that mean I am an advertiser or a designer? I worked on a lot of ads during that time. The only people involved in the process were the copy writer, me the designer and the creative director.

Are ad firms only allowed to do advertising? All the firms I knew, were full service agencies that provided the full spectrum of services. Maybe in the big cities they do it differently.

We didn't have any advertisers unless you count the account directors. They "THOUGHT" they were designers, but maybe they WERE just advertisers.

Why do we have to be pigeon-holed in design? I really enjoy and cherish the fact that I get to work on many different projects for many different clients. I don't want to be known as only a web guy, or advertiser, or brochure designer, or logo designer. I want to do it all. It's why I got into this business. Otherwise I would just work in a factory and push the same button all day.

Graphic Design is very much an integrated part of the capitalism machine. We're right there in the cock pit with advertisers, marketers, and car salesman.

In practical terms, an ad agency is a design firm with people that know how to buy ads and leverage media buys. There's also that whole 'experience' thing, but if the superbowl commercials were any indication, I'm not giving them a whole lot of credit... ;o)

Anyways, remember that 'design' is a broad, all encompassing term. ;o)

I think one can not separate advertising from design just because design is part of the advertising. What I mean - advertising is one of the various and numerous tools marketing agencies use to sell more of whatever they sell. The idea / the purpose of design is to give form to substance and make it (substance) more pleasant for people who will probably use it. The more pleasant is that "something", more people would like it and probably will spend money to buy it. And there is the crossing point between advertising and design - their goal in many cases is the same - to please customers.

[ Pardon my bad English ;) ]

I haven't worked at a design firm or ad agency yet, as I still have one semester of school left. However, graphic design includes so many things and advertising just happens to be the most common and widley visible. It assumes some of the most persuassive forms of visual communication and sometimes plays on our human tendencies to follow what we can immediately relate to. So advertising carries a certain tinge and gets a bad rep because of its methods. Brand association comes to mind immediately. A good explanation of this would be in Clean New World by Maud Lavin. Ethically speaking, we all like to say we'll try to avoid those horrible jobs where we have to design an ad with the most dumbed up copy with a product shot on white. So it is no surprise why advertising gets a bad rep and often seems to lack creativity and cloud our visual environment with nothing but bad design.

Taken from Emigre No. 53, the into to the article "Saving Advertising" by Jelly Helm.

"There are features about advertising - some kinds of advertising - that are emphatically not points in a gentleman's game. The majory part of the activity is honorable merchandising, without taint. But there are projects that undertake to exploit the meaner side of the human animal - that make their appeal to social snobbishness, shame, fear, envy, greed. The advertising leverage that these campaigns use is a kind of leverage that no person with a rudimentary sense of social values is will to help applly..."

- W. A. Dwiggins, "Layout in Advertising" 1928

>I want to do it all. It's why I got into this business. Otherwise I would just work in a factory and push the same button all day.

I disagree on that. Design is not pushing one button. There are many divisions to it that you can explore. I do agree that ads need to be designed, there is no doubt about that. That's where a designer comes in, and big ad firms usually have in-house designers. I'm referrring more to ad firms that have art directors and copy writers who churn out brochures, logos and other materials, without having the basic principles of design, because I'm assuming they went to ad school and not design school.

What exactly is an advertiser anyway? an art director? It sure as hell is not a designer.

>Anyways, remember that 'design' is a broad, all encompassing term. ;o)

I get it man : )

Armin, would you consider Paul Rand an advertiser or designer?

I'm sure this is a trick question... a designer.

One word: branding.

Ad agencies are traditionally the 'keeper of the brand' for their clients. Graphic designers just make things pretty visually. So naturally, when a company wants some logos or brochures, and wants to keep it on-brand, they use their agency.

The reason all of this is muddled nowadays is because all ad agencies and design firms claim to be 'branding consultants.' It's all a way to keep more of the work in-house.

Having fought battles between agency and design firm, I can tell you it's not fun. I recall having to hunt down an art director, off on his commercial shoot — and holed up at the swanky Mondrian hotel in LA — and explain to him why his ads needed to use the typeface we had specified for the company's brand new corporate identity and not his typeface-du-jour.

Oh yeah, his ads were for the identity launch.

>Paul Rand an advertiser or designer?

Good question, and one that shows why this is never a black and white issue. Rand began his career as an art director, and never shied away from advertising. He was also one hell of a designer.

What does this all mean? Simply that quality of thinking should always rule the day, regardless of job title.

hi i'm stil in school... my education is called graphic design so we also have advertising.

the way i see it is this:

advertising, coming up with ideas/concepts/etc. etc.

design, making them ideas/concpets/etc. visual...

so i think you always have people who do both and maybee thats where all mixups come from...

advertising and design are certainly more of a pair these days than in the 80's. if you'll look at the course of aesthetic progress over the past fifteen years, designed objects have infiltrated everyday life more than ever before, to the point that everything is now designed.

as well, the dot-com era proved one thing to the ad community: small studios and independent artists really are capable of great work on a large scale...to the point that smaller studios now set the styles that larger agencies steal (or hire). so the line gets fainter.

having worked with both agencies and small studios, there are definite plusses to both sides:

while working with an agency, i wasn't constantly burdened with the small studio's typical job responsibilities (WANTED: designer to make type, make images, code websites, work in flash, create video games, occasionally walk the dog. pay rate: $4 annually. must be on call at any hour of the day and answer to the name "cinderella"), but i was irritated at being considered a "creative" when i'd rather have a hand in the strategy as well as artifact. and while working with a small studio, i wasn't constantly defining myself ("i can do more than make pages, you know"), which is distracting from the work.

it's a trade-off, and you should choose based on what type of work you feel most comfortable with given the give-and-take between personal and professional life.

advertising is _advertising_ and design is _design_. the two must overlap if advertising is to be successful.

the thing to keep in mind is the fact that capitalism and, more importantly, consumerism are infiltrating every aspect of life. as the architects of communication we get sucked into the machine producing the artifacts of these two giants. we must be conscious of the work we are a part of and balance our own production. if we _design_ for _advertisers_ all day, we might find our lives (and by extension, our creativity) becoming a bit hollow.

we might find our lives (and by extension, our creativity) becoming a bit hollow.

i'm way ahead of the curve on that one. i've been feeling a depressing cultural bankruptcy for longer than a year now. from everything i've seen, design is suffering worse than anything else. no philosophy (the ACD—last bastion of easily-available discourse—died), very little conviction anywhere (note the AIGA's almost complete flip-flop in guiding principle in the past months), and a glut of images so ubiquitous there's no possible respite wiothout making a conscious effort to stop looking—which i'm really trying to do.

consumer culture is just making me so ill right now. i can't wait for the ad community to wake up and realize that all the tired old techniques trotted out in the nineties (exxxtreme!!!) are completely transparent. and the vindictive nature of humiliation programming isn't helping much either. i just want all of it to go away.

>Simply that quality of thinking should always rule the day, regardless of job title.

Jon, I couldn't have posted anything better (well that was better then what I was going to write)on what I was thinking in terms of the question I was asking...

>Paul Rand an advertiser or designer?

>>Squality of thinking should always rule the day, regardless of job title

>>>Jon, I couldn't have posted anything better (well that was better then what I was going to write)on what I was thinking in terms of the question I was asking...

The same applies for Tibor Kalman. But there is an obvious exception here... these two guys are the biggest bad ass creative thinkers of the last century. So it's hard to base a response for this dilemma by mentioning Rand. Yes, there is crossover between the two professions, but more importantly, yes, there art directors who think they are Rand or Kalman and try to take on the whole world by themselves.

As always, I have my strong opinions, good or bad, I put them up front to start discussions. In this case I believe Advertising firms should stick to their own business: creating ads (TV, print, web, whatever), buying media, billboards, commercials, taglines, slogans while using designers to give all these items a look. When advertising firms get into doing brochures, web sites, annual reports and especially logos, they are stepping into the designer's field where they can't, in my opinion, provide the same results as a "specialized" design firm could.

So this brings up another question?

By the way the answer is money.

Why do graphic designers want to be brand strategist?

The smart clients hire those who focus on what they do best and play well with others.

Graphic design = advertising.

Graphic design, in its literal sense, is designing graphics. Logos and what not. But that's hardly what it's become. Even literally translated there's DESIGN going on, PROBLEM SOLVING, same as in advertising. You are relaying (sometimes by inflating/hiding/falsifying) a message. Motivating at best.

A single logo, or anything graphic, is in itself an advertisement. To the point or not, it's suggesting the viewer feel/think/act a certain way.

>Why do graphic designers want to be brand strategist?

I thought we were that by default. What are we suppose to do? come up with a logo, create brand standards that no advertising firm gives a shit about and cash the check? Like you said "smart clients hire those who focus on what they do best and play well with others" it's important to continue talking to the client and in the case they continue their branding with and advertising firm, to talk to those guys to avoid what happened to Jon.

"Advertising attempts to sell the product while design is the product."

from "A Closer Look @ Anderson the why behind the work Portfolio Supplement" by Charles S. Anderson

>Why do graphic designers want to be brand strategist?

> I thought we were that by default. What are we suppose to do? come up with a logo, create brand standards that no advertising firm gives a shit about and cash the check?

brand standards does not a brand make...

A rancher would never hire a designer to select the breed, feed, or steed. And he certainly wouldn't expect us to be able to poke the brand appropriately and in timely manner. However, if the rancher wants a brand mark that stands out among herds and is impossible to duplicate or alter, then a good graphic designer is what he needs. Any ole cow poke who knows how to use a hot branding software, I mean iron, wouldn't do.

I don't think that design and advertising should be mutually exclusive. The creative process is about assessing your strengths and weakness, gathering the best resources to do the job right and getting the best product for the client.

While there are a lot of agencies/firms that claim to offer it all, only a few do both well. Fallon and Duffy are a good example of how it should be done. Fallon is known for doing some of the best creative advertising in the world. Duffy is one of the best design firms. Instead of both companies trying to offer something they couldn't do as well as what they specialized in, they joined forces and are able to give clients the best of both worlds.

to avoid what happened to Jon

Glad to serve as the poster child for branding disaster.

Fallon and Duffy

Good call. Basically, ad agencies overstep their bounds and so do design firms, all in the 'good' name of brand stewardship. The two must work together to achieve the best results for the client.

Brand Strategy is strongly based in business strategy and strategic marketing - and comes at least several stages before any design is done - but at the least, should always be considered within the design process.

I would advocate all designers being brand strategists - but too many want to get to illustrating or laying something out based on hunches and intuition before coming up with a storyline, or understanding the value proposition.

I often find that advertising is largely based on articulated and already defined brand strategy, and therefore seen more as an execution of design. Being a good designer helps to understand how far to take that, push it and extend the brand within the context set.

if you'll look at the course of aesthetic progress over the past fifteen years, designed objects have infiltrated everyday life more than ever before, to the point that everything is now designed.

Everything *is* designed. Some just better than others. The media is certainly a much larger beast these days.

advertising is _advertising_ and design is _design_. the two must overlap if advertising is to be successful.

Darrel going on his rant again...I think you meant to say 'graphic design'.

if we _design_ for _advertisers_ all day, we might find our lives (and by extension, our creativity) becoming a bit hollow.

Well, most of graphic design is consumerism/capitalism driven, so in many ways, you could say that most everything we do is somewhat hollow. That doesn't make it bad, of course.

consumer culture is just making me so ill right now

I know how you feel. There's a bit of hypocrisy if you are a graphic designer and anything but a capitalist pig. ;o)

while using designers to give all these items a look. When advertising firms get into doing brochures, web sites, annual reports and especially logos, they are stepping into the designer's field where they can't, in my opinion, provide the same results as a "specialized" design firm could.

Ad firms tend to have a much more acute understanding of the particular market a client is going after. That doesn't mean they are capable of producing the ultimate 'look' they may be in a much better position to 'direct' that said look to best target the audience.

Some design firms, of course, now offer marketing services, so there is a lot of overlap.

I thought we were that by default. What are we suppose to do? come up with a logo, create brand standards that no advertising firm gives a shit about and cash the check?

Brand does not equal 'logo + typeface'. A brand IDENTITY does, but branding is so much more than that. Of course, the term 'brand' has been abused, stretched, reshaped and banged into spots it shouldn't be this past decade...

but too many want to get to illustrating or laying something out based on hunches and intuition before coming up with a storyline, or understanding the value proposition.

Excellent point.

> I would advocate all designers being brand strategists

I have to disagree with this. I think we should let the brand strategist, marketing managers, clients who know the brand and spend the time neccesary to fully evaluate the brand positioning and marketing objectives of a brand, which are far beyond the tactic of visual communication through graphic design.

I whole heartedly agree that brand strategy

> should always be considered within the design process,

and that

> too many want to get to illustrating or laying something out based on hunches and intuition before coming up with a storyline, or understanding the value proposition.

Maybe we are really talking about the same thing with different interpretations of the meaning of words. To me brand startegy is determining the "why" of a brand, and graphic design, whether for an ad, package, web site or logo is part of the "how" of a brand communication.

>Brand does not equal 'logo + typeface'.

I know, that came out the wrong way when I said it. A business' brand or image, whatever you want to call it, is way much more than that.

Tom: cows = design excellent analogy. Plus that's where the term of branding comes originally.

Tom, Darrel - thanks for shaping the concepts here.

You're right - I shouldn't have said that Designers (which is a broad term) should be brand strategists - but perhaps said, should be more aware of the behaviour of business.

For me - I believe that brand strategy is concerned with the behaviour of business, and marketing, advertising, product development etc are all functions based upon the fundamental business strategy and the behaviour of it. So it needs to reside heavily on what the fundamental rules of that business is, but enable personality, emotion, and expression to come from that.

A brand is naturally the sum of all parts of the 'experience' of the organization, product or service, as perceived by the customer, individual or marketplace.

Unfortunately - back to the topic of bluring the lines between firms - there seem to be two types of design firms. Those that are defined by their client list, and those that define their clients. Whilst Ad agencies rarely get to 'define' their clients - they very much get to shape and propell them into the markets necessary - Weiden+Kennedy is a good example with Nike. Design firms that shape their clients, like Duffy perhaps work with clients that have CEO's as visionaries (as I think someone said right here on SU) and understand all that we discuss here.

the whole problem with this is classification. the best i can think of is graphic designer and advertising designer, since those terms often differentiate degree programs at educational institutions. it doesn't take much thought to see that those are very ambiguous ways to describe what they are actually doing.

you could also argue that all design is advertising (or most of it). but you obviously couldn't say that all advertising is design.

point being: there is not a proper and/or easy way to talk about the difference, and often the work that we do can be pretty similar.

i do know that there can be and are really good designers working at ad firms. there work is every bit as valuable. but which work goes in which annuals? that could be a problem, or at least a misunderstanding to some readers.

Kill em all and let the Marketing Department sort em out.

>Basically, ad agencies overstep their bounds and so do design firms, all in the 'good' name of brand stewardship.

I think that's what's at the base of this discussion. We are all at fault here, because we want to do things our way, instead of focusing on what's best for the client, which in some cases might be letting them go to an ad agency. Because of the way I am, where I don't trust anyone to do as good a job as I think I can do (and I'm not being snobby, it's just an issue I have), it's hard to accept that some groups are better at different things.

I think this discussion has been quite enlightening for everybody since it made us question what it is we really do and why we do it. Just as a sidenote on why this whole post started with me bashing ad agencies, is that I would never get caught dead working for one. Just as some people would never work for a packaging or web firm. It's just a matter of preferences. And it's been interesting to see what you guys think of all this.

>Fallon + Duffy. Instead of both companies trying to offer something they couldn't do as well as what they specialized in, they joined forces.

That's a great example of a one-stop shop. And they provide great quality results. Here is a little bit of gossip (two years late, but it's still interesting.) In marchFIRST's plan to rule the world they first bought McKinney & Silver, and ad agency in North Carolina to provide that service. Then they were very close to buying VSA partners, so close there was a reported $50 million deal goin' on. Fortunately for VSA, m1 went bankrupt. Not that this is relevant to the discussion. I just felt like sharing. It's all talk though.

This topic has led to some very lucid comments on branding, but I think in the course of things branding has overtaken the idea of what design is. Is all design a form of branding? Well, you could say yes in a very broad way. But saying that anything you eat is food doesn't tell you much about the differences between salad and dessert. Likewise, there is design work that is branding, and there is design work that is not really branding.

Just based on my own work as a generalist graphic designer, I'd like to indulge in talking about some ways that design happens away from all the talk about branding.

For example, I've done a a small number of identities (logo, signage, menus, packaging, stationery, schwag) for new restaurants. I never use any of the well-known brand strategy vocabularly with my clients, because I think it would sound like I'm selling snake oil, or worse, that I don't understand their needs. But an identity for a new restaurant is clearly a branding project, according to the terms outlined above (which I mostly agree with, especially D's description of brand strategy).

Now, you may say a restaurant is different from a corporation, that they don't think about strategy the way IBM does. Nonsense. A restaurant is all about strategy: what kind of food they serve, where it's located, who's the chef, the lighting--you wouldn't believe the debates about the fabric on the chairs. If strategy is, fundamentally, making choices for reasons that will sell your product and make money for your business, believe me, IBM ain't got nothing on these guys.

And yet, we don't use the words brand, strategy, positioning--not even identity and it's not because we're sweeping them under the rug. We talk about atmosphere, personality, mood, style, and we just call it a logo. "Style" is supposedly the last thing a smart designer wants to be associated with, right? Don't kid yourself.

In the same way that Tom's rancher breeds his own steer, my clients define the business strategy for their restaurant. I do not need to provide brand consulting or develop brand positioning documents (much as I would love to get paid to do so). Does this make me less of a designer? I hope not. Does it make me less strategically useful to them (and therefore less financially important)? No, because they hire me to do something specific: give them an appropriate aesthetic respresentation of their product.

My clients will talk about what kind of place, food, and guests they want to have, and I try to find an aesthetic match for that. Which is to say, I make strategic stylistic choices based on the client's brand profile and positioning. This sounds like warmed-over mush from some tired AIGA conference. It also sounds irrelevant to what needs to be said when we're talking about the project.

I have reasons for the design choices I make, and those reasons relate directly to the reality of their restaurant--thus I am "on brand." But I prefer to think of this as simply the right way to design something so that my work coincides with the larger reality of my client's business.

Book design work is even less brand-oriented. I have never even heard the word brand used in relation to a book's design, in seven years of working with publishers, and yet no one would say this isn't serious design.

So, sorry to go on and on with a topic that's already been worked over pretty well. It's all very interesting, but I think the financial incentives that led design into a branding role have given us a lot of McKinsey-esque impressive -sounding terminology that doesn't suit the best interests of many types of designers. For what it's worth.

Advertising is persuasion.

Graphic design is information.

Can't a competent designer be a designer at either of these places?

my background in schooling is first degree illustration, 2nd was advertising, and lastly the graduate was design. during my advertising studying i was bored, unentertained with the advertising law classes, the media buying classes, and then to sit in a class with 40 other people who all think that their idea is the next "it" idea and have no reason to listen to anyone else's ideas or thoughts.

advertising is cut throat. it's competitive far beyond belief. there is no inspiration from co workers because who wants to share or help someone else when they can take all the credit themselves.

i do think advertising firms are pushing more to become more of a combination with ad/design. really why not? smart! but i truly do believe that they need to be seperated.

this may sound rude but i think designer are more of a classy bunch-quiet and unassuming. enjoying the fruits of our labor within ourselves.

advertising is loud, competitive like a college bar, always showing all around them up.