As and when I get to choose my clients, they will always accept the one, single concept I show them.

Because they either told me the story to design, and I did, or we worked together to develop a clear definition and articulation of the story to be developed. So the client is never surprised or disappointed on seeing the concept of how the story is, visually.

Your designer colleague voices something that is present in places where many concepts are shown in presentations, and clients aren't really pursuaded by, or involved closely in, the process of design and thus are not clear on how the design represents the story they thought was being developed.

So if you don't work with your client from the begining, and collaboratively define everything that can be designed and the right way to do it, then you might find that a well bullshitted presentation is the only way to showcase an illfitted design.

Unless a client really understands how design will truly help them, and how vital it is to be part of the process to develop it, and know how to manage it, then they generally expect a great presentation with hundreds of ideas to choose from. Because, after all, they had hundreds of colors to choose from to paint their dinning room in.

I assume you are referring to the business of *graphic* design...not design in general.

That said, I completely agree. From a business standpoint, selling the solution is often more important than any specific solution.

A good sales person (call it an account executive, if you like) is an invaluable asset to any graphic design firm. A good sales person can sell any solution...which gives you the best of both worlds. You can show the client as many solutions as you want, and simply tell the sales person to sell the one you want the client to choose.

There is a saying in Mexico that goes something like this (loosely translated): “If you dress a monkey in silk it stays a monkey."

I concur that designers tend to embellish their presentations to sell an idea, and they might do a great job, but if that is a shitty idea it will be shit no matter how well it's dressed up during the presentation. At marchFIRST this was a big practice, coming up with lofty explanations that could sell a concept no matter what it was. At first I was impressed at the ease with which the creative director convinced a client to buy into any of our ideas, then I realized what a shitty practice that was.

Now, when I present various ideas, they are usually based on something the client wanted us to pursue so there are no big explanations needed. They usually get it right away. Sometimes they don't and no matter what we say to save it, it gets nixed. And it's probably because it's not working. So we don't go overboard to sell an idea.

>then they generally expect a great presentation with hundreds of ideas to choose from. Because, after all, they had hundreds of colors to choose from to paint their dinning room in.

So I'm not the only one who thinks showing tons of concepts always is a bad idea? You don't go to a doctor and say "perform three or four half-baked surgeries on me and they I'll decide which one I want to go with." I understand there needs to be exploration and that clients' decissions are very subjective and based on their personal taste, but shouldn't we be trusted to come up with the best solution? And say to the client "This is it, this is what you need," would that be such a crime?

>I assume you are referring to the business of *graphic* design...not design in general.

Dude, give it up : )

So I'm not the only one who thinks showing tons of concepts always is a bad idea?

I'll join you in this, wholeheartedly! I learned a very long time ago that you only show what you want picked. When I show multiple solutions, it is because each solution is attacking the problem in a different way and will say something slightly different to the client's audience.

Landor had a habit of scheduling worksessions halfway through a design phase, which drove me crazy. Ostensibly, it was to show the client that we were working away diligently and to find out if our thinking was off course. In my opinion, the clients generally don't find a difference between concepts in-progress and final solutions, especially when presented in color on computer printouts. What this usually led to was concepts that weren't fully realized being killed, and the forms a client was familiar with (swooshy type stuff, etc.) sticking in their mind.

I'm not so bold to presume that I know the client's business so well that I've found the ONLY solution. Having several options brings the client into the process more and makes them more comfortable with the final choice. Having many options confuses the client and makes them think we don't know what we are doing.

it's all about having pride in what you do and respect for the profession. you shouldn't WANT to sell a crappy idea to someone. it only takes one piece of crap going out the door to tarnish your image. there are already far too many people running around making careers of selling subpar ideas with their talent in bullsh!tting.

now using those skills to convince a client that a genuinely good idea is good, and appropriate for them; yeah, you have to. they aren't always capable of understanding the whys and hows w/o a little help.

>And say to the client "This is it, this is what you need," would that be such a crime?

>>I'm not so bold to presume that I know the client's business so well that I've found the ONLY solution.

Yeah, you are right, I didn't mean to say that we can always get it right in one try, but have the confidence that we don't need to show 4-5 concepts to get one to bite.

> I'm not so bold to presume that I know the client's business so well that I've found the ONLY solution.

I am. And in fact, to a point, stake my own business on it. Since I believe that design has to work, and therefore have some measure of success, I will spend as long as it takes to understand the client's business so well, so as to be in tune enough to help deliver a design concept that is the only solution, for that problem or that instance. Teaching them how to use it and manage it, enables them to continue to adapt it and live with it. My design has to be from their brand strategy, and therefore based upon their business strategy. Otherwise it is too open to personal likes and dislikes.

This spans from working with clients like ups.com to my smaller clients, where I will often negotiate royalties or license percentages in lieu of complete payment.

Granted - if a client simply wants a cosmetic facelift for their website or something, then it is entirely different - and I am not often the best person for that.

Additionally, I chose not to work with sales people who cannot actually do/perform or make what they sell. Otherwise, I fear the gap between what they've pitched and what is actually possible or relevant.

Design, for a client, without understanding its business or purpose for existing, might as well be art.

>Design, for a client, without understanding its business or purpose for existing, might as well be art.

Well put "D".

Man I don't know how many time I've had to explain the difference between ART. and DESIGN. to people. I'm so tempted to get started on that... but it should probably be discussed in a new blog.

>ART. and DESIGN. to people. I'm so tempted to get started on that... but it should probably be discussed in a new blog.

There should be a separate government organization with federal funding devoted only to that discussion.

hmmm. . . like lots of things in this funny old game we call design (graphics or otherwise), the notion of 'the client' can be a bit difficult to pin down-and i wouldn't really want to. it's dependent on too many factors-how you got the work (did they come to you? did you approach them? recommendation etc etc), why you're doing it, what you're doing it for-and again it's really a question of generalisation. the range of clients is as broad as the sea is wide-from the 'give us ten ideas and we'll see what sticks' to the 'i'll see it when it's printed/on the screen/in the shops/on the walls/etc.' i tend towards the more contact is better school of thought, and although that can sometimes be a slippery slope, it makes for a greater depth of understanding for both of us, and after all isn't that we're all supposed to be about? again and again, context shapes the work, and sometimes through close contact with a client (or a working partner, or a printer . . . or anyone really) my notions of what is 'good' are shown up for the set of prejudices they really are. which is why i always feel the first idea is the best and only thing to show a client.

funnily enough, a lot of effort gets spent on trying to get people to talk to each other, to communicate face to face, to speak, laugh, argue, just communicate about the thing we need to make and how we need to go about it. sometimes, though, it's hard to get people into the sheer joy of it, the immediacy of knowing that something works without knowing why or needing to know why, the living nature of design and all it's boll*cks and truths, grim dedication and idiocy, but when you do, and when someone really responds, it's what it's all about for me.

but, in the end, it comes down to audacity, skillz and a taste for tequila :)

. . . oh yes, i wouldn't mind having the difference between art and design explained. i'd be very tempted to get started on that . . .

Dude, give it up : )

Never! ahahahaha! ;o)

There should be a separate government organization with federal funding devoted only to that discussion.

Since when does the US government really give a &^#% about Art (OR design, for that matter...)

To get back on topic, one needs to remember that we are a service industry. In terms of staying in business, it really doesn't matter if we give the client what they need. All that matters is that we give the client what they think they need.

That doesn't mean you should 'sell' a poor solution, but rather, you should sell the solution you believe in to the client. If you can't sell your solution to the client--no matter how dead-on it is--it won't matter in the end.

“who can bullsh!t the best story...” I might be naive, I'm in college still...but this is an awful thing to hear going into the professional world come May 20th. This can't be the case all the time, but it may be a stereotype. It kills me to hear that. So here are a few questions that this thread sparked...

How do you kill that stereotype?

Do you educate your client? If so, how?

Is there no preventing this?

Are there situations where the resources (time, money, etc) just aren't there to do it right? Does money/budget reflect the quality of the concept or simply the quality of the execution?

“who can bullsh!t the best story...” I might be naive, I'm in college still...but this is an awful thing to hear going into the professional world

To play devil's advocate, that *is* what a lot of graphic design is...bullshit. We make marketing messages pretty. It's pretty, highly effective, well communicable b.s., but b.s. nonetheless. ;o)

To play devil's advocate, that *is* what a lot of graphic design is...bullshit. We make marketing messages pretty. It's pretty, highly effective, well communicable b.s., but b.s. nonetheless. ;o)

Sounds like we're having a talk about advertising, and not the world of design. I don't foresee myself creating bullshit. Working on a project that was created by someone else that just happens to be bullshit, now thats a different story. Like we all say sometimes, gotta pay the bills.

If you're willing to admit what you do is bullshit, then you might wanna reconsider what you do for a living.

>then you might wanna reconsider what you do for a living.

Don't worry too much about it Matt. Darrel has issues. Big issues ; ) As long as you say Graphic Design you'll be allright.

How do you kill that stereotype?

You can do your bit by taking each project and "treating it as it is your last and your best work yet". (Didn't Graham say something like this before?)

Does money/budget reflect the quality of the concept or simply the quality of the execution?

No - please no. Whilst I'd like to be paid excessively for my time, I try not to pursue the cash for the sake of it - and prefer the challenge. I like working - I see little distinction between work and play, and so I am not going to get any more work unless I have done a good job previously. Some of my best work, and most well received has been pro bono, for friends or organizations that simply cannot afford it.

But saying that -being paid lots of money makes it easier to do a shitty job.

In the past, I find that if a contract pays for too many people to be involved, you can find the project gets sidetracked by the sheer weight of the team and teams within it.

There's a good article in the magazine 'interiors', about IDEO's collaboration to design the interiors of Amtrack's trains. In it, it points to a large project with multiple design teams all working on the same project.

and as for educating the client, take them through your process, carefully, closely and make sure they understand the value of it by having their input to it.

If you're willing to admit what you do is bullshit, then you might wanna reconsider what you do for a living.

You are assuming that I said what I said in a negative way. A lot of Graphic Design is meant to serve one purpose...sell something. That may be an idea, a product, a 'lifestyle' or, dare I say, a 'brand'.

Some call that brand development, some call it marketing, some call is BSing. All legit terms in my book.

I think too many graphic designers think that their contribution to society is more than it is. A client is rarely as excited about your designs as you are...hence the need for a good sales person. In the end, most of what we produce is temporary. It is used to sell something, and then ends up in the recycle bin.

And there's nothing wrong with that. That's why people pay us.

Right on...I can see what you mean a little better now Darrel. Obviously, the majority of graphic design advertising. Its what we see most of. Its all about things like you said (brand association, etc.) and I can see what you mean by bullshit now. Its like the controversial Nike campaign which pictured maimed athletes (toothless hockey player, blind bull rider) with the tag line to the effect of "can you top this?". Nothing was about the shoes, nothing was about value, simply a cut to the chase approach that targets an athletic characteristic. Thats what I call BS.

darrel-good points. the variety of experience is what all of this can be about, at best, and one 'skill' is to try and remain open and, dare i say it, naive enough to believe that a client will be as 'excited about your designs as you are': and, if they're not, then one gets on and keeps trying and (hopefully) the next thing happens and you're starting all over again-and that's what one does for as long as one works.

believe in the temporary as if it's going to last forever while you're making it-then make the next one. i also agree than none of this should be seen in the negative-any experience can be positive-it's like the opening of 'lawrence of arabia', when he's pinching out lit matches with his thumb and forefinger, and his mate says 'doesn't that hurt?': and he replies, 'it's not a question of whether it hurts, it's question of whether you mind that it hurts.'

What it comes down to, and I think something that if faced fortrightly would help the profession, is that graphic design is very personal, i.e. subjective. You can go through all the different processes, research and analysis, experimentations, and follow a brand strategy to the enth degree; but what is ultimately created is a personal interpretation in this case by the designer or design team of all the intangibles. Then what is ultimately selected and or redirected by the client is also personal and subjective.

I think the key to success for the designer is going the extra mile to learn, understand, rethink and reevaluate your own perceptions of the project and to really care about the work you craft.

I wholeheartedly agree in the all processes and experimentations, if they are used for the benefit of the creation and not for the sole purpose of the con job at the presentation.

However, you will always run into clients who could care less about the final output because their personal insecurities need fortifying by a good sales pitch that they can turn and use to their boss, client, board, etc.

the sole purpose of the con job at the presentation.

I don't think anyone is thinking of this as a 'con job'. The 'pitch' is as important as the work. You need both for a succesful buy-in by all parties.

You need to produce quality work, and you then need to be able to sell your client on that quality work. You need to reduce the amount of subjectivity involved in the process.

It's not about client's being insecure. It's about them understanding why you are proposing said solution.

The client is always right. If they pick the wrong solution, it's because the design firm failed to sell them on the correct solution.

>. . . oh yes, i wouldn't mind having the difference between art and design explained. i'd be very tempted to get started on that . . .

It's coming... soon. Not too soon.

>The client is always right. If they pick the wrong solution, it's because the design firm failed to sell them on the correct solution.

I don't think the client can always be right. It might be right in their mind, but they can make bad choices that could translate into bad business. I'm so tempted to write about a case we had here of branding gone completely bad because of a client decision, but I can't.

>What it comes down to, and I think something that if faced fortrightly would help the profession, is that graphic design is very personal, i.e. subjective.

Which adds very strong fuel to the art vs. design discussion. Shouldn't design be an objective profession? I'm not saying I agree with it or not, because I do believe that a lot of what we do comes from personal subjective decisions.

>I see little distinction between work and play

AMEN! I feel the same exact way. The only difference comes in who's the client? Yourself or somebody else who's happy to shell out some bucks for us to do what we love to do.

>Do you educate your client? If so, how?

The main thing is to avoid any stupid "new age branding" lingo. Explain to them what you are doing, your process, your ideas. You have to look at them as your partners or friends and not as the enemy, otherwise you will never be able to establish an understanding and open relatinship where both can learn from each other.

I don't think the client can always be right. It might be right in their mind, but they can make bad choices that could translate into bad business.

I thought that for a long time, but finally warmed up to the fact that Graphic Design is a business. With that said, the client hired the design firm to help them make good choices that would translate into good business. This is as much the design firms' responsibility as the clients'. Too often we say 'the client's wrong/an idiot/stupid' when often, it was our own fault for not selling them the best solution.

I'm so tempted to write about a case we had here of branding gone completely bad because of a client decision, but I can't.

And that's not to say there certainly aren't bad clients. But an astute firm will see those bad clients long before they 'sell' them a solution. (yea, yea...easier said that done... ;o)

Which adds very strong fuel to the art vs. design discussion. Shouldn't design be an objective profession?

There are subjective aspects to design, but overall, yes, it should be an objective profession.

No one may be able to agree on the merits of typeface x vs. typeface y used in a particular ad campaign, but there should be a way to measure the results of said campaign with said target audience/business goals.

> The 'pitch' is as important as the work.

I totally get where you are coming from, but respectfully disagree. I do mean respectfully, cause I think it is two opposing valid points, and in the past have been on the same side you are representing.

I believe taking the subjectivity and personalness out of a design project decreases the possibility of "unique and compelling visuals" which can end up producing transparent "marketing trash."

A reason pro bono projects win alot of awards is because the designer is able to put some of their feelings into the solution.

Plus, a good sales person can sale great design and bad design, but not every person who calls themselves a designer can produce great design. So for that reason, I believe a good sales job of bad design ends up hurting the industry and making it harder for designers who care about the craft and results of their labor to be trusted by clients who have received stagnant results from nonsubjective, uninteresting graphic communication.

The quotes from above are from Charles S. Andersons home page - www.csadesign.com - in which he discusses his thoughts on research, impact, aesthetic, function, audience and more. He explains exactly how I feel about graphic design as an art.

To me, the less graphic design is about art and talent, then the profession has no point of difference.

Been busy this week, but I wanted to add to a few points above:

Armin said >> shouldn't we be trusted to come up with the best solution

"Trust" is critical; if the client trusts you, you will have such a better working relationship and really increase the chances that good design wins out over bad. How do you get them to trust you? Ah, salesmanship. Know their business, fulfill their needs (ahem, you know where to draw the line), and maybe most important speak their language (avoid the lingo, yes yes). It's fruitless--in my opinion--to want to educate the client about typography, process colors, or higher-level stuff like symbology, metaphor, visual puns, whatever. You need to know their business, not the other way around, because you're working for them. As they say.

D said a design concept that is the only solution, for that problem or that instance.

Sounds more like arithmetic than design. Or a melodramatic movie trailer: "Many designs will try, only one will survive." I would be bored and frustrated being limited to one idea. When there are several good solutions to a project, that's where subjectivity can actually be a force of good: go with what you/they like. I see nothing wrong with that. There's nothing inevitable about the process of designing--but good design always turns out looking like it was inevitable (ie, the only good design).

and as for educating the client, take them through your process...

Then cash the check. Always cash the check. It's very important to always do this.

sam said: You need to know their business, not the other way around, because you're working for them.

potts, i'm shocked that you--of all people--think that. how about working WITH them? :)

Right, yeah, of course, that's what I meant, "working with them. No, I take it back. I meant working for them as opposed to them working for you. But yeah, the ideal atmosphere for building trust has that feeling of everyone working with everyone else.

Merv, you know I hate collaboration. It's my way or my way for twice the price, that's my policy!

I believe taking the subjectivity and personalness out of a design project decreases the possibility of "unique and compelling visuals" which can end up producing transparent "marketing trash."

Tom, I think we may be arguing the same point, just disagreeing on semantics.

My angle is that you need to take that subjectivity and personalness that you put into the product and craft a 'pitch' that will bring the client into agreement.

In terms of measuring success, the product may be subjective, though the results should be objective. (again, easier said than done.)

A reason pro bono projects win alot of awards is because the designer is able to put some of their feelings into the solution.

I would argue that the reason is because the 'pitch' aspect isn't needed in a pro bono piece (typically). The project goes from designer -> market. The fact that a lot of pro bono projects get in annuals could be a sign that many times the design firm fails on the pitch stage with commercial work. The 'good' solutions get blocked at the pitch stage.

I believe a good sales job of bad design ends up hurting the industry

Absolutely. No disagreement there. That's true of pretty much any industry.

Sounds more like arithmetic than design.

I would be bored and frustrated being limited to one idea.

Sam - I think I am not explaining my point clearly enough. I definitely do way more than one solution. And often find it difficult to determine the best one. But at that stage - I am usually still working with the client, perhaps sketching or talking in specifics about a style or approach we can take. It would be limiting to just do one design - when often, I find, its the second or third design concept that is most relevant.

When there are several good solutions to a project, that's where subjectivity can actually be a force of good: go with what you/they like. I see nothing wrong with that.

I have a problem with "good design" - unless, like Watson's statement, it has some qualifyer as to why "good" is enough in that instance.

I also think that it often comes too close to "good enough" - and it is entirely possible to have fifty "good" or "good enough" designs or solutions, but how many, "spot on" or "outstanding" solutions can you provide?

I think my largest point is, that if I find myself selling my design, or pitching the story behind the concept to my client, at that stage of the process, then I don't think I did my job well enough and I would hope the design didn't need a salesperson attached to it for it to work.

However - I've worked in the firms where "pitching" inadequately has lost many great concepts, so I definitely don't disagree with what is being stated here, I just chose to proceed differently.

Damien, I misunderstood what you meant, sorry. I thought you meant you decided on one design before taking it to the client. Anyway, point taken. I agree that first-idea doesn't always equal best-idea. That sure is true for me.

As for good design so-called, dunno. Good design is like pornography--I know it when I see it. I certainly didn't agree with a lot of the Top 100 nominations, but that doesn't mean anything. Why have a measure of good? What in the end does it serve? I ask rhetorically, really.

Reminds me, though, of a good line from Goethe: "In art, the best is good enough."

The fact that a lot of pro bono projects get in annuals could be a sign that many times the design firm fails on the pitch stage with commercial work. The 'good' solutions get blocked at the pitch stage.

I think this failure is more likely indicative of the conservative nature of most business decisions. Rare is the business person (and designers are immune to this) willing to operate in a fashion vastly different from the habits of his/her peers.

Annual-friendly work (supposedly) pushes boundaries of some sort or another, so the "no-pitch" nature of pro-bono is naturally more suited to this.

To digress a little, consider the unescabable reality of personal taste. Since we bring this to any project we take on, how can design ever be truly objective? If there were only one best solution for any design problem, wouldn't any two designers of equal skill, faced with the same brief, deliver the same designs?

as pnk said: To digress a little, consider the unescabable reality of personal taste. Since we bring this to any project we take on, how can design ever be truly objective?

absolutely. it shouldn't even try. this obviously starts to broaden all of this out a bit (like a lot), so i won't go too far into it here, but i think the myth of the usefulness of objectivity in design has been promulgated, particularly in the last ten years, by the proliferation of design 'writers' whose own objectivity rests on the fact that they couldn't design their way out of a paper bag.

again, pnk: If there were only one best solution for any design problem, wouldn't any two designers of equal skill, faced with the same brief, deliver the same designs?

the big flaw in the problems/solutions cliche (lie/fallacy/crap): very well spotted, pnk.

and, just to make the digression even more . . . digressive (sorry), a quick quote:

in itself,

every idea is neutral,

or should be;

but humanity animates ideas . . .

. . . when we refuse to admit

the interchangeable character of ideas,

blood flows . . .

e.m. cioran

Thanks, Graham.

A gross mis-typing in my post:

Rare is the business person (and designers are immune to this) willing to operate in a fashion vastly different from the habits of his/her peers.

Of course I meant "not immune to this"!