Felix, I share your assessment of Graphic Design USA.

But your connection between it, Debbie Millman, and AIGA's ethics is a stretch -- and sounds like you have some other issues.

I'll admit that I have AIGA ties, and am a little biased. But I would challenge you this: instead of bitching about AIGA, why don't you raise your hand, and offer to do something about it? Join the Chicago board and kick some ass instead of just mouthing off in a forum.

I have to apologize -- but that sounded harsher than I'd intended. Note to self: read before sending.

Discourse is always helpful. But action is more effective.

re: AIGA's corporate dilution

I've pretty much just learned to ignore them as a whole. There's some great designers and thinkers among them, but, in my limited experience, their actions as an institution are less than inspiring.

what's this 'us' and 'them' stuff? i find this really odd. there are thousands of members of aiga. judging them by one publication or one featured designer is, well, stupid. everyone has different reasons for belonging to aiga. i'm in it for the discounts on lectures and events, to volunteer for those events and for committees (belonging to the design green committee is pretty important to me), and for networking. but there are surely other reasons.

and i agree with the criticism of the sponsorship stuff. but volunteerign with my local (minneapolis) chapter has showed me how down economies mean sacrifices. so that might explain it. saying that aiga has "sold out" is way off base.

i also know that aiga minnesota has, or is close, to having the most members of any chapter, and probably some of the better events, so i guess my experiences might be better than yours.

Let's talk about hypocrisy some more, shall we? ( I swear--it's not personal, Felix. But you put it out there, man.)

>LOTS of ads. its shameful. i weep openly

I too, hate ads. That's why I detest HOW magazine.

One of the low-ad content magazines I loved the most was Critique. Great writing, excellent design work, etc. And it had a standard of non-commercialism, and was very selective of who got ad space in their baby. As a result, it was $18 an issue and almost $100 a year for a subscription. Yikes!

We got a subscription as a gift from the mag's printer. Did anyone actually have a subscription? For more than a year? ...didn't think so.

Not surprisingly, Critique folded last year.

So the truth is that, like it or not -- corporate, greedy, commercialism still rules our world last time I looked.

And like it or not, I also get issues of Graphic Design USA for free. And yes, its content is banal, corporate bs.

But let's discuss how to fix this, rather than just complain about it.

Tan: your connection between it, Debbie Millman, and AIGA's ethics is a stretch -- and sounds like you have some other issues.

No, Not really. Did i mention anything about ethics? my beef is with policy. The AIGA should not be a tool to buy influence in our show. We pay good money to belong to the AIGA and its disheeartening to see that money wasted on clowns seeking PR.

Tan: I would challenge you this: instead of bitching about AIGA, why don't you raise your hand, and offer to do something about it

i do help the aiga- quite a bit actually. I painted the benches on the east river, i go to meetings every month, donate books, and support them in other ways- "bitching" included. Tan, I suggest to you use the hand youve already raised to do something positive for us.

Tan: Did anyone actually have a subscription? For more than a year? ...didn't think so.

I had a subscription to Critique, long before they called on me to illustrate articles for them. It was the best design magazine of its kind- ever. Nancy Bernhard, a Critique alumnus, now writes for CA on occasion. So we still can read some of Critique's opinion.

Tan: Not surprisingly, Critique folded last year. So the truth is that, like it or not -- corporate, greedy, commercialism still rules our world

Ahh, the brians of the AIGA, ladies and gentlemen! Thank you for that.

But let's discuss how to fix this, rather than just complain about it.

Tan - I really am not trying to pick a fight - but what could you suggest?

Critique folding was a sad thing. I did have a subscription. The magazine made a decision not to dilute its value or quality with 'advetorials' (sp?) and thus chose to close down instead.

Eye magazine seems to hold out and perhaps it is because of their dedication to great content that it continues to be thought provoking, educational and useful to many readers.

Its really a question of how the AIGA continues to manage the balance between the value it brings to its members and the amount of corporate sponsorship it needs to continue to survive. Especially in times like these, organizations need to remember what their values and purpose is and to not appear to 'sell out' otherwise it makes members angry and confuses those who aren't.

To say that "corporate, greedy, commercialism still rules our world " seems a little defeatist and in fact, it is the few who do try harder, do better and make a difference that make the marks for the corporate, greedy and commercially minded to follow. I've had countless clients, including Microsoft, claiming to want to be like Apple. So those corporate simply pave the way for many to follow, but only a few lead. And some of those are members of the AIGA.

Fair enough -- Felix. Truce.

I don't belong to Chicago's board, but I'm a former president of one of the other larger chapters.

What most people outside the AIGA circle don't realize is that most of the people volunteering for AIGA are the most civicly-minded, socially-conscientious designers I know. There are a few egomaniacs granted, but the vast majority of AIGA volunteers are hard-working, ethical, mostly-poor, design over-achievers.

It's not ruled by no-talent, corporate drones. I assure you, I'm not a soulless drone ruled by the buck. And I ran our chapter and worked hard with national for years.

It's a tough task for AIGA. They must strive to provide the most dynamic, pertinent events possible for their membership. They try to keep membership costs as low as possible. (see my breakdown of AIGA spending in the "What makes a Graphic Designer?" discussion if you're curious.) They must try to be as inclusive as possible -- meaning that they must please the outer fringe of designers as well as the agency suits and bigwigs.

And the only way they can do all of this is to accept support from Mr. Corporate.

But trust me, there's no hidden agenda to change the integrity of the organization -- or look the other way when someone, like Millman, takes advantage of their involvement. In that case, is AIGA really to blame?

It just pisses me off whenever someone question the organization's motive. Their motive is our motive. Brook's comment is correct -- 'they' are 'us'.

Thank you, Damien.

Power to the membership!

To say that "corporate, greedy, commercialism still rules our world " seems a little defeatist and in fact, it is the few who do try harder, do better and make a difference that make the marks for the corporate, greedy and commercially minded to follow.

I agree with you, but please allow me to rephrase/clarify.

I still believe that corporate, greedy, commercialism rules our world. Enron, Microsoft, Philip Morris, etc. George W. Bush. It's hard to deny.

But recognizing a fact doesn't mean that I've consigned to it, or does it mean that I agree with it.

I don't. That's why I involved myself with AIGA.

It's also counter-productive to lay blame errantly and needlessly -- just as you've pointed out. Graphic Design USA to Debbie Millman to AIGA policy is errant to me.

It sounds like you understand AIGA's dilemma in finding a balance. That shows you have a working insight into the sponsorship needs of a professional, commercially-derived organization.

How do we fix all this?

That's precisely what I'd love to talk about instead of questioning whether or not AIGA has "sold out".

brook: saying that aiga has "sold out" is way off base.

not really. they (er. i mean, we) sell out all the time. Landor, who controls the materials coming out of MeadWestvaco (the AIGA's paper supplier) called me last year to design the icons for their website. I did. They (the client, MeadWestvaco) loved them. But the go between (Landor) didnt want to pay me. So what did they do? They ripped me off, of course! Welcome to the trikle down ethics.

You could blame Landor, or MeadWestvaco, or the AIGA- theyre all in bed together. Just look at the people on the board.

Graphic Design USA was in b&w when i was a student starting in design, and i am not sure about other design students, but we had projects in typography, design etc. where GDUSA was a blessing.

i'll explain - we were learning the fundamentals of design and the entire publication was reference/samples for: use of type, printing in CMYK, stock selection, design & layout, printing methods and the list goes on. the ads played a major role, they were all printer or paper company ads and they spared no expense (in the later 4c versions).

at the time, it was one of the few publications we had, no "How", no "step-by-step" or others that are around today. granted, they have not grown up much, design wise, but when you want a quick review of the industry you can turn to GDUSA in a pinch. that fact that it has survived when other "trendy" pubs are gone says alot.

and as far as i know, there exists no connection between AIGA and GDUSA, so your comments seemed a little crossed felix.

i do agree with your comment about "betraying our trust", but we are gonna find that hypocracy in every industry.

So you got screwed by Landor, who was screwed by Mead, who happens to give money to AIGA.

So in turn, you feel that AIGA screwed you -- because as you say "they're all in bed together."

And this is your proof that AIGA has sold out?

Ok, then. I see -- it's not personal at all.

>Looking at the crap in the latest 365 its no wonder... we were hijacked by no-talent, corporate drones!

Ahem, coughcough., excuse me I must have something in my throat.

No, it is personal.

I pay dues to the AIGA, which upholds the ethical standards for my business. The AIGA should hold their "partners" accountable to the standards we signed up for them to uphold.

herman: "there exists no connection between AIGA and GDUSA, so your comments seemed a little crossed felix."

I would like to clear up the meaning of my earlier comment. I was not saying that the members and all AIGA-related things are diluted.

I think the hope that Tan is asking for can be found in the many great designers and thinkers I mentioned. these people are the members, on the board, judging shows, and involved in countless other aspects of the AIGA. if the many individuals that make up the AIGA can come together to represent a wholistic approach to design (which they do on some levels) rather than conducting oversized, ineffective, inefficient conferences and the like (which are the most widely perceived aspect of the organization), then all will be well.

corporate involvement is a core component of what we do, but it must be fairly balanced with a multitude of other concerns. if the AIGA encounters financial hardship as a result of not kissing corporate ass, then it is the responsibility of the design community to step forward and do what's necessary to keep them around. if the AIGA is wildly successful as a result of kissing corporate ass, then it is our responsibility to step forward and put them in their place.

Landor, who controls the materials coming out of MeadWestvaco (the AIGA's paper supplier) called me last year to design the icons for their website. I did. They (the client, MeadWestvaco) loved them. But the go between (Landor) didnt want to pay me.

I really don't want to get too personal in this forum, so I'll keep my response brief. I, embarassed as I am, led this project for Landor last year, so I have some knowledge of this subject. Landor does not control the materials coming out of MW. They were hired to design the identity and subsequent print materials, as well as a simple website to launch the new identity. The client and us did, indeed, love the icons. The difficulty in payment was partially a conflict over fair compensation and partially a result of the client changing the terms of ownership of the work.

I'd rather not debate on that further, so if you'd like, feel free to email me and we can do that where it won't drive the rest of the readers crazy.

Now, as to how this leads back to AIGA being unethical, I'm not sure in the least. Is it because one organization deigns to work with another organization that you perceive as having screwed you over? I'm sure AIGA has NO clue to your various client relationships and probably doesn't care. Not everything that happens is as black and white as you're painting it.

I've lost my desire to be an AIGA member, basically because I'm not interested in going to their gallery for designer schmoozathons. They ought to provide forward-looking authoritative writings on design and business topics, written for real designers, and be leading us forward, not catching up. Heck, they should be putting out materials for clients that we can simply hand out. Unfortunately, no other design organization has really stepped up.

I, too, miss Critique, because it was written well and avoided too much star fawning. I was somewhat disappointed with their Big Crit annuals, because they didn't add much to what was already out there. I would love to see a magazine pick, say, 10 great pieces of the year, and analyze the heck out of them from business to strategic to craft to design angles. That would really serve as a teaching forum instead of a pretty picture show. I'd rather rip off someone's business techniques for selling great work than steal the work itself.

did critique actually amp up their content before they folded? i never read it past the first few issues. early on they had a thirst piece critiqued by vignelli. i mean, really: what an obvious trolling for a public slapfight. it seemed pretty childish.

> i weep openly.

That is great, I think this is close to a perfectly composed letter.

>

Congrats.

meant congrats to Armin for the recognition.

Yeah, welcome back, Arm.

To jonsel's point on the AIGA being

ineffective: OK, true. But I have to give them props in a round about way - they offered assistance to Wink (minneapolis) on the target "work for whore" contracts they were doling out. I called my pal Boynton at Wink who gave me the scoop, and Target is a great client. The AIGA is a good source. You just have to make em work for you.

Heck, they should be putting out materials for clients that we can simply hand out. Unfortunately, no other design organization has really stepped up.

But AIGA has stepped up.

Working with Stone/Yamashita, AIGA has begun to create materials that designers can hand out to clients, or point to a website to access.

In 2002, AIGA produced a set of Design Business and Ethics guidelines. The first section is specifically written to clients -- how to use a designer, how to manage the process, how not to screw people by ripping off their work, etc. The other section is directed to designers, giving guides to business and professional practices, including examples of work contracts that would protect us.

Every member received a set of these. Landor should have gotten one, as well as Mead.

In the pipeline is an even bigger endeavor. Taking lead from an initiative by the Design Council in the UK, AIGA is attempting to create an ongoing set of case studies that quantify the value of graphic design across as many industries as possible. Why? So that we can justify design as an intellectual property that brings value to businesses large and small.

On the international social front, several AIGA chapters are pushing hard for the org to join ICOGRADA -- it's sorta like the United Nations of design. ICOGRADA works with developed and underdeveloped nations to use design to benefit political, economic, and social conditions. Once joined, AIGA will be ICOGRADA's largest member -- and its membership will have the opportunity to affect the world as never before.

So you see, things are happening. Corporate sponsorship is an important, but minor part of AIGA.

I'm English - which is not my excuse for everything but my reason here for why I am not a member of the AIGA or fully understood the relevance of the institute. I ended up working for Clement Mok's firm a while back and so when he became their president I paid it a little more attention. I suppose it is like the design council in the UK.

I strongly believe, that for some types of designers, there is a need to help and enable them to make the best of certain opportunities. A lot of designers need tools and information to help them sell design, promote the design process and be able to qualify the value of design. So I tend to do this on a very small scale by writing or working with designers who want this type of help. I also try to work with organizations to understand the value of design and the design process.

So I do think I understand the AIGA's predicament as I work with firms of all sizes but with far less credibility and tools at my disposal.

The opinion of design and what a designer is needs to change at the corporate level as well as designer need to be empowered and enabled to be more involved with business and brand decisions where necessary. After all, so much of what a designer does is making the connection between the business and customer.

I'm certain the AIGA is doing everything it can to bridge the gap between business and design, perhaps by leveraging its corporate ties and helping them understand the process of design and how to better utilize its designers. Unfortunately I don't think tools like SYP's Why document really help much. The document is a little too flakey and vague to be meaningful outside of the AIGA membership. But that is my own opinion.

I still believe that corporate, greedy, commercialism rules our world. Enron, Microsoft, Philip Morris, etc. George W. Bush. It's hard to deny.

I agree. I would add that 'corporate, greedy, commercialism ruins our world. But that sometimes we can use their money, greed and commercialism to our benefit. As you said, it is a fact and we have to work with it.

'corporate, greedy, commercialism ruins our world.

Bravo. Well put Damien.

And yes, SYP's document is far from comprehensive. But to many of us who work with larger clients or in larger agencies, it's not uncommon to get 20 to 30-page work contracts -- so anything less seems paltry in comparison.

But I appreciate SYP's attempt at condensing down the language so that it's applicable and unintimidating to the greater mass of designer and corporations.

...it's funny, now I read your email with an English accent in my head.

Following on Damien�s comment, Design Council in the UK has some great publications on business, education, research and the impact of design; AIGA publications I have the chance to browse should have a lot more research, hard data and facts too be considered efective tools for business and design.

The AIGA has its purposes. I find it less and less relevant to my day-to-day profession, but that could be a number of reasons outside of the AIGA.

As for GD USA, that's a business rag, is it not? Aren't we a business?

>Yeah, welcome back, Arm.

Well, I'm not back in full force yet. And I'm missing a hell of a discussion.

By now, word has spread that Speak Up is the place for AIGA haters to come and hate the playa' but more importantly I think it has become the place, where I think, new ideas can be created. I think Tan has said it best why don't we raise our hands, and offer to do something about it? In here we don't have the burden that can come of sitting in a board room and trying to say the right thing so you don't piss off the old-white guy next to you. Steve Heller mentioned the same in our interview "What I'm saying is that one has to be involved rather than watch from the sidelines. If there are too many "hot" designers on the stage, bring something else to the stage."

What I'm trying to say here is that it is important for us to come up with new ideas, processes, solutions, education papers (like Damien's) or web sites. If we find a hole that needs to be filled let's pull together our resources and our open commentary to come up with something real, tangible and made by us. And we can bitch as much as we want too. But I think it is real important that we put our money where our mouth is. If that means joining the AIGA and doing what you can, then so be it. Maybe it's not that bad.

Last month I went to an AIGA lecture and I was talking to the organizer of the series and he said "welcome to the light side." I freaked out. That means Speak Up is the dark side. And that is fucking cool. And everybody here and your opinions have made this place something to contend with. And this is why I'm extending this call for arms (or mice) to do something.

I don't mean to get all cheerleadery and stuff but I truly believe that the ideas that we could all put together could make a difference. And it doesn't have to happen overnight. Just think about it, and when you think of something that could be bettered by the AIGA Speak Up and we can work with the AIGA or something.

OK... I think I'm getting delirious and tired. I'll stop now.

I'll be blunt.

The design world is in for a kick in the ass. It's filled with folks who just want to "play" and make "cool" & "trendy" stuff.

There are of course exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, it's become a very shallow industry. An industry that merely exists to serve the needs of the of an ever increasing shallow/mindless global corporate structure who's bottomline is the $ and only the $.

One of the problems that we face, is our continued isolation from non-designers. The design industry only publishes periodicals which interest the design industry. We don't allow outsiders to get an understanding of what we do. We have created an environment in which we get caught up in our own bullshit. No unique ideas can penetrate the snobbish realm that surrounds the design industry.

Remember David Carson. He wasn't a formally trained designer and because of this, he approached design in a unique way. You can admire or despise what he created. Whatever you think of his work, you have to admit that he shook the world of design in a huge way.

This is the kind of change the design world won't see if it continues to seperate itself from the rest of the world.

I'm not aying that the kinds of changes that David Carson brought are good or bad. What I am saying is that change is most-definitely a needed element in any endeavour.

I see good work, but nothing all that innovative. Basically rehashing of old ideas.

Peace

mGee

One example of how I tried to do more!

AIGA/SAIC

Speaking as a recent past President (for 2 years) of the AIGA student group at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, I can say that AIGA as a whole, is a well thought out, honestly committed group of professionals, students and sponsors who's goals are diffefrent and range from getting a job to funding a lecture. The AIGA has its flaws but I think my story wil bring out the more important aspects of the organization.

When I started the group at the end of 99, I wasn't sure what I was getting into at the time. The National office seemed intimidating and highly unorganized. The local Chicago chapter seemed busy scheduling events for many professional designers but not that many for students. And the local student population seemed stressed and almost non-existent as acting members, eventhough, as many don't know, the student members make up more than an entire third of the entire Chicago chapter!

When I got involved with starting the group I had researched the AIGA, events and how to get people involved. I also realized pretty early on that $65 dollars was a lot to pay for an annual membership. (Now it is $95 I believe for students).

I also realized that if this was going to be successful it had to be about more than the AIGA. It was about establishing a student community where we could do everything from hold lectures to critique our work. It had to be about the AIGA but I ALWAYS made it more than that. The students and I used the AIGA as a springboard in establishing a core group but we were always our own group too. We payed our dues, went to meetings and events but we also did our own lectures by bringing faculty, and outside designers in to our SAIC family.

The AIGA is an excellent source for students in networking, learning how to speak professionally with colleagues, and eventually getting a JOB! As a group we did have a lot of issues with their organization and other administrative aspects of the process, but from the creative side, there was never much lacking in good content. The lectures we attended were moderate to excellent and the community as a whole was supportive.

From what I have heard from the current president, the SAIC group has gone on to do many things since my departure. Over half the group are members, the other half are other students who come to the meetings and participate in the SAIC design events.

The AIGA was an important part of establishing this new community at SAIC. But at the end of the day WE had to do it ourselves. And this ethic carries through the entire organization whether it be Student, professional or sponsor. The AIGA has been criticized by many who say they are nothing more than corporate supporters or a ego driven group with no importance to the design community.

But are we not all corporate supporters? And which one of us is making the mark or raising the bar? We all have clients, and we try to convince them of our designs, sometimes we win, usually we loose, and even if they are the best or the worst client they still pay the bills. The Bling Bling is the king! I'm not in this business to only do design to get into intelectual design magazines or "arty" bullshit, conceptual zines. I have to eat! (What to do for love and what for money is a another article in itself!)

WE ARE DESIGNERS and we work for other people! Anybody who is willing to complain (ie Felix) about the AIGA and their corporate affiliation should seriously check to see how their bank account looks, because with those words comes a reality check when the sting of no Bling Bling sets in!

The AIGA has to have corporate affiliation. The corporations allow the comunity to survive and in many cases, (if you had done your homework) they ask for very little in return. Mohawk paper just sponsored the newest "TRACE AIGA Journal of Design" And their advertising in it consumes only a few pages! Last year Sappi was responsible for sponsoring more events than any of the other companies combined. They along with other corporates kept the AIGA afloat last year, and we still have to listen to ignorant designers criticizing the AIGA's intentions.

Give me a break!

This is what the AIGA is guilty of. They are guilty of establishing a community where students our supported, conceptually, ethically,through lectures, visits and other events.They are guitly of offering a job database for designers to find positions in this grim economy. They are guilty of asking extremely busy principals and other design professionals to sit on a revolving board, every year to 2 years for almost no compensation while putting up with all of the planning, problems and situations that accompany a large institution like the AIGA. And most importantly they are guilty of allowing groups like our student group at SAIC to do use them as a spring board to do so much more!

These things are reason enough to send someone who wants to criticize them, shivering back into whatever black, cold, unevolving hole they crawled out of!

As designers we should be questioning the motives of many but the AIGA is simply not on the list. Whether they make a "design" impact is a whole other article, but there is no doubt the impact they make while you are a member is great. You can't just pay your dues and sit back, you have to go to events, talk to people and and spend time allowing yourself to understand the way the system works. Once you do this your options are endless!

One more thing,

And as far as I can remember back, GDUSA is probably the most corporate examples of anything published/distributed by the AIGA. I think in the future someone who is criticizing should really try to analyze the entire picture of published/printed works before making such a harsh judgment.

And I would reccommend to Armin or others who are monitoring boards that these topics be taken "into consideration" before posting such a narrow, unresearched view by someone. I think it makes the board seem more irrelevant when the issues start out that way...AND I KNOW this is not what this forum is for! (just my personal opinion)

OK, now Iam done! Sorry for such long responses! Rally am :>)

>And I would reccommend to Armin or others who are monitoring boards that these topics be taken "into consideration" before posting such a narrow, unresearched view by someone.

There is no "editing" here, I have full confidence and trust in the people who start topics on this forum. If I didn't have that confidence in each of them they wouldn't be here. Everybody in here is encouraged to give their opinion, whether we like it or not. That's what this is for, to debate (respectfully) other people's opinions and beliefs. When we start having topics with no heart or if it's all politically correct and trying not piss anyone off that's the day this place closes down. I would rather have somebody giving a strong commentary, positive or negative, than having an AIGA-like forum.

I understand too, what you are saying Ben and I appreciate the advice but, again, I would rather encourage personal expression than watered-down commentary. Even if it pisses somebody off.

Bling Bling is King!.. we still have to listen to ignorant designers criticizing the AIGA's intentions.

I dont mind being called an idiot. Really.

Thanks, Ben. Keep slingin' that Bling for the students there in Chi Town and you may just find yourself a hand job in the parking lot of whatever rainbow youre looking at (tho it may have to be self-administered)

Dissent protects democracy, design, and the AIGA. I choose the tri-fecta.

And I would reccommend to Armin or others who are monitoring boards that these topics be taken "into consideration" before posting such a narrow, unresearched view by someone.

Now I would have really rathered you (Ben) took Felix personally to task instead of suggesting an editorial gag on what people freely discuss on speak up. Not only would it have been fun to read, but if it started as a 'narrow and unresearched view' - it certainly is broader now. I was more taken back, not by Felix's suggestion of the AIGA selling out, but by the clear response from many that it hadn't - for the most part, this has been a good discussion. Even though I know you wanted to name Felix as the 'ignorant designer'.

But there is still sentiment that the AIGA doesn't work for everyone - including those that are members. A lot of designers don't like going to events, networking and being part of a community - but want to receive some benefit for being a member. Too often big egos monopolize the platform set up for all to contribute to. And so perhaps more could be done to give individuals, who want to stay that way, a chance to contribute and get what they would like out of it.

There are also a lot of people who don't need to join the AIGA to have something useful to donate or share. I guess from either preparing artwork for local events and so on. But there could be more incentive to get designers to work on their own tools for helping others in business or getting work, and to have it approved or in some way accredited by the AIGA.

I'm not going to join the AIGA, but I'd like to help. I'd prefer to have gain a membership if I did some work for them. I would rather volunteer my time then to simply pay and expect a return on it. I'm not interested in shelling out cash that I may have to supplement by taking on a crap piece of work to pay for - I prefer to work on projects I enjoy, and literally charge what my clients are happy paying, in some cases clients provide me with goods an services instead. But thats me - I chose not to pimp myself out over being miserable and chasing dollars for no good reason. So I would think that the AIGA could offer to more designers the chance to volunteer for membership - not just a 'conference registration.'

There is a wide-range of membership out there, and perhaps more can be done to do something meaningful and helpful to more designers.

As mGee points out there is a lot to benefit from by having more support and collaboration from industry and those who don't design professionally. Though - while there might not be innovation inside the graphic design world right now - there is some great stuff happening in design, from Architecture to product design, so I don't agree there's going to be any great 'ass kicking' going on for all of the design industry - perhaps just some of them.

Disclaimer: If I'm repeating anything that has already been said, sorry. I just saw this thread and had to post right away.

The AIGA has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Graphic Design: USA, which is a private, for-profit magazine.

I personally am a huge booster of AIGA. Having been involved at the chapter level as a member, a volunteer and a board member, I think it is a good thing. Certain movements at the national level towards the corporate world are both questionable and understandable, given the current economy.

But that said, the AIGA exists based on the interests of its members. If you want to change it, go ahead! The leadership is nominated and voted in by the members, and they have total discretion as to the direction of the organization. So as Tan said, get involved and help make the AIGA even better.

Scott,

Youre one of the people that makes the AIGA worth being passionate about. I hope my "dissentiment" here is taken as pro- AIGA and anti- Wal-Mart idealism (where big and cheap equal qualified success). Millman, to my knowledge, has no real credential for judging a professional show. Sure, she may run a huge packaging firm and do work for Burger King and Star Wars, but money and a big agency does not a quality offering make. There are many ways to raise funds for AIGA. Selling our showcase (365) out to the highest bidder should be the LAST option.

Heres what typically happens (pre and post):

1) Millman recieves conveted AIGA juror slot

2) account management organizes memo to clarify credential in form of press release to potential clients

3) Once in comittee, client selects Sterling (Millman) instead of Open, on grounds of AIGA merit.

Believe me, it happens.

For someone like me, theres really no place (or reason) to enter the AIGA show unless I hire a production person to mock up a "Comprehensive Brand Strategy"spiral bound brochure. A simple logo doesnt qualify for the AIGA show anymore. They have it listed on the entry form, but they dont accept any. Silly, right? I just wish I could open the AIGA Annual, look at the work, and aspire to something with real merit.

Felix:

I don't really have anything good to say about the work of places like the Sterling Group, and if it were up to my personal taste, AIGA juries might be filled exclusively with people that do work that I like. But as it is, there are plenty of people on this year's juries--Lisa Naftolin, Sharon Werner and Lucille Tenazas are just a few of them--that do good, smart, interesting, non-corporate work.

But it's not up to me, nor should it be. Places like the Sterling Group (and the dreaded FutureBrand) are a big part of what constitutes mainstream design these days. So for the AIGA to remain engaged and relevant it's important to keep all kinds of people involved in the interests of open debate. After all, the ACLU defends the rights of the people who would want to shut them down, right?

So I don't think that 365 is "sold out to the highest bidder." There are plenty of AIGA members that look at the kind of jurors you or I might like and think "who are these freaks and why do they keep picking all this weird shit?" And as you mentioned (thanks), I have plenty of connections to AIGA people and am as much an insider as anyone. So why have 88% of our entries to AIGA competitions been rejected? (We do keep track.)

Because some people didn't like them, or there were other things in there that they thought were better. And that's fine with me.

Alright Felix. Let me get this straight.

So fine, you don't hate AIGA in particular. You just hate the people that run it, the people that volunteer and support it, and you hate its annual -- 365 -- because of what it stands for. But somehow, you want everyone to understand that your "dissentiment" here is taken as pro-AIGA.

I think you have a tough sell. But fine -- I'll take you at your word. And I don't mean any sarcasm by that.

Furthermore -- from what you've said, it seems that in AIGA, you see an establishment of growing corporate poison. This poison -- represented here by she-devil Debbie Millman -- is conspiring with AIGA to permeate the integrity of our precious design world, killing any possibility of a talented, anti-establishment, lone wolf like yourself from ever succeeding and getting recognized. And rightly so, you are pissed about it.

Ok. I would be too if I thought that was happening.

But I don't think that's happening. There's no conspiracy to choose corporate hacks to dilute the quality of design in America. Sponsors are not demanding that if AIGA takes their money, AIGA must hire their cronies to judge shows and go on lecture tours. There is not a secret AIGA propaganda campaign being waged against small design shops and people who don't use the term "brand extensions" on a regular basis. And lastly, AIGA has absolutely no control of how people misuse its credentials for their own PR gains.

What's most likely is that a friend of a friend of an AIGA board member knew Millman and through a very informal process -- got her selected as a juror. Questional selections can happen sometimes. AIGA is mostly run by volunteers, which means that despite all good intentions, bad speakers and bad judges sometimes slip through the cracks. And as a result, an annual might be produced that doesn't quite measure up to some people's expectations. But hey, that's why they produce a new one annual-ly.

My advice: don't be so defeatist! Keep sending in logos and work that you're proud of -- and question, rather than blame, the powers-that-be. Or better yet, join the ranks of AIGA, and eventually become one of the people that control those very actions that you so passionately hate and protest.

Now there's a scary thought.

And don't be dissin AIGA without cause -- cause them's fightin words to people like me.

tan,

easy daddy-o. nowhere did anyone say they hated anyone. Sure, I hate work that certain people represent but theres no need for haters. we still representin' (AIGA).

Every organization has a certain look they want to project and I'd like to see the AIGA maintain what they've already perpetuated (which was excellent) through better, consistent policy/rules. You cant offer up a category and leave it empty! The "Comprehensive Brand Strategy" is now a bygone. I cant even say the B word. It branded me, and the fleshy, crackling smoke filled mine eyes with grey corporate clown tears.

This may be a bit off topic but since we are discussing the AIGA and I just received a mailing, here goes...

AIGA/NY:

How about also exploring "support" during a time of crisis and not only "dissent" during a time of crisis," as your lastest forum on May 28th will do.

Not all designers are against liberating Iraq. Sure it's hip to be opposed to Bush and I certainly agree with some of your points such as "how design can play a meaningful role in public debate." If this so called "freedom" chapter is going to pick a side in a political and social debate, then how about picking both sides? There will be no real "exploration" just preaching to the choir.

Next time, please don't lump.

that should make for an interesting evening.

also, next weeks "fresh" dialogue should be a doozy w/ sahre & co.

(btw-NYC is the "fresh", not the "freedom" chapter, or so they say)

>(btw-NYC is the "fresh", not the "freedom" chapter, or so they say)

Not so according to the poster I got today promoting the forum. Top right is something similar to this but instead of "what's it to ya?" or "fresh" as you say, it says "freedom."

To Armin: I am not encouraging editing!!! I was just commenting on the fact that opinions don't seem to hold as much water when they are poorly researched and hurridly (sp) posted. But an opinion is just that, an opinion! So I totally understand your position!

To Felix: All I can say is that you don't take criticism well, thats for sure. You slammed the AIGA on issues you can't back up, as seen by your off topic attempts about rainbows, handjobs an students in chi-town. ( and that was just a reply to my writing) I don't honestly know what the hell you were talking about with that by the way.

Also, I think your argument would be a better sell if you had more than just hardline opinions to back it up! Thats why I made the whole comment about considering posting etc.... I think that for too long people have tried to rag on the AIGA with no arguable evidence, other than opinion and you are doing the same. What about getting involved to see how it REALLY works?

Then criticize about the aspects you disapprove of!

Like what Tan said:

"There's no conspiracy to choose corporate hacks to dilute the quality of design in America. Sponsors are not demanding that if AIGA takes their money, AIGA must hire their cronies to judge shows and go on lecture tours. There is not a secret AIGA propaganda campaign being waged against small design shops and people who don't use the term "brand extensions" on a regular basis. And lastly, AIGA has absolutely no control of how people misuse its credentials for their own PR gains."

There is no conspiracy. Period! So if you are going to complain and defend yourself against pretty much everybody that disagrees with you, you should give us examples to support your argument. I am just as confused now as Tan is about where you stand????

And to Damien, yeah I agree, maybe I went down the wrong path and I like I said it wasn't a personal attack against Armin!!!!! It just bugs me when entire discussions are based on such unresearched views BUT I still respect those views and I agree that the discussion that has come from it has been great.

Do you know what in the hell Felix was talking about in this paragraph?

"I dont mind being called an idiot. Really.

Thanks, Ben. Keep slingin' that Bling for the students there in Chi Town and you may just find yourself a hand job in the parking lot of whatever rainbow youre looking at (tho it may have to be self-administered) Dissent protects democracy, design, and the AIGA. I choose the tri-fecta."

For everyone in this forum: How does this have ANYTHING to do with the topic? And felix, youre the one that posted the original topic???? Is he saying I was misrepresenting the organization to suck students in?? Nothing could be more from the truth!

Anyways, good discussion!

Ben

To Felix: All I can say is that you don't take criticism well... you slammed the AIGA on issues you can't back up, as seen by your off topic attempts about rainbows, handjobs an students in chi-town. The Bling Bling is the king! I'm not in this business to only do design to get into intelectual design magazines or "arty" bullshit. -Ben

This is not a court of law. The "evidence", as you say, was an opinion- which is not anywhere near bling bling status such as yours, so I guess I'll appologize. Sorry Ben. Youre dope show. Keep it rowl, yo. Comprende, amigo? Lets move on.

Ben: ease up bro. Let's not boil Felix's rabbit or anything, man.

This forum reminds me of WWF wrestling -- a sweaty, trashy, fake-blood, entertaining type of brawl. No designers were actually harmed in the making of it.

I think the folding chairs have all been thrown, and the bell has rung.

It's time we joined forces and go kick FutureBrand's ass for changing the UPS logo. Who's with me?

Tan said...

It's time we joined forces and go kick FutureBrand's ass for changing the UPS logo. Who's with me?

I was reading through Clement Mok's "Designers: Time for Change" article from Comm Arts' May-June issue and this quote reminded me of the design community's recent uprising concerning the UPS issue:

We are unchanged professionals in a changing professional climate, clutching at old idols, while failing to create new offerings, failing to reinvent and reinvigorate the practice when needed, failing to inculcate a professional culture that is accessible and fair.

isn't this what this whole thread is about? wouldn't the AIGA be an ideal body to address Mok's call to action if its members were dedicated to the cause? this is certainly not a new sentiment, but it seems to have been sidelined to a great extent.

It's been sidelined because we're all unemployed and need to scrounge up work wherever we can.

But I agree -- it seems like a lost cause. Michael Beirut gave out the original call for designers to unite back in 98 or so. It was a big deal as I recalled -- he got Clement, Tibor, Glaser, and a bunch of other bigwigs to dust off their book of principles and invigorate the profession.

But it seems that many of them were vacationing in the Hamptons or busy having dinner with the execs of Philip Morris and Citibank.

Realistically though, I do believe it falls on AIGA's shoulders to unite the design community and bring about a call to action. But that just gets us back to where we began in this discussion -- people like Felix won't support an org that validates someone like Debbie Millman, let along join together to support a cause. AIGA can only serve up the venues. The action or act of "doing something about it" is up to us.

Ok, this really is the last entry I'll make in this discussion. I'm tired of talking about it...

people like Felix won't support an org that validates someone like Debbie Millman, let along (alone?) join together to support a cause.

what cause are talking about? if its the general cause (support), then yes, youre talking to someone who supports (hell, i'm going to 3 events here in NYC this month) and is supportive in other ways. my beef is simple: quit letting unqualified judges tell me what good design looks like. cant argue with that right? its funny that i argue this point- i didnt even enter the damn show (they dont take late entries anymore- another beef).

First of all I totally agree with everything Scott said and so I won't go over those points again (though I was especially fond of the ACLU one). Everyone can have a voice in the AIGA (especially on a local level, if not a national one). The NY chapter is working hard to bring interesting and critical discussions/work to all our members. Please come to any and all events and see for yourselves. The board is nominated by the membership and cares very much and works very hard to take all comments to heart and try to reflect our membership as best we can. We welcome opinions and volunteers. The same can, and should, be said for the people working on a national level.

as far as "Not all designers are against liberating Iraq. Sure it's hip to be opposed to Bush and I certainly agree with some of your points such as "how design can play a meaningful role in public debate." If this so called "freedom" chapter is going to pick a side in a political and social debate, then how about picking both sides? There will be no real "exploration" just preaching to the choir." the fact is, we would have loved to have had someone from the corporate side of the war speak, but no one volunteered (and I would argue also, that you can see that side of design about the war/government everyday on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and the like) also, this event is about what individuals can do, and most individuals who are PRO war do not feel like their voice is not being heard. (and also ALSO, it is certainly not that we are AGAINST liberating Iraq - but I think you know that) The "Hell No" event is meant to show people that individual voices are important and spark debate about that, whether you agree with the speakers or not. The same, I believe, can be said for most things AIGA.

By the way, the little footnotes that have been added to the mission statement are meant to enhance it's meaning in both a funny and serious way. "what's it to ya?" was about New York, "fresh" was about the Fresh Dialogue event itself and "freedom" was a joke on the whole Freedom Fries thing - though we are not French. If you read the rest of the footnotes you can get a sense of what truly drives all our decisions - and not one of them has anything to do with selling out.

Thanks for sparing me (I expected a black eye!). I try to level my "Hell No!s" with compliments and suggestions hoping someone over there hears a singular voice. " I guess If I actually had balls I would join in more capacity.

The AIGA is at an all time high and low... and thanks to Bush we'll (again) be poor (remember 1994?). After that "branding" will subside and the sun will shine on better design- not trashy Burger King and Star Wars Wrappers.

Then David Carson will make a come back, shorn his dirty scrotum and leave some of us (not me) scratching thier heads.

>and not one of them has anything to do with selling out.

Thanks for your explaination Emily, I appreciate it. I never said that the AIGA "sold out", if it came across that way, I do apologize.

"Another reason to cry is that Debbie Millman (Sterling Group, NY), your AIGA juror this year, says shes "been in the business 20 yrs and GDUSA has always been the magazine (she) turns to for cultural relevance and design intelligence". (letters to the editor page, march 2003)

I happened to be judging the AIGA competition the same day as Debbie Millman. (I may be mistaken but I think that she was filling in for someone who couldn't make it that day) Anyway, I actually enjoyed her perspective which seemed to be the polar opposite from the other jurors of the packaging category. In fact, I think she was lobbying to include a Pepsi can into the show based on it's "effective" design.

With this in mind, I think her comment about GDUSA is probably truthful. However, it is a horrific publication that probably (unfortunately) accurately reflects the real state of graphic design in the USA. I look at it as I would a bad car wreck, repulsed and shameful afterward that I did.

(the GDUSA) is a horrific publication that probably (unfortunately) accurately reflects the real state of graphic design in the USA

oh God. I'm not a religious man, but let's pray that this is not true.

If it is, I'm going to move to Montana, live off roots and berries, and start a (very well designed) militia newsletter on my letterpress.

It surely represents "service" design, desktop publishing, and big corporate brand sluggers- which is why I found her statement in GDUSA coupled with the Stars Wars and Burger King wrappers in the new AIGA annual to be enough cause for this discussion.

>coupled with the Stars Wars and Burger King wrappers in the new AIGA annual to be enough cause for this discussion.

Boy, talk about a pair of turds that got sidetracked. Those two packages, although they serve the need or whatever bullshit explantion anyone wants to throw, should not be included in what is supposed to be the graphic design publication of America. I'm feisty today!

What a cool discussion. I love it.

Its not exactly GDUSA material, but we try.

Please dont take this blog personally, it has more to do with the "Bees" writing your company mantra/ slogan:

Sterling's proprietary brand equity process is a diagnostic and projective technique, which has been successfully used to help build over 300 brands in the past 10 years.

This process is customized to help client brands connect with their audience. Since first being developed at Sterling, BEES has been applied to almost every business category

I'd love to see what a design BEE looks like.

Thanks for chiming in Debbie. Feel free to sting if you feel stirred...

Felix's proprietary brand experience requires a diagnostic, projective eye for droppings- BIRD droppings:

Branding

In

Reality is

Design,

Stupid

When combined with Sterling brandBEES, Felix's patented brandBIRDS process offers a miriad of stimulating holistic brand connections. Huh? The brandFLOWERS and the brandTREES? Fahgettaboudit. brandBIRDS come before brandBEES, brandTREES... even brandCHEESE.

>Burger King

A little bit off the AIGA topic, but more in tune with the latest comments. This is from Shawn Wolfe's rant on Emigre:

"Not that I am a particularly faithful or enthusiastic consumer, but as a designer I have to point out a lousy makeover when I see one. The flying oval Burger King logo just looks desperate and sad. Same with the Midas and Pringle's logos. They all spin indiscrimanately from the witless school of logo design that was a joke well before 1998..."

So we are not making stuff up, we are not delirious here at Speak Up. There is something inherently wrong with parading, and applauding, the loss of visual culture in the graphic design annual of the year.

Whoah. Down Wolfe! DisArm, comrade Vit! We dont to scare Debbie off just yet!!!

You're an acerbic one, aren't you, Felix? Not scared yet, very intrigued. The "she-devil" thing seemed harsh. Nevertheless, somewhere between John Bielenberg's (thank you), Emily Oberman's and Felix's comments lie the truth...maybe.

Didnt mean to hurt your feelings, Debbie. Please elaborate on your truths.

> Furthermore -- from what you've said, it seems that in AIGA, you see an establishment of growing corporate poison. This poison -- represented here by she-devil Debbie Millman -- is conspiring with AIGA to permeate the integrity of our precious design world, killing any possibility of a talented, anti-establishment, lone wolf like yourself from ever succeeding and getting recognized. And rightly so, you are pissed about it.

Debbie -- the "she-devil" label wasn't meant as a specific, personal attack -- since I don't really know you. It was my attempt at sarcastically generalizing what I thought you represented to Felix.

Unfortunately, it was inadvertent shrapnel from the heated discussion, and in hindsight, was much harsher than intended.

If the "truth" lies between my, Emily and John's comments shall we assume Debbie is surrendering to any serious counter attack?

Burger King "Design intelligence and cultural relevance" is perhaps best left to the editors of GDUSA... or (gulp) whatever Ric Grefe deems appropriate.

Felix, please. No surrender here. I have been in a meeting all morning, so didn't have the time to respond. (Though I was a bit distracted thinking about you all--hurrah). It seems slightly absurd to me that the GDUSA commentary (which was sent to Gordon as a warm congratulatory email for his 40 years in the biz--I never intended to have him publish it) has garnered such an intense response. But I am glad it has.

Interestingly enough, I was also surprised that Ric asked me to be a juror for 365. (And I didn't stand in, I got an actual invitation) Not that I feel that I don't have the credentials to judge package design, but more because the AIGA has been somewhat reluctant to give us "mainstream" branding folk much respect. For what it is worth to the pro-AIGAer's--fear not, they have not exactly thrown the welcome mat out for me...nor do I expect them to. I think this was a genuine attempt to test the waters with "people like me." I tried (as John indicated) to really challenge the idea of what "effective" packaging meant to the other jurors, and had a singular opinion for most of the day. I still have doubts that the Troy shopping bag really qualifies for anything more than a "cultural badge" --I am not even sure that it is "packaging" in the truest sense of the word. But that's another story, maybe another discussion board...

In any case, I have no intention of conspiring with anyone to permeate the integrity of the "precious design world"--your quotes, not mine. If the design I represent is loathsome to purists, I have to live with that. Unfortunately for purist designers, package design is not just about what you think is beautiful or innovative, purist design. It will never be design for design's sake--sadly--unless we can "sneak" something in. Package designers today experience a condition of ambiguity and compromise. That is because we can not design for ourselves--we need to design for the consumer. You may not like the Burger King logo, but consumers all over the world did. And I do mean all over the world. We tested beautiful logos, impactful logos, whimsical logos--you name it--it was tested. With a brand that big, going to a global market with a new logo is just not about "being beautiful." Fortunately or unfortunately for us, consumers loved this logo. I suspect that the same was true for the UPS logo that Futurebrand did, though I too think that somewhere Paul Rand is shaking his head. That is the beauty (and tragedy) of package design though: it is much more a universal reflection of society's graphic sensibility. I struggle every day to try to inject a sense of dignity and integrity to my practice and furthering that sensibility. My opinion of GDUSA aside. (wink wink)

So a question for you: how can we get consumers to want more from brand and package design?

how can we get consumers to want more from brand and package design?

easy. do better work. scale down focus groups. take more risks. consumers shouldnt dictate design- we should.

2 case studies:

-Duffy's black Minute Maid orange juice. it turned packaging on its head- and won with consumers.

-Landor's Lucent logo- also scary in focus groups (some thought it represented Satan's fiery red abyss). It was visionary and captured the public's imagination.

niether were "precious". they were mainsteam but designed with an edge- an opinion, putting themselves in a leadership role- a role your firm does not sit in.

that said, i dont think you should be judging shows like the aiga. unless the aiga is wants to be engineered by a worldwide focus group...

>how can we get consumers to want more from brand and package design?

My opinion would be to forego consumer tests for a couple of years. Stop getting their opinion for a while and put new packaging, new brands that we as designers think are effective. No focus groups, no facts, no numbers. Gut instinct. What's the point of this? People are used to what they see everyday (McDonald's, BK, Walgreens, whatever) that's what they are comfortable with and obviously that's why they would pick a logo that looks like something that's familiar to them. And what is familiar to them? Well, in a purist designer sense: design that has been beaten slightly with the ugly stick (purely subjective and elitist opinion here.)

So let's take this utopian situation where designers would make the call on what goes public to consumers — and supposedly good, effective design would prevail — give it a couple of years to sink in and I bet that if you showed the Burger King logo again they would choose something different.

The main problem is that we [designers], CEOs and Marketing people don't give enough credit to consumers. They are not stupid, they would welcome efficient design with better looks. Why not? It would be an added bonus. My burger tastes great and looks great. Why not?

Hmmmm...I think you guys want to think the way you think...not sure if you are open to other possibilities, but I'll try:

If people all over the world choose this particular Burger King logo because they liked it, and you personally don't like it, does that mean it is bad design?

Now...does it belong in the 365 Annual? That depends. It wasn't there as an example of the best work that was done last year (do I hear sighs of relief ?), it was there as an example of what my firm designed. To validate my credentials or lack thereof. Which it has clearly done. Design is subjective. Reality is subjective. Choice is tyrannical. Psychographics are tyrannical. Someone out there must like peach-flavored powdered ice-tea. My favorite quote from Herbert Muschamp: "Plates, chairs, colas, sneakers—these artifacts and products are currency in the dynamic exchange between the world we’ve absorbed and the larger cultural universe."

Question for you: do we create our buildings and our soda packages, or do our buildings and our soda packages create us?

The tail doesnt wag the design. Nor should it you, Debbie. Dont be a defeatist.

If money governs validation, I suggest next year we ask the AIGA to open up a "best coupon" category. Whoever designs the best ... I mean sells the most (cheesburgers) wins.

(cut to Sterling creative director)

"OK, Its gonna take some 'swooshes' and 'dot patterns' to reinvigorate this (burger) brand, but I know you've got it in you, design team! Lets get out there and win! Dont let that burger tell you who's boss! Hit em with a dot and a swoosh. Mmmm. Yeah!!!!"

Defeatism has nothing to do with it. You still haven't answered the question: If people all over the world choose this particular Burger King logo because they liked it, and you personally don't like it, does that mean it is bad design?

Focus groups do not determine good design. We design the work before it goes to groups. And I don't understand how you got to "money=validation." It is about free choice.

Felix--I like your spunk. I'd love to see what you would have done with the Burger King logo. And I'd love to see you try and tell some of the worlds largest brands not to listen to the consumer--their audience--the people, for goodness sakes!--and trust their "gut" or one lone somewhat cheeky designer, who may or may not be right to begin with. That this still occasionally happens is a miracle--and I still try that approach whenever possible.

Just so you know, the breakthrough Minute Maid packaging has since been changed. It was good packaging, though I thought it was recessive on shelf. But I doubt that matters--cause I don't buy Minute Maid. Listen: I think we do agree on one thing. That great design is important. For some reason you seem to think that I don't have integrity. That is simply not true. Yes, Sterling designs work for packaged goods companies, and we try to respect the consumer in our process (you said it--the consumer isn't stupid). You seem to think that we are designing for the lowest common denominator. That isn't true either. Come by Sterling and I think I can easily show you what I mean. I gotta run to a meeting, but call me anytime.

If people all over the world choose this particular Burger King logo ... does that mean its bad design?

No. But if "people all over the world" chose one color it would be grey.

Debbie, I'll bet five dollars you've danced the Maceraena. But that doesnt make it a classic.

Great post Debbie,

It is funny to picture Felix in front of a CEO.

Don't take it personally, they think all large brand consultancies have no integrity.

Great work over there at Sterling.

Dave, who is "they"?

I place myself squarely in Debbie's lot.

I ran (and co-founded) the Brand Integration Group at Ogilvy, New York- which may be smaller than Sterling, but much larger in billings. I understand broad design and what goes with the territory.

I've presented (and sold) work to more than a few CEOs. IBM (Lee Green) is one. I know, I looked funny. But good clients appreciate individualism and honesty. Do you?

I'm sure if you suck up to Debbie some more you'll get a production job at Sterling. Let us know how that goes, Dave.

Oooh, Ouch

Very nice of you to belittle production staff.

Ooooh, yeah.

How terrible of me.

We'll change your title to "designer". After the Lamisil coupons, we'll put you on Burger King wrappers. And then, if youre good, we'll let you design a Star Wars action figure carton.

That one hurt too.

If I wasn't such a great designer, I might be offended.

I know you are. Thats why Sterling does "great work". Keep your head up soldier.

OK, end of blog.

I'll have to admit, this is getting out of hand. Let's all, very politically correctly agree to disagree.

Thank you gentlemen and ladies.

Felix Felix Felix. I had no idea you co-founded Big. I love Brian--I think he does great work. Why did you leave? Did you think their work was fundamentally different in philosophy than ours is at Sterling? I'd be curious to know.

Btw, if I wasn't honest and a person of integrity, I couldn't live with myself. And no, I never danced the macarena, I have absolutely no grace. Kinda like Elaine on Seinfeld in that dept. But just because we have different views on what constitutes good brand design doesn't make me less authentic (or care less) than you.

And you know what? That is the whole issue with brand design: most brands we redesign have enormous heritage, rich histories and deep consumer loyalties. That is why we like to speak to consumers. To get their point of view. It certainly isn't to curtail or derail the design process.

But I think we have come to the end of this blog, eh? Felix: if you want to continue, please email me. I can go on about this stuff forever. And Dave: we are looking for a production artist. Call me if you are interested at 212-329-4609. Cheers.