Most shocking tidbit that I garnered from the article: "The number of graphic designers in the US has grown tenfold in a generation, to an estimated 150,000."

Does that number seem low to anyone else? Postrel doesn't give a source for that figure, nor does she explain who is included under the umbrella "graphic designer."

>to an estimated 150,000."

It seems high — as half of those are most probably not suited to be graphic designers, but that's just elitist speak. It's so easy nowadays to become a "graphic designer". I mean, Columbia College (here in Chicago) churns out more graphic designers than the whole meat industry can produce sausages in two years.

Yeah, I guess that's why I thought it was low. Everyone seems to have a cousin or best friend who is a designer... which is why I'm curious as to what the definition is. That lack of factual attribution aside, the article is still an interesting read.

Yeah, I didn't mean to dismiss it. I just wanted to get that (my) comment out of the way.

It seems as if she's really stretching the definition of 'aesthetics' in that article. More design speak? ;o)

By matching creativity and desire, the economy will renew itself."

Isn't that business 101?

Right on sister! Virginia's my gal.

I completely agree. This just ties back into the discussion in "Asking the Tough Questions".

Economic pursuit does not mean abandonment of ideologies or selling your soul. There's no need for designers to martyr themselves to a diet of top ramen in order to attain design enlightenment. I'm sorry, but that's socialist bullshit.

Design is a commercial endeavor and a creative discipline. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Can Steven Speilberg make a commercially successful movie that's also creatively uncompromising? Yes -- Band of Brothers does that in my eyes. Can products intended for mass consumers be creatively holistic? Yes. That's the mantra and ideals of designers since the Eames and Herbert Bayer, to contemporaries like Philippe Starck and Joe Duffy. Ok, maybe there are better examples, but you know what I mean.

As to the 150K figure. Yes, that sounds about right. Professional census figures are usually taken from IRS filings, when you have to declare what you do for a living.

I'm sure there are thousands more hacks out there who may call themselves designers out of convenience. But if they can't make a living off the title, then who cares right?

Strike that.

I actually remember an AIGA executive meeting a couple of years ago when Ric Grefe gave an estimate of around 400,000 graphic designers in the US.

I bet that 150,000 figure are those who are actually still employed.

From Postrel's article:

"Desire is the true source of economic value....To produce value, [manufacturers] must give customers something to please their sensory side."

Wow. That sounds so empty. Not to mention the fact that it's only relevant to people with the wealth and freedom to base their buying decisions on "sensory" qualities.

You're right, that does sound superficial.

I would edit that statement by saying:

To produce differentiation in the marketplace, [manufacturers] can give customers something to please their sensory side, as well as serve their functional needs.

"The production of wealth... comes from new ways to give people what they want."

Along the same lines as Rebecca, basically this article says to me that we've hit the top in quality and the bottom in cost, so now the only way to keep people buying is to get somebody to dress it up. And we've gotta keep people buying because the economy is supposed to continue expanding infinitely, right?

Actually, I guess it makes some sense. If the economy has to keep on growing, and we're running out of actual "things" to sell people (the earth has finite resources), I guess we can just sell Image, Lifestyle, Prestige and Culture. You can make that stuff with a Mac and enough advertising space.

So not only do we have to come up with new ways to give people what they want, we also have to tell them all the new things they've gotta have.

I just have to make this point, then go work the rest of the day.

> Now the only way to keep people buying is to get somebody to dress it up. If the economy has to keep on growing, and we're running out of actual "things" to sell people, I guess we can just sell Image, Lifestyle, Prestige and Culture...we also have to tell them all the new things they've gotta have.

Not to pick a fight, but that's such a pessimistic view Dan. Do you honestly think that we've run out of new ideas for things? If that's the case, then our civilization is doomed. Nevermind design.

I think it's encouraging that society is becoming more visually sophisticated and savvy. There's nothing derisive or hollow about that. I would rather be challenged to interpret a lifestyle, or image, or culture to a product than sit back and debate with colleauges about the ethics of how manipulative my profession is.

And I'm glad that there's less shit out there to buy. What's so good about poorly packaged, poorly-designed products? Are designers evil by infusing image and culture into utilitarian things? If you honestly think that all we're doing is "dressing things up", then why are you still a designer?

The evolution of economies from industrialization to service-based commerce is the thing that's going to save our planet and open up communication for everyone. The fact that design is ingrained into all of this is freaking exciting.

"Desire is the true source of economic value....To produce value, [manufacturers] must give customers something to please their sensory side."

The term value is a bit ambiguous, I think. I do agree with the sentiment of this statement; it explains some of the function of "branding," to use designspeak. Why else would someone pay $150 for a pair of Nikes? Why choose the Michael Graves wooden spoon over the generic Target version? For that matter, why shop at Target? Branding develops visual and verbal cues that bring emotional attachment to a product or service. Create that desire and you have a product worth more in the marketplace and, theoretically, worth more to the person who buys it.

Rebecca is right that it is a bit empty. I like Tan's elaboration to include the functional need as well. If you don't need sneakers, you're not going to buy them, either from Payless or Nike.

The evolution of economies from industrialization to service-based commerce is the thing that's going to save our planet and open up communication for everyone.

I actually faltered halfway through my best shot at an Adbusters-flavored post when I realized (for the first time) the point you're making here. Yeah, I can be pretty pessimistic about consumer culture (not to mention how crazy that term makes me.) It suddenly clicked that the move toward selling more service-based, brand-driven things will reduce the stress on our limited resources.

But I don't agree that this will "open up communication for everyone." I think it's the opposite. People don't communicate for themselves; they communicate through the trends that they participate in and the brands they buy.

The evolution of economies from industrialization to service-based commerce is the thing that's going to save our planet and open up communication for everyone.

But the whole world isn't going service sector; it's just us and Europe and the other developed nations. Stuff is still being made, and the making of stuff is still taxing our natural resources—it's just happening in China and Mexico, not in the United States.

> It suddenly clicked that the move toward selling more service-based, brand-driven things will reduce the stress on our limited resources.

Exactly Dan. That's the hope at least.

And we can debate the communications thing forever. My point was that global marketing is growing. It's not just American culture and style anymore -- it's Asian, Eastern European, South American, etc. And that means more design voices between all who live on this planet. It's not driven solely by consumer trends -- it's driven by a plurality in global design.

As to your point rebecca -- I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that service/manufacturing is creating a social-economic caste system of makers and consumers? Or are you just pointing out that there are still under-developed countries churning out stuff for everyone?

I bet that if you looked at the number of brands of things for sale -- take shampoo for example -- that the variety has remained pretty constant over the last 30 years. I believe that any given consumer market will only accept a perceived threshold of products to choose from. 10 kinds of beers, 6 brands of toilet paper, 12 types of cold medicine, 15 brands of sneakers. What falls outside that threshold will quickly cease to exist.

New 'things' doesn't necessarily mean more 'things.'

And while recycling is still far from being universal, you'd be amazed at the efforts being made. I bet it'll only be 10 years before every car on the road is manufactured from at least 75% recycled materials. Same with everything else.

So there will always be more things. But it doesn't mean that Amazonian rain forests will be destroyed because there's a new line of shampoo at Target. Know what I mean?

Hey Tan. My point is that we're not consuming any less as a result of moving towards a service economy; we're just not the ones making the stuff that's consumed. And I guess you're right that there will always be more things, but I feel like that's only true because we make it so. Disposable is the new sustainable.

gotcha. I agree.

The solution, of course, is to get rid of the U.S.

"I believe that any given consumer market will only accept a perceived threshold of products to choose from. 10 kinds of beers, 6 brands of toilet paper, 12 types of cold medicine, 15 brands of sneakers. What falls outside that threshold will quickly cease to exist."

I think it might be more realistic to say, "What falls outside that threshold will either quickly cease to exist...or will become a healthy niche market for fans, connoisseurs, or anyone willing to pay a premium for a brand perceived to be catering to special tastes."

Example: Microbreweries will never sell as much product as the big breweries. But their strength lies not in producing "only 10 kinds of beer" which the majority of beer drinkers consume, but rather by offering a far greater variety-- and higher product quality-- than those 10 brands could hope to cover.

I don't mean this to sound like a flame, but this article is one of the most naïve pieces of drivel I've read lately. As much as I'd like to believe that wine and roses are in our future, the fact is that design is not going to save western civilization, and the world's economic problems are a lot more complicated than that - mostly revolving a small number of extremely rich elitists who decide economic policy for the world. While we in the West go ooh and aah over beautifully designed things that we don't need, millions starve, and even in this country the gap between rich and poor grows every day.

Moreover, the current debt-based economic model is not sustainable, as we are finding out. When markets for products and services dry up, so in many cases do the companies offering those products and services, which has a ripple effect, impacting us all in one way or another. How many storefronts are empty in your town? Where I live we have whole strip malls that are boarded up with weeds growing through the cracks in the parking lot. Welcome to the New Economy.

Also, every day we get closer to exhausting what the earth can provide. The Amazonian rainforest won't be growing back any time soon (if at all), and the majority of the world's rainforests have already been depleted. I could go on and on about the death of the reef systems and other things, but my point is that all of these things will impact humanity dramatically, maybe not now but soon.

The creative budget has historically always been the first thing to get cut during a harsh economy. My own job was the victim of a budget cut in April. Even during the bubble, the market could not have provided a living for everyone who now wants to be a designer. The current designer-to-opportunity ratio makes it harder on us all.

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, only like a realist. Alternative means exist, and some people are doing some great things and managing to earn a living at the same time but for most of us (eventually all of us) it's going to be strictly about survival, not some Future Farmers-esque utopia. [/rant]

> but for most of us (eventually all of us) it's going to be strictly about survival, not some Future Farmers-esque utopia.

You're right, Michael, graphic design is not the all powerful force that will end famine and wars.

But all this talk about new models of economics -- I believe to be true. It doesn't mean all is wine and roses. As you've hinted at, the shift from a manufacturing to service-based economy will not be a smooth ride. No economic evolution/revolution ever is. It's going to hurt for a while for sure. But survival of the fittest has always been a fact of capitalist darwinism.

But I don't believe that all is doom and gloom. On the contrary, I think the thing that will pull us out of our current malaise is rooted in technology advancements and innovative thinking. I'm not a big fan of FutureFarmers either (for various reasons), but I believe that we must continue this kind of thinking -- no matter how frivolous and idealistic it may seem.

I had lunch with a designer friend the other day -- he works for one of the large agencies here in town. I expected him to talk about nothing but business tactics and complain about bizdev. But instead, he and I talked at length about how much great work we've been seeing from people lately. It was good to remember how resilient and vibrant the design community can be. It's also important to remember that this is not the first economic challenge designers have had to face. Not by a long shot.

Sounds like you may need your batteries recharged a little bit, Michael. I know it's been tough, and we're all in survival mode -- so it's hard to look up. Take a breath and go to an AIGA event or two, maybe a conference or something. Remind yourself why you're a designer in the first place.